babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » feminism   » Men!

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Men!
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 08 January 2002 12:05 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Made you look!

That is to say: Thank you for creating this forum, Audra -- I only just noticed. I think it's a great idea. I can hardly wait.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Too old to lie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1979

posted 08 January 2002 12:15 PM      Profile for Too old to lie        Edit/Delete Post
In the name of 'gender-equality' and fairness to the 'most accused sex', I think audra should create another Forum named: 'whatever the proper word is for the same thing for men'.
From: Planet Titanic | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
judym
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 29

posted 08 January 2002 12:23 PM      Profile for judym   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Global Feminism

Actions and news from The Feminist Majority Foundation site.


From: earth | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ian the second
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 732

posted 08 January 2002 03:26 PM      Profile for Ian the second   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wow! Let's discuss stuff from a pro-feminist point of view, kay girls?


Ian


From: Toronto City, Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
andrean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 361

posted 08 January 2002 03:39 PM      Profile for andrean     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ahem. That's "grils", if you will.
From: etobicoke-lakeshore | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 08 January 2002 04:43 PM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Cool! This new forum looks great!

I'm not sure how accurate this thing will be, but try this Feminist type selector. I'm certainly not an authority, so wether the results should be taken seriously or not, I don't know.

I came out as a Radical Feminist, though I chose "no preference" a fair number of times. I think I'm kind of floating between Radical feminism, liberal feminism, socialist feminism, and eco-feminism, from the definitions they provided. Anti-feminism came last, so the test isn't too flawed

[ January 08, 2002: Message edited by: meades ]


From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Slick Willy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 184

posted 08 January 2002 05:18 PM      Profile for Slick Willy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What's this forum for?
From: Hog Heaven | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 08 January 2002 05:30 PM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This thread, or this forum?

The forum is for issues relating to feminism, while the thread is just introducing the new forum.


From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Judes
publisher
Babbler # 21

posted 08 January 2002 05:44 PM      Profile for Judes   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This thread is so that women and pro-feminist men can discuss feminist issues without having to respond to anti-feminist men all the time.

Meades, on that test, I come up radical feminist even though I'm not and socialist feminist, which I am comes up last. That's becuase their idea of socialist feminism is about 30 years old.

It's not a very subtle quiz but fun anyway


From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 08 January 2002 05:46 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
This thread is so that women and pro-feminist men can discuss feminist issues without having to respond to anti-feminist men all the time.

Or anti-feminist women, come to think of it!

I'm so glad to see this particular brainchild was put into action. Yay Audra!


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Slick Willy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 184

posted 08 January 2002 05:54 PM      Profile for Slick Willy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I came out as a Radical Feminist,

I came out as Anarcha-feminism. What is it and what the hell is that?


From: Hog Heaven | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
StephenGM
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 305

posted 08 January 2002 06:04 PM      Profile for StephenGM     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
In the name of 'gender-equality' and fairness to the 'most accused sex', I think audra should create another Forum named: 'whatever the proper word is for the same thing for men'.

Well, since most schools of feminist theory and practice hold that both the principles and goals of feminism are beneficial to, and should apply, to everyone... that word would be feminism, too old to lie.

Stephen


From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 08 January 2002 06:05 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
This thread is so that women and pro-feminist men can discuss feminist issues without having to respond to anti-feminist men all the time.

I think this statement place judes at the Idealist end of the philosophical spectrum.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
clersal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 370

posted 08 January 2002 06:08 PM      Profile for clersal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I passed with flying colours. Youpi!
From: Canton Marchand, Québec | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Loretta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 222

posted 08 January 2002 06:51 PM      Profile for Loretta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The test indicated that I am, as I thought, a socialist feminist. I tend to look at events through the lense of unsophisticated class analysis. For those of you more educated in this realm, perhaps you can help me with my confusion around issues of power in society. For example, do women in capitalist society become "assigned" power according to the status of the men in our lives or perhaps it's strictly on the basis of money - that women have or do not have power according to the amount of money we have. How do other issues, such as racism or homophobia, factor in?

I tend to think it's the latter however, upon second reading, the two are not mutually exclusive. What are the thoughts of others?

In reality, (and this is my pessimistic side speaking - must have something to do with the darkness of January), is there a hope for a world without the inequality of sexism, racism, homophobia, etc? (Come on, sisters, help me out here.)


From: The West Kootenays of BC | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 08 January 2002 06:55 PM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
SW, did you go to the link they provided? It might help you.
From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
LiMpY
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1834

posted 08 January 2002 07:35 PM      Profile for LiMpY     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Non-violent sexual harassment and off-color jokes should be protected as free speech

Anybody else think this question is unfair? sexual harassment is sexual harassment is sexual harassment. But jokes are fine.

Apparently I'm a Libertarian Feminist, but radical feminism (no.5) was too high up the list.
I'm am wholly against radical feminism. It is counter-productive.


From: Ottawa, Ontario | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Debra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 117

posted 08 January 2002 07:52 PM      Profile for Debra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

From: The only difference between graffiti & philosophy is the word fuck... | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 08 January 2002 07:57 PM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What's counter productive about this?:

quote:
Radical feminism: Radical feminist analysis identifies patriarchal
sexual politics as a fundamental organizing principle pervasive in
all aspects of modern and historical societies. Radical feminist
activism works to organize a mass movement uniting women to
abolish sex-class on political, economic, and cultural levels.

SERIOUSLY! I just don't get it!


From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 09 January 2002 01:08 AM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It can be taken too far, though, just like any other idea. When the fingerprints of the patriarchy are seen on everything, no matter how insignificant, the idea behind radical feminism begins to become meaningless.
From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 09 January 2002 01:21 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I'm am wholly against radical feminism. It is counter-productive.

Say, there's a shock. I was wondering how long a "feminism" forum on babble would be able to go without men coming in and telling us what type of feminism and which feminists were acceptable and which ones weren't, and when we feminists are going "too far" (which usually means when we threaten the status quo too much).

Hmm, halfway through the first page of the first thread. Longer than I expected.

[ January 09, 2002: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 09 January 2002 10:37 AM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Word, Michelle.

p.s. Anyone wanna moderate this forum? Michelle? Trespasser? Skadl?


From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 09 January 2002 10:48 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'll do it.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 09 January 2002 11:17 AM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Audra - super idea! I think it's going to be popular and educational.

Loretta, you have at least two, possibly three different questions, each well worth discussing on its own. Start new threads, do!

On the test, i came out libertarian/individualist, which is fine. But the test is rather vague, with issues lumped in together that should be asked separately. If there isn't a better quiz somewhere, i'll try to make one up - but it's going to take a while.


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 09 January 2002 11:30 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think this forum was first proposed by Michelle and earthmother, so I think they should moderate. Somebody more tech-competent than I should, anyway.

That test thinks I'm a radical feminist, which is only true of me in some moods; and it has me all anarcha-amazonian-eco before it gets me to socialist feminist, which is probably where I should be. Some questions ask whether we would consider certain positions reasonable, but the test then obviously goes ahead and counts those as preferences, which is not the same thing.

Still -- me, Amazonian Ho ho ho.

