Posts by Danielle
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
You boiled me down to 6 words, by some process I don't care to speculate on.
Sorry. There's no 'process': I'm just a succinct re-stater. As far as I can work out, you were talking about how to be a feminist lifestyle-wise without being too overtly feminist theory-wise, so as not to frighten the horses. Which I was saying is fine, but it only goes so far. And it only works if you're in a certain social position. It's so limited as to be meaningless.
By the obvious fact that whilst only men can do it, not only women can have it done to them.
Yes. But why is it so *often* women, and so *rarely* men? There's definitely feminist stuff there to unpack.
ETA: And just thinking and Gio are right too, of course.
-
If you don't accept that I'm a feminist because I just practice it in my own life rather than beat people over the head with it, then yeah, OK, you read it how you like.
But we aren't talking about whether or not you're a feminist. I'm not into being the feminist-defining police. Is this based on previous discussions you've had with other feminists, not me?
I'm not surrounded or even in contact with any oppressed women
Is this like not knowing any rapists? Because statistically, you're likely to know a rapist. You just don't know who they are right now.
As for rape, I just don't see it as a feminist issue... Sure, only men ever do it
<double take> How do these two statements exist in the same paragraph?
-
educated women would make better wives and mothers
Not according to this guy.
-
Ben, I feel like your argument could be boiled down to 'if you'd just ask more nicely...'
Which is demonstrably untrue.
-
Certain fights demand that a certain amount of anger be brought to them.
But wouldn't that mean... you're Damaging Your Cause By Being Angry (TM)?
ETA: No, we said something different! So it's OK. Also, what is this 'paging' of which you speak?
-
The theoretical side is basically something I don't have time for
Yeah, all that feminist theory is for the birds. Hey wait, aren't you the guy who'll spend hours debating philosophy? :)
Men don't need to learn guilt at the hands of polemicists, they need the carrot instead
But... there sort of isn't a carrot. Or, at least, it isn't a traditional carrot. (Maybe it's one of those weird purple ones.) For the average guy grappling with this work/life/feminism/job value equation, the dangling vegetable doesn't look that much different from the stick, does it?
Waiting for privileged people to become magnanimous isn't a society-wide solution. It's like pollywog's idea that we'll all magically evolve to accept GLBT rights without bothering with pesky things called laws. You actually *need* activists and formal solutions for these kinds of issues. They don't just fix themselves.
-
Then I realised that in 20 years time I might be saying "You know, some of the Teabaggers were batshit crazy early on, but it turned out to be a reall important movement." And I had to stop thinking like that ...
Yeah, but the Teabaggers don't have any theoretical underpinnings... or any actual goals... or any true injustices to redress. I mean, with hardcore communists, or black separatists, or feminist separatists, you see how they use the initial reasonable movement/goals to eventually *get* to that place, even if it's a ridiculous or awful one. But the Teabaggers *started* with "BLACK MAN PRESIDENT! ME SCAREDY! GRAR!" Where do you even go from there?
-
Does that mean you're both horribly unfashionable, and I can comfortably denounce you all as creaky back numbers without bothering to read (let alone comprehend) anything you've said?
Jeez, you try to do a historical reference that isn't some tired MLK/Malcolm X comparison and this is the thanks you get. Hmph!
-
Erm... Colbert is not on Comedy Central's current schedule and is not featured on the NZ Comedy Central website either. Is he on hiatus right now or are we just totally buggered?
I sure am glad they've scheduled full hours of The King of Queens, though.
ETA: Oh wait. He's still on the website. Filed under 'The' rather than 'Colbert' (uh, why?), but I remain confused about his status.
-
but that's a huge job
It's such a huge job, in fact, that I think it requires fundamentally reorganising how our society works, at least in part. Which means that I find Ben's argument problematic. It's like he's Booker T. Washington and I'm W. E. B. Du Bois, or something. :)