[ January 09, 2002: Message edited by: skdadl ]


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 09 January 2002 11:40 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
skdadl, as a socialist feminist, according to the test, I am hurt that you would not want me to moderate. Just for that I withdraw the offer for you to be best man at my wedding. So there.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 09 January 2002 11:43 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hey, it wasn't me who thought up this whole idea, but when Audra suggested it to me and a few others, we thought it was good. Maybe it was earthmother, I don't know, but it wasn't me.

I don't know if I'm up to moderating this forum. Babble banter is kind of a give-away moderating thing because the whole forum is dedicated to thread drift and jokes, so I was happy to get all the glory and none of the work! Hee hee.

Seriously, the reason I don't think I would be a very good candidate for moderating this forum is because I have definite ideas about how a feminist space should be, and I think I might be a little less tolerant about people coming into the forum and trying to make feminists justify the existence of feminism (or types of feminism) rather than having constructive discussions about feminism with the assumption already made that it's a valid and worthwhile pursuit.

So basically, if I were to moderate a feminist forum, I wouldn't be putting up with a lot of sweeping statements like "radical feminists go too far" (particularly when the statement is made by a man). And then I would get grief about being stifling and not open to criticism and all that.

It's a minefield that I just don't feel up to navigating.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Trinitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 826

posted 09 January 2002 11:56 AM      Profile for Trinitty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Says I'm anti-femminist... which I disagree with.

I even tried going back and changing answers and it didn't change the result.


From: Europa | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Trespasser
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1204

posted 09 January 2002 04:02 PM      Profile for Trespasser   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Audra, thanx for the mention, I'd love to moderate this forum, but you know that I don't have a computer at home? Mine would be an hour or two a day moderation at best. Which may be a bit insufficient, I don't know.

But if AndreaN has the time, I propose her as moderator. She'd be cool (not that I was hoping for a special treatment now that I met her).

[ January 09, 2002: Message edited by: Trespasser ]


From: maritimes | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 09 January 2002 04:07 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Trinitty, I would peg you more as a liberal feminist than an anti-feminist. You believe in equality for women and the main stuff, but (if I have read you correctly over the past few months) you don't really subscribed to the macro view of feminism - that is, seeing our economic and political system as inherently sexist, or whatever. But I could be wrong.

I didn't find that test was very good. Too many either/or answers that shouldn't have been set in opposition to each other, too "boiled down" into stereotypical views of feminism, etc. I agree with Judes and nonesuch on the issue. I wouldn't worry too much about the test, Trinitty. Don't take it too seriously.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Slick Willy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 184

posted 09 January 2002 04:16 PM      Profile for Slick Willy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am just coming to terms with being a feminist.
but I need some help with a question or two at this point. Am I a male feminist or am I a femanist? Also when I was talking with my wife this morning on the phone, I mentioned to her that I just found out I was a feminist and after she quit laughing she said "I know dear." Was that a shot?

As well since this is such a political intense message board can we vote for the person or persons we would like to moderate the forum after a statement by each possible moderator on why they would like to moderate the forum and why we would be better off with them at the tiller?

But only confirmed and proactive feminists should be eligable to vote.


From: Hog Heaven | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 09 January 2002 04:22 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm sitting here giggling over the first paragraph of your post.

As to what you call "male feminists", well, that depends on who you talk to. Some feminists say that no man can be a feminist, but only a "feminist supporter" because a man can never experience first hand the issues that radicalize women into becoming feminists.

Then there are other people who figure that as long as a man subscribes to feminist principles, then he is a feminist. (This one lady at church keeps telling me that Jesus was the first "feminist". I think that can be disputed, but there you go.)

Hell, there are arguments between feminists about what constitutes a FEMALE feminist, much less a male one.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Trinitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 826

posted 09 January 2002 04:32 PM      Profile for Trinitty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That makes me feel a bit better. Yes, actually I DO think the political and economic system is sexist.... and also anti-BRAIN most of the time.

So, I'm a Liberal Feminist... I'm a Liberal Feminist... I'm a


From: Europa | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 09 January 2002 04:49 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
skdadl, as a socialist feminist, according to the test, I am hurt that you would not want me to moderate.

Oh, drat, Wingy, I thought about you as I was starting my post, but then I got carried away with my own analytical processes, as I am wont to do, and I just plain forgot you! Can you forgive me, Wingy? Audra, I nom--

But wait! What's this?

quote:
Just for that I withdraw the offer for you to be best man at my wedding. So there.

What do you mean, "my wedding"? What do you mean, YOUR WEDDING??!!?? Again? You're gonna break my heart again?? So like, what happened to "I gotta be free," eh? "I gotta find myself, skdadl"???

I gotta find myself ... a Janis Joplin record. Farewell, cruel Wingy.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 09 January 2002 04:56 PM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Just a note about the test- really, folks- don't take it seriously. It's from selecsmart.com, which is filled from top to bottom with really, really shitty selectors. A handfull are done professionally, and are quite good, but most are done by amateurs and are fair to gawd-awful, plus there are a lot of restrictions.

I posted it to see to what degree it was accurate- not very, judging from the feedback

I've made a couple tests there (not the feminist one), and first off, there's a maximum of 24 questions you can ask, and you're limited to "I agree/I disagree/don't know" or "yes/no/maybe" for possible answers. Plus, the way points are awarded, it's quite possible that some of the potential results can never be first place. So that's why it's It's only meant for fun- and considering the amount of time it took me to stop chuckling after Trinnity said she's an anti-feminist by the test's definition- I think it served its purpose fairly well


From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Catalyst
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 237

posted 09 January 2002 05:07 PM      Profile for Catalyst   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Gee, the test says I am a radical feminist. I never, ever tried to even define my being a feminist in such narrow terms. But there was never a doubt in my mind (or my family's for that matter) that I have been a feminist for a LONG time.

I guess the concept of my being a radical feminist shouldn't be too much of a surprise, though. I spent most of my childhood and all of my adulthood questioning authority. Unlike a lot af my peers, when authority answered and made sense, I shut up about it and moved on. Notice the stipulation I made

My Local sent me up to Port Elgin to a two week educational called Women's Activist Training in '98. I was flattered. We were picked to go because of showing interest in being activists in our locals and it apparently was by invitation only. I had never even attempted to go to a Women's Committee meeting for fear of becoming "ghetto-ized" within the labour movement, and I could not understand why I was picked.

When I got to the first class (there were 80 hrs of classes and workshops over the two weeks), I walked in to see the three facilitators. One of them was the National Employment Equity rep for my company and she looked up and smiled when I walked in. She told me she had seen me at a lot of membership meetings, but there were four of us from our local whose names she didn't know. I introduced myself to her and then proceeded to tell her that I thought I was in the wrong class. She looked at the list and said that my name was on it. I then said that I was in the wrong class because I was a sexist.

There was a bit of stunned silence and the main discussion leader told me to explain myself in front of the whole class (I knew 2 of my classmates out of 30.) I told them that if given the chance to sit for lunch with a table of male coworkers vs. female coworkers, I would invariably sit with my male coworkers. There were three reasons for this. Not one of my male coworkers, whether they had children or not, would discuss either their wife's childbirth nor their children's toilet training in the 24 minutes I had to eat my lunch. The second reason was that my male coworkers never had a hissy fit when I slipped up and said something politically incorrect. And the third was that as I was working steady midnights at the time and would consistently missing the end of hockey games, while a minority of my sisters on the line knew what the televised game's score was, I could usually count on my brothers to fill me in on the out of town scores and the days trades. Needless to say, my explanation brought fits of laughter. And I loosened up the classes over the eighty hours by becoming "one-liner" Catalyst


From: gone | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Adam
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 358

posted 09 January 2002 05:58 PM      Profile for Adam     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm an Anarcha-feminist, says the test.

Anarcha-, then Radical-, then Eco-Feminist.

Revolution, Grrrl Style. Now!


From: MurderHouse Nation | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dawna Matrix
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 156

posted 09 January 2002 06:20 PM      Profile for Dawna Matrix     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Libertarian feminist. That's about right.
From: the stage on cloud 9 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Slick Willy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 184

posted 09 January 2002 07:14 PM      Profile for Slick Willy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Just a note about the test- really, folks- don't take it seriously

Oh well thank you very much indeed Meades.

And here I spent the afternoon writing this chant.

Hey hey ho ho, this Babble stuff is starting to show.

So if the test is illagitimate, and I a bastard femanist?


From: Hog Heaven | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
LiMpY
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1834

posted 09 January 2002 07:20 PM      Profile for LiMpY     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I nominate myself for moderator.

DON'T LAUGH (or cry, or scream and shout)

While I have already strongly stated my views with regards to feminism elsewhere, I am always objective in my views. Also, having a male moderator can go to show that feminism is for everyone. I think I can also readily determine the difference between something that is completely unproductive or counter-productive with regards to posts (not just in my opinion, but that of the majority).

While I consider radical feminism to be counterproductive with regards to feminism, radical views are not necessarily counterproductive with regards to Babble. After all, the whole point of Babble is to entertain different views, many of which are potentially offensive---but not hateful.

Vote LiMpY for diversity, honesty and integrity!
(go penis , teehee!)


From: Ottawa, Ontario | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Debra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 117

posted 09 January 2002 07:31 PM      Profile for Debra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How about just ... go away?
From: The only difference between graffiti & philosophy is the word fuck... | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 09 January 2002 07:48 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't want to hurt your feelings, Limpy, but there's no way in hell I would consider you to be an appropriate choice for a feminism forum. First, because your premier post in the feminism forum was to inform everyone that radical feminism is counter-productive. Secondly, because from other posts on babble (such as the one on the divorce thread where you said women get the best of men in divorce and rape cases) I think you have shown that you do not have even have the most basic grasp of statistics that show that divorced women as a whole become poorer after a divorce while divorced men as a whole become richer. You have to have at least a small handle on some of the issues that feminists are concerned about before you become qualified to moderate discussions about feminism. I realize that everyone can consider whether or not women have gotten the short end of the stick legally, financially and socially to be in question, but most feminists already agree that this is the case. I don't want a moderator who does not accept the basic premises that feminism is based upon.

One thing I've noticed during my time on babble - progressive issues get the majority of babblers' approval and they talk about them positively. But feminism is different on babble. Feminism is one of those "fringe" left-wing issues still, because although there are a lot of men who support feminism and its aims, there are lots of other men who only support feminism as long as it doesn't get "too radical" or take away their power.

Personally, I think if this forum is moderated by anyone, it should be moderated by a woman who is a feminist. I know I'm going to be jumped on for saying it should be a woman. But feminism is a women's issue. It's supposed to be woman-centred and have the best interests of women at heart.

I don't think it would show that we're "progressive" to have a man be the moderator of the feminism forum, particularly a man who has dismissed out of hand one of the most important feminist movements of the century. Saying that it would show "diversity" or tolerance is just a way of justifying placing a man in a position of authority over a feminist forum, and I don't buy it.

[ January 09, 2002: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 09 January 2002 08:12 PM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Maybe next decade, okay?
From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 09 January 2002 09:32 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
*Sigh* Okay, I'll go away. I don't want to be moderator. I could be a woman. I could be a woman trapped in man's body. I could be 'lance. But I'm not.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 09 January 2002 09:47 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
*Sigh* Okay, I'll go away. I don't want to be moderator. I could be a woman. I could be a woman trapped in man's body. I could be 'lance. But I'm not.

I should think not. My dear WingNut, I don't feel trapped in the slightest.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
switchbitch
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2056

posted 09 January 2002 10:01 PM      Profile for switchbitch        Edit/Delete Post
IS THIS FORUM ABOUT FEMINISM OR ABOUT MODERATING THIS FORUM?
From: vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 09 January 2002 10:05 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
oh, well, see the forum is about feminism. The thread is about men. The question of moderating is in the open. And you don't have to shout.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 09 January 2002 10:13 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I can't find the survey you guys took.

Anyway.

I don't consider myself a "feminist"-- other than to say I think the ideals of liberty and freedom extend to everyone on the planet, irrespective of race, and gender.

I tend to think the more "radical" ideas that we hear about in the media as examples of "feminism" are trumped up excuses to attack the liberty and freedom of women, so I deny any association with them.

Let me say this about that, though:

Women are humans. I think sometimes some women forget that. This means they are subject to the same human failings as the other half of the gender picture.

And, I do take issue with the post modernism that infects the "women's studies" academia-- just like I take exception to it anywhere else.

And, I take exception to the notion that it's all nurture and no nature when it comes to trying to understand the issues between the genders.

I think there sometimes...no, not think, I've seen it on this forum, I've experienced it in my life, that some women have as big a blind spot trying to understand men, that men are as taken for granted in thier endevours as women or so often in thiers.

Ours should not be two solitudes, ours should be a common struggle of liberty, equality and ....siblinghood for all.

Sometimes, with some self styled feminists, I get that hinky "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" feeling.

And yes, men have been assholes. Men continue to be assholes. OUR struggle is with them, not each other. I think some women lose sight of that, and tend to want to see all men as creatures alien to them.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
switchbitch
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2056

posted 09 January 2002 10:21 PM      Profile for switchbitch        Edit/Delete Post
Hmm, sorry about the yelling...
I could say a lot about men. Good and bad. I work exclusively with men and I have been disillusioned in so many ways. I think it's great to have male feminists. Wish I could meet a few.

From: vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 09 January 2002 10:36 PM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hello! ...Well ...I guess there's a difference between greeting over the internet, and meeting. Sorry I couldn't help

I've been thinking about the "can men be feminists" question, and I've decided it's best not to label myself (radical, socialist, eco...) since there are good points behind both answers to the question above.

Here you go, Tommy.

[ January 09, 2002: Message edited by: meades ]


From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
switchbitch
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2056

posted 09 January 2002 10:49 PM      Profile for switchbitch        Edit/Delete Post
Tommy, it is all nurture! We all start out the same, that is sexless. Boys and girls really don't start to change much until they get to puberty, as a matter of fact it would be impossible to tell the difference medically between a girl or boy under 10 years old if you couldn't look at their genitals. So why the doll/racecar thing in kids. It is taught, not inherent.
From: vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
switchbitch
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2056

posted 09 January 2002 10:51 PM      Profile for switchbitch        Edit/Delete Post
Tommy, it is all nurture! We all start out the same, that is sexless. Boys and girls really don't start to change much until they get to puberty, as a matter of fact it would be impossible to tell the difference medically between a girl or boy under 10 years old if you couldn't look at their genitals. So why the doll/racecar thing in kids. It is taught, not inherent.
From: vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 09 January 2002 10:58 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But we don't stay kids forever. We have different behaviors, and those behaviors are inherited.

Everyone gets their knickers in a knot when that's brought up. They would like to believe, for example, that those who recognize the truth of this, would then like to turn around and use those behaviors as excuses for continuing bad ideas that have no relevance in civilization.

To ignore them is to perpetuate them.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 09 January 2002 11:32 PM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Switchbitch - i don't agree.
There are a number of givens (nature) that won't change, no matter how we treat children.

You can see differences between boys and girls by age five (or sooner). It's not as obvious in body types as it is in function. Girls and boys generally (note: I said generally - there will be exceptions at each end, and lots of overlap in the middle) show different aptitudes (verbal, spatial, cognitive, effective) at different ages and learn things at different speeds. No amount of instruction can alter natural aptitude.

Children are also different in their emotional responses. And, yes, there are marked general differences between the temperament of male and female babies.

No, we don't come from different planets; we simply carry an evolutionary history wherein we had different roles in furthering the survival of the species (long before it was the present species). Trying to force all children into the same mold has never worked. We need to see them for what and who they actually are, before we can guide them toward the role we choose for them in society. Of course, it would help to have a clear picture of that society before we design a curriculum for training the young.


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
vaudree
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1331

posted 09 January 2002 11:34 PM      Profile for vaudree     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But we don't stay kids forever. We have different behaviors, and those behaviors are inherited.
Tommy_Paine, how do you explain women's hockey and men's figureskating - if preferences are all x and y chromosomes?

My dad used to tell me stories about the Bentley Brothers - Max and Doug Bentley - and how the reason they became so great was that in their youth they played against hockey players even better that they were - the Bentley sisters.

The truth is that nurture and nature often intertwine to either enhance potential or squash it.


From: Just outside St. Boniface | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 09 January 2002 11:36 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Slick Willy! You're a feminist! That rules!

I think the term "male feminist" is sort of weird, and it grates on me like "lady doctor" or "male slut" does.

This forum can have up to 4 moderators. Anyone interested can email me, if she's a she.


From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
wagepeace
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 114

posted 10 January 2002 06:14 AM      Profile for wagepeace     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oooo, oooh!! MALE SLUT!!

I know one of those!!!


Ummm, oh yeah. My 4 year old daughter is so NOT a boy it HUUUULARIOUS!! I know this because as the dad, I am not invited to partake in the more 'girlie" things that she plays, like make-up and princess, etc.

Actually I kinda feel left out sometimes.

... rotten @!##&%** KID!!!


From: In a fog and on anti-psychotics | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 10 January 2002 08:25 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My son always wants me to put nail polish on him when he sees me putting it on myself or when he notices that I have some on my own nails. I held out my hands when I was done one day, and admired them, saying, "Pretty!" to him. He then looked at his thumb nail which I had painted for him, and said, gleefully, "Pretty!"

When I pick him up from day care lately (usually during free play time), he's usually playing in the "kitchen" corner with the toy kitchen, dishes, and plastic food. Of course, he's also fascinated by fire trucks, school buses, and cars, so he got a million of those for Christmas. He didn't get any traditionally "girly" stuff because he has had such a fascination for fire engines and trains and cars lately that we couldn't resist. But I'll bet if he did, he would play with it too. And every night, at bedtime, I tuck him and his dolly into bed, and part of the routine is for him to help tuck the dolly in, give it a hug and kiss, etc.

I think the toys boys and girls play with and are interested in are completely learned. BUT. I think that on an overall temperament continuum, there are differences between boys and girls with, as nonesuch says, a huge amount of overlap. What this means, I personally believe, is not too much since the overlap is so big. But it may mean that we have to learn different ways of teaching different kids on opposite ends of that continuum, whether male or female. And I think it also means that girls and boys will have a tendency (with huge variations of course) to act in certain ways - the problem is, when they get pigeon-holed into those actions through expectation since there really is SO much overlap that for the most part girls and boys can occupy the same parts of the temperament continuum.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Catalyst
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 237

posted 10 January 2002 08:33 AM      Profile for Catalyst   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually, there is a lot to the socialization theory of gender diffrences. Did you ever notice the differences in not only the types of toys and how they are marketed to children and parents, but also the social pressures on parents and children for children to conform to societal norms?

As a child, I played a lot with my brohter and his friends. He was the eldest and nominally "in charge" and as we moved around a lot, was my one stable relationship with peers. Naturally, I played a lot of "boy's games" and gravitated naturally to "boy's toys." Despite the pile of "girl's toys" foisted upon me by scandalized relatives, my play behaviour never changed. My parents had no problem with what I did, but my Dad would have absolutely flipped out had I been the elder and my younger brother had played with "girl's toys." My first encounter with the "double standard." I know this because he told me when I was a teen.

I don't know that I would not have been fascinated with lego, meccanno sets, miniature tool kits, hockey, football, baseball and soccer without my brother's influence or not. Oddly enough, he "outgrew" all those things chronologically long before I did. He found the library more interesting and by the age of twelve became a total intulectual. Which is probably why he ended up with a Ph.D. in Chemisrty while I work on the assembly line.

Regarding the marketing of toys, I remember a while ago Mattel (sp?) marketting a "female version" of lego with pastel coloured blocks. Unbelievable.


From: gone | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 10 January 2002 08:52 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, that's just obnoxious ("female" lego, that is).

I got a bit of rolled eyes from a male relative when my mother and I got my son that doll for the Christmas before last, but what are you gonna do?

When I went Christmas shopping this year, often with my mother, we were disgusted at the "girl toy" aisle. First of all, "girl toys" must be packaged in that obnoxious pink colour. The aisle was uniformly pink. And the stupid toys they had! God, the CRAP we are dishing out to our girls. I wanted to get my son a couple of "girlish" toys for Christmas this year, just to kind of counter-balance all those cars and trucks. So I went into the "girlypink" aisle. I found nothing that was interesting. I mean NOTHING. Every toy in the "girl" aisle was pretty-pretty, but for playing with? Boring. All you could do is look at them, and maybe arrange them. Or, the things for your body, like pretend make-up, and hair doo-dads. (Actually, he would have loved the hair doo-dads since he is always taking my barettes and putting them in his hair). The only thing I thought might be good at all were play dishes, because at least he could set them out, put them away, pretend to eat from them, etc. Everything else was, like, here's a doll whose hair you can brush. oooweee. That would engage him for maybe half a minute.

And when I was a kid, that's how long those "girly" toys engaged me - about half a minute. I remember how boring Barbie dolls were. After you dress and undress them a few times and brush her hair and put it in a pony tail and then take it out again a few times, that's pretty much it. And we wonder why girls perform consistently less well at math and science when they get older, when boys get building blocks and race tracks (which they have to fit the pieces of track together with in order to make a circle or an oval) and stuff like that, whereas girls get pretend make-up and Barbie dolls. Geez.

I know, lots of girls get lots of "boy toys", but it's more "cool" among other girls to get the latest Barbie sensation than it is to get lego. Well, unless it's "girl" lego. Snerk.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Trinitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 826

posted 10 January 2002 11:30 AM      Profile for Trinitty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That just astounds me that they put out "girl" lego. Unreal.

I had three older boy cousins, and younger triplet sisters. My sisters, being multis played with eachother and hardly ever touched toys... so they were fun to "pretend" with. My older cousins however, they were a really big influence. I grew up playing LEGO, GI Joe, STAR WARS -still have all of my toys, He-man, She-ra, and My Little Pony -MICHELLE, THOSE were good girl toys- often mixing them all-together. I did have some Barbies, but I like them more now than I did as a child.

I agree with your theory on the spheres of nuture and nature... there's a lot of overlap, but, there is still something different between girls and boys for the most part.

When I have kids, they'll all get a mix of good toys, whether they come in blue or pink boxes.

Girl lego.... grrrrrr.


From: Europa | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Slick Willy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 184

posted 10 January 2002 11:46 AM      Profile for Slick Willy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Let's not forget the peer pressure aspect once kids get to school. After my daughter out grew her pair of figure skates in grade two, I bought her a pair of top of the line Bauer hockey skates. Without a doubt, these are kick ass skates. My daughter asked if I had gone nuts. Not a chance in the world that she would wear them. When I asked why, she looked at me like I had two heads. "Hello, I'm a girl."

So I went into my diatribe about skates being skates and there are plenty of women hockey players and that gender makes no difference to the skates yada yada yada. She told me that she loved me and that I am a great dad but I haven't any idea what it is like to be a 7 and 3/4s year old girl.

So back they went and I got a good pair of white figure skates.

Now we are in grade six and back in November I again went to buy new skates. This time my daughter came along with me and sure as can be she picked out a great pair of you guessed it hockey skates. So I had to ask, why hockey skates and don't you remember back a few years yada yada yada.

She told me, "Dad, their just skates."


From: Hog Heaven | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Trinitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 826

posted 10 January 2002 11:49 AM      Profile for Trinitty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That's my smile for the day.
From: Europa | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
vaudree
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1331

posted 10 January 2002 12:28 PM      Profile for vaudree     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I think that on an overall temperament continuum, there are differences between boys and girls with, as nonesuch says, a huge amount of overlap. What this means, I personally believe, is not too much since the overlap is so big. But it may mean that we have to learn different ways of teaching different kids on opposite ends of that continuum, whether male or female.

The truth is that we are part of many continuums and gender is only one of them. Has any one ever given a thought as to how those at the extreme end of any continuum have things in common that the rest of us don't.

For example, some kids belong to a place on a continuum where they don't like to stike out and tend to be either ultra masculine or ultra feminine - but these are the same kids a couple generations ago who made the easy switch from hippie to yuppie. In youth are these the same kids who won't wear their glasses or who quit quior because they were teased and won't wear certain shirts anymore because the charactors are no longer popular?

Another example - ever notice that in practice communism and fascism often become the same thing? Opposites always have things in common - let's start with the criteria which makes them opposites.


From: Just outside St. Boniface | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ian the second
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 732

posted 10 January 2002 12:40 PM      Profile for Ian the second   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
For those who care, I'm Liberarian feminist foremost (no real surprise because I've been involved with the ifeminists.com site), and radical feminist last. So THERE! My feminism is better than your feminism!! Nyah nyah!


I


From: Toronto City, Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jonas Norea
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2004

posted 10 January 2002 01:17 PM      Profile for Jonas Norea     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm a feminist guy or guy feminist?. I iron, do our laundry, make lunch for work,etc (she does too). She feels guilty for 'leting me' do the majority. We both work, but her job's more demanding (she's successful without knowing yet, loves her job, she writes!, she's amazing). Me- Resp therapist, aquarious(something beyond this life started life- we are connected to everything)...hehehe-imalittlehighbutstillhonest). Anyway...i'm for people equality.
Are all women- (yes, generalize)all women suspicious of their guys who do 'traditional' 'womans roles'?
see ya

[ January 10, 2002: Message edited by: Jonas Norea ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Judes
publisher
Babbler # 21

posted 10 January 2002 01:53 PM      Profile for Judes   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think a moderator who will be hard on people who are anti=feminist is just who we need.

I also notice that women's issues are more controversial on babble than almost anything else.
The most controversial auntie.com answers are also about gender.

I have to admit that I find this very troublesome.
After all this time, surely many more men on the left should be feminist.

Now in real (non-cyber) life I find many more young men to be feminist (I think men can be feminists) than was true in my generation. But on this board, it is not the case. I wonder why or am I going to be sorry I asked?


From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 10 January 2002 02:24 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, uh… for me, I never even realized there were different “waves” until a month or so back. Given the bugs-to-a-porch-light factor of these threads, I opt to let the more adept bug swatters handle it.

Doesn’t mean I would not be classified as some sort of feminist, though.


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 10 January 2002 02:46 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Judes: I think that people have relationships in their life that they are satisfied with, and they don't like to feel that they are being attacked. In other "non-gender" issues, we (males and females) can all feel like we're on the same side on babble (well, aside from the flamers). In gender issues, well, we automatically have a pretty wide fence, no matter what you do. So it should surprise no one that feminism is an extremely controversial subject even on the left.

Take, for instance, the occasional references to Andrea Dworkin. No, in my opinion (I used to read her a lot in high school just for fun), Dworkin actually suffers because she is a bad writer, and so a lot of what she writes sounds more "flamey" and provocative than what it actually is--and I think she's done a lot of damage that way. But it becomes inevitable that she's invoked with regard to matters of penetrative sex.

And I think that that's really the heart of the problem. A lot of men, even on the left, have a fear that they would not be able to meet some of the demands of certain types of feminism. After all, the male anatomy is designed to penetrate, and I'm actually inclined to think that matters of sexual activity and proclivities are significantly influenced by nature. So many men react quite viscerally to the idea that penetrative sex is oppressive to women--regardless of how else we decorate male sexuality, the very shape of male and female genitals and the behaviour of the male anatomy makes it almost certain that penetration will be close to the centre of male sexuality.

Now add to this the lack of clarity and the patience that one must have to read Dworkin's writing. For how I've always understood her is that penetrative sex is not inherently evil, just that under conditions of social inequality, it has psychologically and emotionally unequal effects on men and women. But that point is lost in her invective.

So while it's obvious that men feel threatened about certain aspects of feminism on all sides of the spectrum, I think that some of this threatened feeling comes from quite innocent sources, particularly where the position of feminism is not clear. Take the matter of paternity--after all, father's rights are such a controversial issue. A lot of men are unsure as to what position feminism has in store for them in their families. Most people are aware of some component of their male ancestries--but this certainty was assured only by the oppression of women and the control of women's sexuality. So was it wrong that we have such knowledge? Is it wrong that men continue to expect that the children they raise are their own? I think that it is a quite visceral instinct that people would want to know who their children are, men included, and while they may not realize it, I think it's in those sorts of visceral areas that men on both left and right feel threatened.

[ January 10, 2002: Message edited by: Mandos ]


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 10 January 2002 02:51 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
For instance, I have seen forums where some men ask the question as to what place men have in human families and social relationships...but an answer I often hear from some feminists is that it's for men to come up with a movement to consider that. I'm not sure if that answer is satisfactory--because the logical answer is that the current situation is the best available, so why should men feel motivated to do anything but rationalize the problems associated with it? How to get social change without being clear on how one half of the population fits into this new vision creates a sort of catch-22 which cannot be avoided.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 10 January 2002 02:53 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And for a third and last thought (forgive me for repeated posting, but it's my habit--so scatterbrained! ), it seems to me that movements for social change necessarily have a much higher burden of justification, well-constructed rhetoric, and general argument than the status quo or the backlash. Feminism by its very nature has to be perfectly behaved, more perfectly than other movements. That's just life.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Trespasser
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1204

posted 10 January 2002 03:02 PM      Profile for Trespasser   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I feel enlightened.
From: maritimes | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 10 January 2002 03:07 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
About what?
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 10 January 2002 03:14 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Please forgive me for quoting myself from another thread (Politics: Different Spin on Divorce), but life is short, eh? Mandos writes:

quote:
Take, for instance, the occasional references to Andrea Dworkin.

Now, Mandos, I appreciate your thoughtful discussion of Dworkin following -- but it's still true, Mandos, you gotta move on:

quote:

skdadl: Experiences I feel I have had more than once too often in my life and really could live without:

First post to the first Feminism forum on babble: 8 Jan, 12.05 p.m.

First sign of backlash against the very idea of a Feminism forum on babble: 8 Jan, 7.35 p.m.

Time it took, after backlash was out in open, for a backlasher to mention Andrea Dworkin: 1 day, 2 hrs, 45 min. (See Twilight Cedar at 10.20 p.m.)

Twilight Cedar: Is mentioning the name "Dworkin" symptomatic of a backlash, or just fair comment?

skdadl: It is a cliche. It is a tired, knee-jerk response. It is evidence that the backlashers have only ever learned one name to lash, and run on little information, lots of prejudice.

It was that already when I was young, which should give you some idea of how really tawsome dropping Dworkin's name as the one and only argument-clincher has become.


I suspect that most of the political heavies on this board would resent (in fact, I know they do, often, resent) being taken back to grade 2 in every discussion of, eg, U.S. foreign policy they join. So can you maybe sense just a little of our frustration when you try this tack again, yet again, however thoughtfully?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 10 January 2002 03:23 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hey, for me, Dworkin is grade 2 as well...I only thought of it when I had seen that Twilight-Cedar and some others had mentioned her. However, I don't think that some of the issues that I raised are "grade 2", as I have not seen them adequately answered, which, of course, was my point.

I think that part of the problem here is that feminist thinking and theory has remained largely in the Hallowed Halls of Academe, and it's only people who make an effort to popularize it that get the fame. Dworkin is "out there on the street," other theorists are not. I have my own theories as to why this is the case--that it's all abortion, child support, and Dworkin.

One part of the problem, in my opinion, is that there is a great deal of hostility to "nature" explanations, rather than "nurture." To me this is conceding a great deal of of ground to anti-feminist forces. For I think that a lot of people genuinely and correctly do see a lot of nature in their daily lives. Therefore excessively social constructivist theories becomes divorced from people's experiences and therefore do not deliver answers that are accessible. I'd also go on about pomo fetishes, but I've done that before.

To summarize, for whatever reason (and not entirely the fault of feminist activists), the accessible feminism out there seems also trivial. Naturally, this sounds like I'm downplaying backlash in its own right--I'm not, but I think that many feminists overplay "malicious" backlash in a fit of defensiveness, without taking into account everything about the source.


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 10 January 2002 03:27 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In other words (I have to run to class now), it's the "visceral" (I keep using that word) issues that have to be addressed, and neither at a popular nor academic level do I see this occurring. If I am incorrect, I would appreciate correction--I realize that a lot of people are sensitive to a man criticizing feminists, but I think that the fact that I can, with good intentions, make these criticisms is a very important point, and I don't think it reflects only on me.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 10 January 2002 03:33 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The inaccessible feminism is academic, while the accessible feminism is trivial. Do I have that right?

I don't mean to be hard on you, Mandos, or just to play word-games. I appreciate how very thoughtfully you present your case, and I will go away and be thoughtful about what you've said. What you've said, of course, is mainly about how to understand men ...

Interesting, isn't it, that this thread has finally become a thread about its announced topic, a topic I dreamed up as a joke.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Twilight-Cedar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1685

posted 10 January 2002 05:34 PM      Profile for Twilight-Cedar        Edit/Delete Post
Is misandry okay?

[ January 10, 2002: Message edited by: Twilight-Cedar ]


From: Gabriola Island | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 10 January 2002 05:37 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How about misandry with a link that doesn't cause side-scroll?
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Twilight-Cedar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1685

posted 10 January 2002 05:38 PM      Profile for Twilight-Cedar        Edit/Delete Post
Sorry -- can't seem to get it to work. Was supposed to be one of Margaret Wente's recent columns.
From: Gabriola Island | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 10 January 2002 05:39 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I didn't see any misandry there. I thought it was a valid point.

(and to do a globe link, use the "print article" address you find at the bottom of the screen... and you have to do it the day of so as not to get the search address... use the headline index to get it. Hopefully that makes some sense)

[ January 10, 2002: Message edited by: clockwork ]


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 10 January 2002 05:51 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It’s Okay to hate hockey
From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 10 January 2002 05:57 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In today's Grope and Flail, Margaret Wente did one of her bizarre switches, away from her preoccupation with demonizing as Un-American the airhead liberals she keeps meeting at cocktail parties in Rosedale (parties that do sound truly unpleasant -- why does she keep going?), back to her dishonest use of leftish touchstones (immigrants, women) to popularize the one cause she truly does feel comfortable with and is obviously employed to promote: spoiled upper-middle-class pin-striped middle-management well-portfolioed health-spa feminism!

Of course those women sniff at street hockey. Those women sniff at everything. Margaret Wente has an icky-nasty-poo complex. She illustrates nothing about feminism, just far too much about the Grope and Flail.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 10 January 2002 06:01 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I take it, as usual, I'm missing some salient point in the article then. Of course, the way she presented the initial argument could bias me.

edited to: I guess my point here, if I'm to beleive the situation, is that she asked the kids to move down the street and they didn't... he flowers and all. Since I'm not a hockey fan, I really didn't look critically at her conclusions from the episode.. so...

[ January 10, 2002: Message edited by: clockwork ]


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 10 January 2002 06:19 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Of course those women sniff at street hockey. Those women sniff at everything. Margaret Wente has an icky-nasty-poo complex. She illustrates nothing about feminism, just far too much about the Grope and Flail.

But though I hate to say it (goodgawdamighty, though I hate to say it...) she's not altogether wrong about hockey.

That's to say, organized hockey as taught and "played" in Canada has little-or-nothing to do with sportsmanship, fun, or fair play, much to do with size, aggression, and goonishness. It's true also that pick-up or street hockey is not immune to this disease. But in league play, from the house leagues all the way up to the NHL, it's nigh-terminal.

I grieve for a time when it wasn't so, all the more because I know there was never such a time. Oh, perhaps once upon a time house-league wasn't like this, but junior has been for generations, and don't get me started on the Big League.

And it's directly responsible for the fact that other nations have simply passed us by in the quality of the hockey they play. Not being bound up in, invested in, nationalistic hokum about "the Canadian way," they took some long hard looks at the game, sussed out what was important, and went with that. We've learned nothing since 1972, save that players have to be in good physical shape.

None of this changes the fact that you're right, skdadl, Wente writes from a position of ignorance and snobbishness. Nor the fact that ... I've indulged in hella thread drift here, though germane to the original/ostensible title of the topic.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Debra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 117

posted 10 January 2002 06:23 PM      Profile for Debra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Said article seems like a load of crap to me. Perhaps things are different here in the boonies but no one is in 200 dollar inlines here. The players are as likely ot be girls as boys, and quite often it is the kids whose parents cant shell out the 500 - 1000 bucks it takes to get kids into organized hockey.

Often there are parents out there as well and if a ball goes bouncing most often it is retrieved with as little disruption to anyones space as possible.

I really don't think this has anything to do with hockey or immigrants, it has more to do with a woman who doesn't like the sport and a father who is too interested in being big man on campus than in teaching his children respect and how to get along with others.


From: The only difference between graffiti & philosophy is the word fuck... | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 10 January 2002 06:28 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You said it better than I, earthmother! Now why did I let Wente provoke me into my usual rant about hockey?
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 10 January 2002 06:32 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Tragically Hip - FIREWORKS

If there's a goal that everyone remembers it was back in ol' 72
We all squeezed the stick and we all pulled the trigger
And all I remember was sitting beside you
You said you didn't give a fuck about hockey
And I never saw someone say that before
You held my hand and we walked home the long way
You were loosening my grip on Bobby Orr
Isn't it amazing anything's accomplished
When the little sensation gets in your way
Not one ambition whisperin' over your shoulder
Isn't it amazing you can do anything
We hung out together every single moment
Cause that's what we though married people do
Complete with the grip of artificial chaos
And believing in the country of me and you
Crisis of faith and crisis in the Kremlin
And yea we'd heard all of that before
It's wintertime, the house is solitude with options
And loosening the grip on a fake cold war
Isn't it amazing what you can accomplish
When you don't let the nation get in your way
No ambition whisperin' over your shoulder
Isn't it amazing you can do anything

Next to your comrades in the national fitness program
Caught in some eternal flexed-arm hang
Droppin' to the mat in a fit of laughter
Showed no patience, tollerence or restraint

Fireworks exploding in the distance
Temporary towers soar
Fireworks emulating heaven
Til there are no stars anymore
Fireworks aiming straight at heaven
Temporary towers soar
Til there are no stars shining up in heaven
Til there are no stars anymore
Isn't it amazing what you can accomplish
When the little sensation gets in your way
No ambition whisperin' over your shoulder
Isn't it amazing what you can accomplish, eh
This one thing probably never goes away
I think this one thing is always supposed to stay
This one thing doesn't have to go away


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 10 January 2002 06:40 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

The inaccessible feminism is academic, while the accessible feminism is trivial. Do I have that right?


No, the right way of putting it is that the feminism on significant or truly "radical" matters is academic and inaccessible (these things do not entail one another, necessarily), while a lot of the perception of feminism which has entered the public consciousness are matters presented in a trivial way. Take affirmative action--the whole business of equity vs. equality is subsumed under a very trivial discussion about sexism and reverse discrimination. And the means by which--trivial means, often--affirmative action is implemented sometimes do display the characteristics that they are so often accused of. To a certain extent, this is inevitable--the operation of our mass media promotes trivialization. Nevertheless, the moment that feminists (and members of other movements) contribute to it, it becomes wholly their fault.

Take the case of foreign policy criticism and Noam Chomsky. He wrote one intro to an anti-Semitic book, in the spirit of Voltaire, and made a couple of mistakes about Cambodia (I think). After that, fate took over--it was destined that these little things, amply and repeatedly explained, would be used to bludgeon Chomsky and his supporters over and over again; this I know from personal experience. So now imagine if you have one or two feminists writing regular books and intervening in high profile court cases and legislative projects, only doing it in a rather inelegant way. Feminism thus suffers the same fate as foreign policy criticism, but only worse, for reasons that I have just described.

quote:

I don't mean to be hard on you, Mandos, or just to play word-games. I appreciate how very thoughtfully you present your case, and I will go away and be thoughtful about what you've said. What you've said, of course, is mainly about how to understand men...


After seeing the same misunderstanding/malice cycle repeated here as I have elsewhere, I felt obliged to say something. I have seen this again and again, and I think a lot about it. If what I've said is mainly about how to understand men, is that such a bad thing? After all, it is clear to me that the roots of an unequal situation lie with those who benefit from it, and thus understanding the nature and perceptions of those who benefit from it actually then become one of the central tasks.
quote:

Interesting, isn't it, that this thread has finally become a thread about its announced topic, a topic I dreamed up as a joke.


Too bad there was a flamewar first, but what can we do?

From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 10 January 2002 07:52 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Stephen J. Gould says that much of the work in "Evolutionary Psychology" amount to not much more than "Just so Stories". However, even he admits that our behaviors are a product of evolution.

My "just so story", concerns why men control, and as Mandos pointed out, I think it's a safe bet it's because while women are (except in unusual circumstances) assured that the offspring they nurture are indeed made up of half their genetic material. Men have no such take for granted garantee, so men have attempted to develop ways to attain that garantee. And, of course, the male failure to accomplish this would be quite funny-- if the manifestations of that control over women wasn't so viscious.

The fact men control for this reason excuses NOTHING. However, it does shed light on who we are.

I've had this discussion before, and it was put to me that it shouldn't matter to a man whose genetic material he is working to nurture.

I thought that a quite astounding example of the female blind spot on the male mind; an inability to look at the issue from the other prespective.

If such things don't matter at all, why identify babies in maternity wards? Surely, women would be just as happy then, to plop one out in the delivery room, and pick up one at random from the nursery when they leave?

Women would be aghast at the notion so why would they expect men to be any different?

Right now, the law views this in a female way. It seems genetics plays no role in determining child support. A woman who defrauds a man into thinking a child is his when she knows it isn't walks free-- it isn't even a crime.

And, whoa boy, you know it is, deep in your heart of hearts.

In order to grapple with these issues, we need to come to grips with who we are as creatures. The behaviors that may at one time been appropriate to our environment are increasingly inappropriate to our "civilized" environment.

We don't have to dance to these old behaviors, we do have a choice.

But, we have to be aware when the evolutionary puppet master is pulling our strings, if we want to know where to cut them.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 10 January 2002 10:27 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Aside: Chomsky didn't actually write that as an introduction to that book. They just used it as such.
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 11 January 2002 12:37 AM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
When I was a little kid, I played with some 'girly' toys- and so did everyone else- I'm just the only one willing to admit it so far

I think catalyst mentioned that her brother played a big role in the toys she played with- well, the same goes for me, except it was my sister.

I remembef She-ra, I think I had a few of their "action figures". I also remember "My-Little-Pony". Who else remembers "Jem" dolls? Or the TV series, for that matter?

Anyway, that isn't to say I didn't play with 'boy' toys...err... that doesn't sound right, but you all know what I mean. I remember those little metal cars. For some reason we always called them "dinkies"- I have no idea why. In the Soo, I noticed most people called them "dinky cars", but again, why I don't know. I had a little role-out mat that had roads on it, and was painted to look like a city. I also remember X-men ("Storm" and "Beast" were my favorite) "action figures" (how many of you noticed I'm putting "action figures" in brackets, but not dolls? ) and "ninga-turtles"- boy, did I ever have a lot of those. You could probably support a Gabonese family their entire lives with the money my parents spent on toys for my sister and I. My only childhood regret- 0 (zero) value for traditional, non-packaged toys and too concentrated on getting the "latest and greatest" toy, even though my other ones were fine.

If I ever have kids, I think that, and nintendo (thank god my parents never bought one of those things) are the only things I'd be really strict about. Then again, I don't have kids, so it's easy for me to talk- I'd probably be the one who caves into every demand, forever foiling the efforts of the mother to "raise 'em right".

Okay, I feel really silly for posting about my early-childhood toys, and my regrets about them. This post is over, I've made a fool out of myself enough for one day.


From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 11 January 2002 12:53 AM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Everyone, as for as I know, called them dinky cars. Dinky toys. My dinky apartment. Dinky means small.
From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Loretta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 222

posted 11 January 2002 01:33 AM      Profile for Loretta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think the name "dinky cars" comes from a brand name of small metal cars sold in England and Europe that I remember seeing in the late '60s. It probably did refer to something small, interesting that the same word refers to a penis.

To go back to whoever raised it, no, it probably isn't helpful that I used the expression "they (meaning my leftist brothers)just don't get it". However, I didn't use it to be helpful (or insulting, for that matter) - I used it to make the point that my brothers are not necessarily informed nor do they necessarily care about the issues that relate to the ability to live on a level playing field with men in our society.

Take average wages, as someone in this thread has done previously. While it is true that women working in exactly the same job as a man earns (or, at least usually earns) the same money as her male counterpart, her access to the jobs with higher incomes is more restricted. These restrictions happen because of many factors in women's lives but the result is that women, especially single mothers, have a more difficult time supporting themselves and their children. This is a source of huge frustration to many women - the single mother is working at a convenience store while someone of the same age and education gets a job in industry. If she is one of the few women who does get hired in industry, she considers herself incredibly fortunate to be one of maybe 5-10 women working among 500 men and putting up with all kinds of crap for the privilege. And yes, this crap even comes from her union brothers.

I still see mainly male managers at banks and credit unions with a number of women underlings. Same too with airline pilots, doctors with specialties, dentists, miners, truckers, etc. And unfortunately, with the continued rise of corporatism, rather than women moving up, the race is to the bottom for everyone.

I know I sound angry around this subject but, since women aren't supposed to sound angry either, I too will say that I feel passionate around this subject.


From: The West Kootenays of BC | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 11 January 2002 01:39 AM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Now that you mention it, I have never, never seen a female pilot. Why?
From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Loretta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 222

posted 11 January 2002 03:00 AM      Profile for Loretta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My guess is that the airline industry hires many of its pilots already trained by the military. And, although the Canadian Forces technically allows women to be pilots, the reality is that there are many factors that discourage women from doing so. There may be other factors involved but I'm sure that this is one of the large ones.

This reminds me of a story that Nelson Mandela tells in his book about the first time he took a flight piloted by an African man - his first reaction was total surprise and then he wondered about the man's competancy. It was only after this first reaction that he realized just how much of the white world view he had internalized. This is a lesson for us all. (And, by the way, wouldn't a place where women were on equal footing be wonderful?)


From: The West Kootenays of BC | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 11 January 2002 11:53 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
While it is true that women working in exactly the same job as a man earns (or, at least usually earns) the same money as her male counterpart, her access to the jobs with higher incomes is more restricted.

Actually, that's NOT always true. I noticed that Twilight Cedar used teachers as an example. It's true that public servants get paid the same regardless of sex. But in the private sector, there's galloping discrimination against women STILL.

I worked at this one insurance brokerage, at their head office in Toronto. I think it was THE biggest one in Canada at the time - at least that's what they said. I had never heard of it before, but when I saw their list of clients - wow, just about every large company and chain I'd heard of were their clients.

Anyhow, I worked in the VP office. Men advanced to VP WAY sooner than women. And men were paid much, MUCH more than women. Not only that, but the men were given much more desireable accounts, where the women were stuck with the "grunt work" accounts.

Now, I worked there for 3 months, so I got to know the working habits of the people there. The women worked their asses off. The men felt entitled to make full use of the clerical staff (that would be me and two other women). But when the women used our services the same way, it was often frowned upon, even though the fact that they had a million small clients while the men were given much fewer, but more high-profile clients meant that the women had a lot more filing and data entry to do.

And one woman who had worked there for several years, and had been hired with whatever the professional qualification it is that you need to be an insurance broker, with years of experience in the field first as an insurance adjuster and then as a broker, found out that this one guy, much younger than her, still studying for his broker license, nowhere NEAR her experience, was hired at a good $10-12,000 per year MORE than her, and continued to be paid that much more than she was. She found out because one of the clerical staff, who had happened upon the salaries in the course of her job, told her so. This woman was BITTER. And who could blame her? However, it was pretty well known in this place that if you complained about anything like that, you would be looking for a job the next day. Not only that, but in order for her to complain about it, how would she say she knew? Looking in private personnel files? They would assume that she did it - unless she ratted out the secretary who told her, and then the secretary would be looking for work the next day.

These women told me that in pretty much every company they worked for, this was the case.

And I've heard from family members that banks are pretty much the same way - women don't get promoted, and they are paid less than men.

So bringing up an industry like teaching, which has been traditionally feminine anyhow, is really not addressing the problems in the rest of the working world.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Loretta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 222

posted 11 January 2002 01:29 PM      Profile for Loretta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Doesn't surprise me one bit.
From: The West Kootenays of BC | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 11 January 2002 01:55 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, Michelle...

I was reading a Report on Business article once, years back, and it suggested that if woman wanted to get ahead they should learn how to play golf.

With some skill.

Maybe the woman got stuck with the grunt work because of a high handicap.


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
LiMpY
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1834

posted 11 January 2002 02:16 PM      Profile for LiMpY     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
My guess is that the airline industry hires many of its pilots already trained by the military. And, although the Canadian Forces technically allows women to be pilots, the reality is that there are many factors that discourage women from doing so. There may be other factors involved but I'm sure that this is one of the large ones.

Actually, the airline industry (at least the larger carriers) hire very few of their pilots from the military. Because airlines work on the basis of seniority within the airline, people graduating from a collegiate flight school account for about 80% of the pilots in the industry. At least that was the case in 1995.

Also, many CF pilots who are getting too old decide to stick with the forces, as by that time the difference between what they would make in the industry (at near-entry level) and what they are currently making in the forces (flying a desk)is small. And it benefits their pension as well.

Finally, military pilots have already made the decision to take a pay cut in order to actually fly an aircraft (as opposed to monitoring computers on an airliner for 100K/yr), so I am sure most are not lured by the $.

Although, of course, "many" pilots are hired from the military, relatively speaking I don't think this is a significant contribution as to why there are not many women pilots.

Maybe not very many women WANT to be pilots? And of those, there may be the same amount of academic attrition as the male candidates?

Come to think of it...I have never seen a male nurse. Maybe we should lower the standards...


From: Ottawa, Ontario | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Debra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 117

posted 11 January 2002 02:27 PM      Profile for Debra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I've encounter many male nurses and was in fact attended by one after having my second child in 1982.
From: The only difference between graffiti & philosophy is the word fuck... | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 11 January 2002 03:04 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Some of my best friends are male nurses.
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca