Now that the NDP has "tried women", we don't see a credible woman candidate. Nor in the running for the Tory leadership. It's white-male-apalooza. For the most part WASP white males, to boot.

The new social movements don't thematize patriarchy at all -- the anti-globalization movement neglects that Davos and the G8 are as much meetings of global patriarchy as they are meetings of capitalist elites. Is it time for a new feminist movement? There is no feminist movement today to match the militant movements of the 1970s and 80s. And it's not because feminism has won.

[ August 31, 2002: Message edited by: rasmus_raven ]

Time for feminism to become a more global issue, to get involved in economics and globalization. We have challeneged our internal, domestic political systems in the western world. We have challenged our own personal visions of ourselves, and our own personal relationships. We haven't come as far as possible on those, but they have been explored and made very mainstream. Now it's time to make feminism on a global scale mainstream. Eco-feminism, third-world feminism. And not only that, but try to do it while stemming the back-sliding on the personal and domestic political fronts.

Seriously, however, I would concur that, looking back over the last decade, the typical CEO or political leader continues to be a white male in his mid-fifties, and so are all his immediate subordinates.

It's part and parcel of increasing inequality, and this leads to women losing the gains they've made as their stagnant wages are eroded year after year so that they struggle just to stay afloat - to pay off the car, the house, and raise a child all the while working their fanny off.

What I don't think helps, rasmus, is trashing the NDP because it happens that this time around there aren't women candidates for the leadership. There will be, next time around, and those of us who are members will have to work on that!

As for BC, I am gratified to see that Joy Macphail continues as NDP leader, and I have no doubts that she will hold her own next election and tears Gordo to shreds.

[ September 01, 2002: Message edited by: DrConway ]

Feminist issues are never raised in mainstream and alternative political mass forums - that is, they are raised only when translated into standard economic-left agenda: wages, working week, sweatshops in the 3W, micro-loans in the 3W. On some other occasions, they're phrased as issues of general human rights type, as in that stoning for adultery case, access to education in radical fundamentalist countries, general equality before the law.

If anybody knows of any specifically feminist group within the anti-globalization movement, I'd be thrilled to know about it. The trouble is, they are fewer in numbers in the so-called NGO sector as well (judging by the visibility and success in setting the global or national or regional agendas).

If I would use Hardt and Negri's division of the branches of the Empire, there are no women and feminism in its monarchic layer (global monopolies of power like the Pentagon and executive bodies of NATO); no women or feminism in its aristocratic layer (global financial institutions); and it would probably be fair to say fewer and fewer women and feminism (maybe not in numbers as much as those other aspects) in its democratic layer (NGOs). [One caveat, though: in Belgrade under economic and cultural sanctions and Milosevic, the funding of one nutty international financier who likes Karl Popper was a decisive factor in keeping alive the entire areas of dissident cultural and political production, including feminist non-profit and educational sector. I am sure there are other examples of such cross-polination worldwide - d'ailleurs, everything can be a weapon if you hold it properly. But I get lost in digressions.]

But when you look at the almost official reps of the anti-globalization movement (can we say that, that there is an 'establishment' to the anti-globalization movement?), what is supposed to be elements of the Empire's outside, there are no women and feminism much there, are there? OK, there's Lori Wallach and figures like Maude Barlow and Elizabeth May, but they march with an a-feminist agenda. Maude Barlow even said as much, that her engagement with feminism was just a preparation, a stepping stone to her fair trade fights, something of kind of a lesser global importance.

Perhaps feminism needs a good direct action sector to put it on the global agenda. I am dead serious. Even animals have their own direct action groups who are willing to do political mischief and property distruction for their 'constituency'. A degree of aggression and missionary zeal, and a sharp focus for any future feminist group that considers the issue of global patriarchy as the most urgent one today. Or local patriarchy, for that matter, if we're able to suspend the analyses of interconnectedness.

But I am glad that we're posing the question in global terms. To continue appropriating from H&N, politics aimed at preserving the nation-state from globalism are not necessarily counter-Empire. Indeed, the nations often act as greedy economic units on global playground themselves, and as agents of their 'national businesses' engage in international competitions. They also do not want to accommodate the sans-papiers unless they (the SPs) can fuel the national business. Nation states are also the agents of global patriarchy, both through 'local' and internationally oriented practices. What is needed is not anti-globalization, but counter-globalization. Proposals for feminist counter-globalization are now being accepted.

There are so many links to be established in global feminist conversation of humankind to help keep the hope of some kind of claims to universalism, albeit a hybrid one. Say, what occurred to me on the recent Hijab thread is how different cultural rules of acceptability of woman's body may be translatable into one code, the code of global patriarchy if you will, and ease our way towards envisioning a counter-action.

The churches that do not allow women clerics could be challenged globally too - that grievance is translatable across boundaries.

First, I do not think the NDP should be above our criticism. The leadership race is just one example. It's as if the NDP thought "okay, well we're not going to have much impact on anything the next little while, so why don't we bring in the ladies? We should get some points for that". While there are some important exceptions (Joy MacPhail and Jenny Kwan in BC, Gayle Broad being the ONDP president), I can't help but feel there's an attitude in the NDP (to some degree its membership, to another, its big-names and establishment) that women "just naturally aren't leaders" - there's a stereotypical mold for leadership of a reasonably-looking fellow, sweeping up the masses in a fight against the Big Bully, whoever it may be. While the NDP may advance womens issues, as Tresspasser pointed out, when they take a material form, I have never seen any real commitment to fight patriarchy on their behalf (then again, I don't remember every bit of NDP history, so there might have been a couple times).

As for feminist leaders within the anti-globalization movement, the only people I can think of other than those mentioned are Judy Rebick and Emily Sikazwe from Zambia- she has done tonnes of work in Zambia fighting for women's rights, and its disappointing that the first time most of us heard of her was during the G8.

I'll bet most babblers know quite a number of very capable women in big businesses who dropped out and started a lama ranch, cafe or woollens business in Fergus or White Rock around age fourty. Maybe women don't fight to get to the top because they are more human. It's definitely thanks to women that the work place around both men and women has become more human these last couple of decades.

If a feminist movement can further define humanizing societal and global principles and lead , I'll bet most men will gladly follow and support it.

Also, I don't think a feminist movement or organization should actually try to appeal to men. If a lot of us agree, and follow along, great. But I don't think any energy should be wasted trying to appeal to allegedly progressive men.

[ September 02, 2002: Message edited by: meades ]

Re. Apemantus' point about Condoleeza Rice gaining her position on merit - of course she won merit points handed out by partisan judges, and not just for being smart. She agreed to play by certain standards with certain companions which and whom many of us would not agree to conform to because they might be viewed as lacking a certain, er....humanity or universality shall we say?

Therefore, I repeat the essence of my earlier question: is just having more women necessarily a gain for all of us?

As to your other point about a feminist movement, I agree with the "not trying" to appeal to men.

I trust that you meant to show progressive intent and stand on universal principles of liberation. Then, I presume that you will agree with the following?:

Any movement which tries to appeal to any particular segment of humanity defined by gender, race, age, etc., or excludes, stereotypes or diminishes in any way or to whatever degree any of the above, and which, furthermore, does not base itself on universal principles applicable to all humans, is already infected with germs of the same old plague that it set out to cure?

quote:

---

Any movement which tries to appeal to any particular segment of humanity defined by gender, race, age, etc., or excludes, stereotypes or diminishes in any way or to whatever degree any of the above, and which, furthermore, does not base itself on universal principles applicable to all humans, is already infected with germs of the same old plague that it set out to cure?

---

Indeed. And isn't "feminism" itself guilty of the very same narrow and exclusionary focus? If people want to put some life into the very decaying movement that was, we should consider that the more we lose sight of the pluralism of women's realities, the less true and therefore interesting we become. Historically self-declared "feminists" have in large part excluded women based on race, class, because they are queer or trans, and for other bigoted reasons. In each case it simply leads to cooptation and stagnation.

I feel like this requires a link, however there aren't a whole lot of feminist organizations out there, but ain't this one swell? NAC/CCA

[ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

quote:

---

SH, I think you are twisting nonesuch's words, and being quite pissy about it, to boot.

---

What I mean is that maybe as women are not one homogenous whole (and even if many men define women by their gender, should women do that too?), then they too can be capable of crass stupidity as much as men. Just because they are oppressed doesn't necessarily make them any more intelligent?

quote:

---

Meades, you're overreacting. Why lose your humour over my serious and and not unkind
question?

---

What i meant was. Most of the enforcers are are male, sure, and they are acting in a very aggressive manner (lots of explosions and dead bodies), which is a traditionally masculine trait. Most of the top villains for whom enforcers like Bush, W. work are probably male, as well, but they're cold-bloodedly evil, which is a gender-neutral trait. It uses other people's aggression, fear, greed, hatered, envy, suspicion - anything - to achieve its own ends.

I'm saying the real trouble has nothing to do with masculine/feminine conflict. To the top villains, this conflict is just another means of keeping us occupied and out of their way. They don't care how we rearrange the furniture in the house they're about to demolish.

Without the real trouble - that is cold-blooded, evil shitheads - we could work out the gender thing among ourselves, just as we could work out the race thing. With them running the world, we won't be allowed to.

[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

quote:

---

What i meant was. Most of the enforcers are are male, sure, and they are acting in a very aggressive manner (lots of explosions and dead bodies), which is a traditionally masculine trait. Most of the top villains for whom enforcers like Bush, W. work are probably male, as well, but they're cold-bloodedly evil, which is a gender-neutral trait. It uses other people's aggression, fear, greed, hatered, envy, suspicion - anything - to achieve its own ends.

---

After reading your first post I thought oh no more generalized sexism with no thought past male bad woman good. Then you posted the above quote which takes the time to not generalize or sterotype based on gender.

Little words like "most" make all the difference in the world for those of us of male gender who want to make a difference and hate being lumped in with killers and abusers. The Canadian media has been very good lately at highlighting the fact that our military does have women in it and they are also in Afghanistan and other war zones. When I listen to those fine young women I ralize their world view is the same as their male counterparts and not the same as mine.

Thatcher is the poster child for

quote:

---

I'm saying the real trouble has nothing to do with masculine/feminine conflict. To the top villains, this conflict is just another means of keeping us occupied and out of their way. They don't care how we rearrange the furniture in the house they're about to demolish.

---

quote:

---

...and feminism might as well close the shop. Oh happy day.

---

Yah, pretty much. Might as well hang up every other ism while you’re at it.

We have two different arenas here.
The good, earnest people who want to do good work are acting in the social arena. They presuppose autonomous nation-states, where citizens have some power over their politicians and the politicians make the rules by which the society operates.
The big shitheads who actually run the world don't believe in nation-states, own most of the politicians (and are in the process of buying, renting, intimidating or eliminating the rest) and know that neither the politicians nor the citizens have any power.
Imagine the cartoon foot in the old Monty Python show. We play out our little dramas on this stage and they can squash the whole production at any time.
They don’t care what sex their puppets and enforcers are. If women are ruthless enough to do the dirty work, fine. If not, that’s fine, too.
As long as we buy the products, pay the taxes, accept the culture and go along with the program, it doesn’t matter what issues we’re all het up about.
Where the big shitheads are taking us, isms won’t matter. Nothing will matter: everything will be dead.

P.S. Of course, i may be wrong. That would be nice.

[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

There are opportunities for women and minorities but mostly only if you play by the old boys club rules. If you're a misogynist or racist-great! You'll get a spot at the front lines to spew your venom. But if you ever hint that feminist or any other activists have any merit-get out the jam 'cause you're toast.

The global patriarchy screws lots of men as well-especially if you're gay or ever question the status quo. I wish more spoke out about it.

If you think so, you better explain why why so many of us seem to support it? And why so many of us (not me) are happy with the goods it provides - 300 channels on cable tv, trips to exotic places, 400 different brands of ice cream, SUV's to get away, 2,000 square feet of living space all to our little family, etc.

Maybe our individual lack of autonomy and susceptibility to gluttony, escape and addiction is involved. Sure, the pushers pry on this, but it's not just them or the patriarchs who's to blame. It would even be much easier to blame women for bringing up such assholes, but that's obviously not a nice thing to say. (I mention this only to highlight how selective we are in apportioning blame - without having thought very deeply about it.)

And before you attribute all kinds of phobias and forms of intolerance to something created by men (there is a little man-hating behind it) you better read some of the discussions on this site (eg. "Women's Inhumanity to Women") or many historical accounts of cruelty and venom in which women were quite involved too.

Or, with regard to politically correct listings of victim groups, actually talk to gays and you'll discover that wars are waged just as much in gay communities as they are among lesbians, socialists, etc. etc. In fact, go into any communities of oppressed people and see how many of these model a way of living in a truly better world.

And, please, please, before making race a matter of capitalist/patriarchal interest, remember Rwanda and before that Uganda and see that you can cut racism in so many different ways, with or without capitalism and even without a very patriarchal society. In other words, people are capable of taking sides over the smallest pretext with the slightest little distinction to mark them as different from "the others".

quote:

---

And before you attribute all kinds of phobias and forms of intolerance to something created by men (there is a little man-hating behind it) you better read some of the discussions on this site (eg. "Women's Inhumanity to Women") or many historical accounts of cruelty and venom in which women were quite involved too.

---

No one is saying that women are never assholes. Just because women aren't always nice doesn't mean power dynamics (such as patriarchy) don't exist. I doubt even the most fervent essentialist would argue that women can't be cruel. Patriarchy is about dynamics of *power*, it has nothing to do with whether or not people are ever *mean*.

quote:

---

Or, with regard to politically correct listings of victim groups, actually talk to gays and you'll discover that wars are waged just as much in gay communities as they are among lesbians, socialists, etc. etc. In fact, go into any communities of oppressed people and see how many of these model a way of living in a truly better world.

---

Don't assume that any of us would have to speak to a gay person to know anything about it- you don't have to be heterosexual to post on this board do you?

Again, people who are oppressed in one way won't necessarily be any less oppressive in another domain (gay boys can be sexist, white women can be racist, etc). That doesn't mean we should all just run around being oppressive assholes to each other.

quote:

---

And, please, please, before making race a matter of capitalist/patriarchal interest, remember Rwanda and before that Uganda and see that you can cut racism in so many different ways, with or without capitalism and even without a very patriarchal society. In other words, people are capable of taking sides over the smallest pretext with the slightest little distinction to mark them as different from "the others".

---

Are you saying that problems in Africa don't have anything to do with the centuries of colonization and theft? Africa, like all continents, has an extremely complex history, one that most newspaper reports won't bother to go into. I don't know what your basis of knowledge is on the histories of Uganda and Rwanda, but unless it's far more studied than mine, I don't see how you can judge that those situations have/had nothing to do with the impact of centuries of racist capitalist colonization.

quote:

---

Global patriarchy continues on its bloated destructive path because it works well for those in positions of power. If you keep this in mind, most everything that comes from the global patriarchy can be read as "it's best for me"

---

It seems like no matter how many times one repeats this fact, some people just don't get it. I'd add it's the same for global capitalism, racism, etc.

quote:

---

There are opportunities for women and minorities but mostly only if you play by the old boys club rules. If you're a misogynist or racist-great! You'll get a spot at the front lines to spew your venom. But if you ever hint that feminist or any other activists have any merit-get out the jam 'cause you're toast.

---

Too true...

quote:

---

Terry J, I'm wondering if spewing venom at something called the global patriarchy really is any help at all? Or if it is it the basis for any kind of behaviour which could lead to positive change?

---

Why not? Many people can attest from personal experience that anger and venting can be the best thing for positive change. I think it's rare for positive change to come *without* some good venom-spewing

But I think you should re-read Terry J's words, because that doesn't seem to be what they're saying at all. I think what Terry J was saying was clear- if you're racist or sexist, you have plenty of opportunities to spew your venom about women and/or people of colour. If you're a woman in a position of power for example, good luck trying to be feminist. You'll be back in the kitchen before you can say Thatcher.

[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: adlib ]

quote:

---

examples of where venom and hatred have led to anything positive.

---

quote:

---

Things are not simple

---

quote:

---

Adlib, you merely make my point. Things are not simple - unless you get to the real roots of where it all originates from. I mean the place somewhere below our chin. Too bad you don't go that deep.

---

And what is that root that I don't go deep enough for, in *your* hasty opinion?

quote:

---

Re. your ending three paragraphs: give me examples of where venom and hatred have led to anything positive. Maybe there is hope for evil to fight evil.

---

Actually, I said venom and *anger*, not venom and hatred, but call it what you will. Examples abound in everyday experience.

Anger is an emotional signal that there is something wrong. We can be angry because of anything from being tired or hungry and therefore irritable, to because of built-up resentment and miscommunication, to because of grave injustice. Killing Rage, by bell hooks, is a good resource on the latter. In any case, anger triggers particular bodily changes (including rise in adrenaline and heart rate), which can give one the energy to get things done. This energy can propel people to do incredible things, if properly focussed.

Examples include; people having the courage and ability to leave abusive situations, people confronting someone for their ongoing destructive behavior towards others, and people participating in revolutionary activity. Anger can also fuel very personal life-changing decisions, such as going to school (or embarking on another challenging journey) because you know people don't think you can be successful. It's helped people quit abusing substances, it's helped people escape from all kinds of bad situations.

Anger, venom, hate, whatever you want to call it, ultimately arises from love- often self-love. You have to love yourself to hate the abuse, or oppression, or whatever, of your situation. Hatred, venom, and anger are not evil. Evil happens when people don't get angry enough and let all kinds of horrible things happen (eg Hannah Arendt's The Banality of Evil about German citizens passivity during the Nazi regime), or when people don't focus their anger on the right things.

There is a beautiful poem by Himani Bannerji on the subject, but I don't have the exact words. Something about how you must take your anger in your hands and cradle it like the precious thing that it is, then shape it into something ancient and elemental, like a rock or a spear, and aim it at that which is destroying you.

Nonesuch, that was a beautiful story.

At any rate, that wasn't what Terry J was talking about at all in the first place, but I don't dislike the direction of this digression.

My point, personally, was just that no matter how complex oppressive social dynamics (such as patriarchy and racism) are, and no matter how difficult they are to quantify , measure, or categrize, they exist and ought to be destroyed. Without the destruction of these dynamics of oppression, social change will continue to be superficial and meaningless.

[ September 07, 2002: Message edited by: adlib ]

Adlib, please, please, think about this some more!

What atrocious reaction could NOT thus be justified!

Yes, anger is a natural response. It is a chemical state which is automatically triggered to a perceived threat. When that threat is real, of course it is helpful to be able to access its physical powers to get us out of a fix. Or to set things right. But venom and hate are not necessary to this playing out. These result from ideas and images about others which are then juxtaposed over objective reality.

If this were universally taught by the time we reach grade 10 there'd be much more hope for peace.

For, if ideas causing hate and venom were replaced with understanding, especially the realization that the virtual realities of our infernal imagination and ideas, capable of triggering the internal chemical state of anger over nothing real, we would stop pointing the finger out there and examine the real action right below our nose (and chin).

Maude Barlowe and most women like her who suceed and maintain their integrity do not seek a conventional power base.

The idea here is like the one ring in the Lord of the Rings. Anyone who wields the false prestige or power accorded to "men" within the system becomes a "wraith" devoid of humanity and the ability to think indepedently without denying that power to some extent.

But I think this issue I've raised before.

Feminists like Millet have opted for creative solutions, alternative lifestyles that are beacons for us all living our own unique lives and being sensitive to the special nature of the communities in which we live.

This in itself has got to be anti-globalization and much more "World Politics".

The point is that when women get power in politics (think Margaret Thatcher, Janet Reno) they act like the stereotypical mail in spades.

Think of it, when have you ever heard of some big powerful leader comming forward and admitting they were wrong headed about something, or real tears crying about an injustice? (Human not feminine responses). Yet many men interviewed about the 9/11 tragedy or the Oklahoma bombing ( firemen retrieving fatally injured children) break down when talked to and are suffering severe post trauma syndrome.

Feminism is part of us all, men and women, because its basic philosophy is about being in touch with one's humanity. From that flows true power in my view (although I fear this sounds kind of Yodaish.)

I think Feminiosm is more vital and real than in the recent past. But Capitalism and humanity's militaristic and attavistic bent has not yet been harnessed or tamed by that power.

But perhaps that is not after all its purpose. ?

[ September 08, 2002: Message edited by: Boinker ]

quote:

---

Adlib, please, please, think about this some more!

What atrocious reaction could NOT thus be justified!

---

But then maybe there is no point in arguing about it. The problem is that I think it is fundamentally necessary, and feminist, to acknowledge and honor anger and destruction. Both are not just ok, but *necessary*. People are so stuck in those "peace is good, violence is bad. construction is good, destruction is bad. gentle is good, aggressive is bad." dychotomies. They are false. You cannot construct *anything* without destroying something. "Violence" and aggression are only "bad" in the context of these things being used for abusive, oppressive or meaningless purposes. They are not immoral or undesirable in and of themselves.

quote:

---

Yes, anger is a natural response. It is a chemical state which is automatically triggered to a perceived threat. When that threat is real, of course it is helpful to be able to access its physical powers to get us out of a fix. Or to set things right. But venom and hate are not necessary to this playing out. These result from ideas and images about others which are then juxtaposed over objective reality.

If this were universally taught by the time we reach grade 10 there'd be much more hope for peace.

---

What do you mean by "peace"? Do you mean an end to global capitalist war? Or do you mean the pacification of the oppressed?

Because as I understand it, global war is not caused by schoolyard fights, but economic and political "necessities".

"(that) people should NOT feel angry or defend themselves when injustices are committed against them ....."

Read my last paragraph about not turning into "vegetables" or my previous point about anger being natural and useful at times.

You indicate that you may be underrating "being nice to each other". Surely, you have noticed that people are more likely to keep the diplomatic channels (communication) open when we are nice to them - when we treat them as we would be treated. Gawd, I'd say that we need as much of that as we can muster (without losing any ability to maintain justice and all things right). But, venom and hate, as you have surely noticed, tend to close the doors.

By "peace" I meant an end to waging war to eradicate others, usually after dehumanizing them first, usually with stories (propoganda) which foster "venom and hate" so that eliminating them becomes easy.

There can be no social progress without rage against injustice and oppression, but as the Che said, this rage must ultimately be grounded in love (of the oppressed), if not it becomes nothing but resentment and self-destructive venom.

I agree that action against the violence of the ruling class, its state apparatus, and violent racists and misogynists must sometimes be violent in nature, hopefully taking the form of mass action (and the more massive it is, the less violent it can be). Just look at any picket line.

Che did on a number of occasions write that the struggle must "ultimately be grounded in love". Why YOUR edit addition "of the oppressed"? Think about it, don't you see that such selective loving of fellow humans leaves in the ground of your "new order" the seed of future problems if a category of fellow humans are deemed unworthy of it? As if you can tell those who oppress and those who do not by their badges! Gawd, recall the endless trials and bloodletting after a number of revolutions because of such exclusiveness and attempts to decide who was or was not onboard?

I am sure that many activists confuse love with mushy affection and think that if people were in that state that they would be incapable of acting to end oppression and abuse. But this is absolutely untrue.

Think of Ghandi, Mandela and Martin Luther King. These, especial the latter two, expressed righteous anger (perhaps even rage) and were prepared to act on their convictions but without showing apparent hate or venom for their adversaries.

They extended degrees of love as inclusiveness to their adversaries and their followers. They addressed the humanity in all. Yes, they had love for humanity. No exception. Otherwise, in India under the British, the U.S. South and white supremist S. Africa there would have been a bloodbath with very long repercussions (eg. what followed Mediaeval Balkan battles).

Lagatta makes several good points...

quote:

---

Think of Ghandi, Mandela and Martin Luther King. These, especial the latter two, expressed righteous anger (perhaps even rage) and were prepared to act on their convictions but without showing apparent hate or venom for their adversaries.

(...)Otherwise, in India under the British, the U.S. South and white supremist S. Africa there would have been a bloodbath with very long repercussions (eg. what followed Mediaeval Balkan battles).

---

I am assuming that when you are lumping him in with MLK and Gandhi, you are suggesting that a) he was a pacifist, and b) that pacifists "love" their enemies, and therefore act non-violently instead of using all available tactics.

Neither are true. Nelson Mandela was part of a revolutionary arm of the ANC, after years of attempts at "non-violence" proved fruitless. Both Martin Luther King and Gandhi's non-violent resistance was only effective because of violent resistance elsewhere- in MLK's case, the Black Liberation Army and the Black Panther Party, and in Gandhi's case the World War as well as resistance by indigenous peoples in Africa and elsewhere.

If you read their writings, they even say this themselves. That doesn't make their contribution unimportant, I'm simply saying that the context was what made their struggles effective, and these are not always the case.

I've yet to hear a revolutionary, one acting out of hatred of their situation, advocating mass slaughter ot torture of their enemies. People use all tactics necessary when necessary for their resistance. The least dangerous, and the least "violent" the better. But what matters most is effectiveness.

And certainly, it is not a true comparison to speak of the North American white-dominated mass pacifist movements as equivalent to any of the three struggles you mention. The people in South Africa, the South, and India faced death on a daily basis in their resistance. There are only two or three examples of that occurring in the peace movement, and none are recent.

But wasn't this thread about feminism?

Such as, to be anti-racist and to fight fascism is to love humanity?!

quote:

---

Such as, to be anti-racist and to fight fascism is to love humanity?!

Are you kidding? Have you taken any history?

---

Well, I've *studied* history. Like, for example, the Spanish Civil War. Anti-fascists who loved humanity, a great example to all.

quote:

---

Do the Soviet excesses in the name of 'anti-fascism' mean anything to you?

---

Do you not see the difference between calling yourself anti-fascist and *being* anti-fascist?

quote:

---

Or have you been to any left activist "struggle sessions" or gotten involved in an "left" movement?! Tell us of any in which you found people really acted as if they loved those they were in solidarity with.

---

How many people are you, Spring Hope? I've been involved in "left" activism for several years. I don't know what you mean by "struggle sessions", but I've known lots of people who loved/love the people they were/are fighting for. My Palestinian friends from Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights love their people, the Zapatistas and Sandinistas love their people, Black Panthers love their people. In fact, I can't think of a movement for true social change that wasn't based on love.

Of course I do. In fact, if you check my comments, they are consistently from a concern about the tendency to smugness of those who are members of righteous causes who, history shows us, in the name of anti-fascism, or any other "humanistic" ism, turn out to be quite fascistic in their righteousness. Or anti-sexism which turns into dehumanization of the other gender. Or even anti-racism which does the same to members of the allegedly offending race. Or..... One could go on and on.We see glimmers of this US vs. THEM categorical discrimination on this site even.

You say: "I've known lots of people who loved/love the people they were/are fighting for. My Palestinian friends from Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights love their people etc. etc."

You haven't heard me yet, I guess. What concerns me is the phrase, "THEIR PEOPLE", rather than PEOPLE or FELLOW HUMANS. What about those who are not THEIR people? Or even those who are their current adversaries? Should we hate them? Or even love them less?

For me, what you call a movement for TRUE social change acts to change things with means as effective as possible, even forceful means nothing else works, but ultimately does not hate or spout venom at anyone, within or outside of their gender, race, nationality, religeon etc. etc.

But still, do you really expect people to fight to end their own oppression because they *love* the people who step all over them?

Do you not recognize that, although we are all human, some of us have experiences based on the strong forces of inequality (sexism, racism), that means that sometimes our immediate interests are directly in opposition to others, namely those in power?

Don't you think the Black Panthers were "loving all humanity" when they opened free clinics and started kids' breakfast programs in their communities? Do you think that because they wore guns (all legally) to stop cops beating and killing their community members that they weren't "loving" the cops enough? Should they have held hands and had a candlelight vigil around the old man's grave who was assaulted by police officers *after he was dead* instead of helping him to stay alive? Would that have been more "loving" to "all humanity"?

quote:

---

what is divisive is racism, sexism, and other oppressions. Not people's justified responses to them.

---

But what underlies all of those is hate - hatred of the 'other'. Then those 'justified' responses add to the hate, they don't resolve it, they increase it, make people more angry so they hate more. It becomes a vicious circle. That is why guns are not a solution, but part of the problem and that is why love is the solution - it soothes the flames rather than igniting them.

But somehow I am guessing you may not be touchy-feely enough to do much other than slate that comment...

To restate myself:

To not respond to coercion, oppression, confinement, etc. is to be dead. Response is natural. We need to focus this personal force to change these. That's what anger - objectively it is just an energetic state - is for. But, it really does not require hatred and venom. We tend to think that these are necessary because it usually goes hand in hand with dehumanization of our human objects.

In other words, we have difficulty conceptualizing this focusing this personal force (commonly called anger) in the absence of the dehumanization of some individual or race, sect, gender etc. etc. And so, we normally don't even question our personal inability to keep the universal principle of love for all humanity uppermost.

Hence vicious circles again and again and again.

But it doesn't have to be that way. Good parents, mates, employers etc. know and teach the recognition of that for their spheres of counselling. It makes for good matings, families and places of work. That's what all good family and other personal counsellors talk about when trying to resolve conflict.

quote:

---

But, it really does not require hatred and venom. We tend to think that these are necessary because it usually goes hand in hand with dehumanization of our human objects.

---

I don't think so. I think hatred and venom at injustice can be an expression of humanization.

quote:

---

In other words, we have difficulty conceptualizing this focusing this personal force (commonly called anger) in the absence of the dehumanization of some individual or race, sect, gender etc. etc. And so, we normally don't even question our personal inability to keep the universal principle of love for all humanity uppermost.

---

I still don't see how this applies practically.

quote:

---

Hence vicious circles again and again and again.

But it doesn't have to be that way. Good parents, mates, employers etc. know and teach the recognition of that for their spheres of counselling. It makes for good matings, families and places of work. That's what all good family and other personal counsellors talk about when trying to resolve conflict.

---

Not everyone else involved in struggle with you or against you will be in a relationship with you that can be in any way equated to familial or love relationships.

quote:

---

Isn't it strange that it isn't applied in every larger sphere, not even by those on the left?

---

Again, I ask, what would that look like? You keep repeating yourself, but you haven't yet answered that question.

As far as I see it, people always try to "talk it out" or otherwise communicate first. It is only when the "nicest" forms of resistance don't work that people resort to the less "nice".

How about it looking like people, individually and in groups. showing ultimate respect to every other human. It would sound like people assisting others in communicating what they want to convey, rather than putting words in their mouths they don't mean, or attributing scurrilous motives for what they do and say, instead, refusing to categorizing in order to dismiss them. It would look like people fearless in the power of themselves, no longer being led by the gremlins of hate and venom, or demagogues, instead, singly or in groups tackling, with humour and cheer, what needs to be done, creatively, always ready to greet any sign of humanity from anyone, including their adversaries. Even the latter would be seen as potential brothers and sisters rather than being considered as lower grades of human. There would be hearty greetings at every door of every assembly. People would make singing, playing and dancing together a natural, indispensable part of solidarity-building. Strong words, would sometimes be required to focus strong action, bit it would be based on a dream of the best of every human shining forth.

quote:

---

Terry J, I'm wondering if spewing venom at something called the global patriarchy really is any help at all? Or if it is it the basis for any kind of behaviour which could lead to positive change?

---

Spring Hope I wonder what you mean by spewing venom? Do you think that those that hold most of the power in the world are above criticism? Must we accept everything they say and do as correct and right? Is turning a blind eye to wars, violence, corruption, poverty, sexism, racism, etc. helpful at all? Will corporate greed and terrorism suddenly end by being nice? Do you think that a critique of the patriarchy is a personal attack on you or all men and women who support it?

quote:

---

If you think so, you better explain why why so many of us seem to support it? And why so many of us (not me) are happy with the goods it provides - 300 channels on cable tv, trips to exotic places, 400 different brands of ice cream, SUV's to get away, 2,000 square feet of living space all to our little family, etc.

---

Is it really a surprise that many support the patriarchy in our patriarchal saturated culture when so few alternatives are readily at hand? When alternate views are distorted if discussed at all and different lifestyles and behaviors presented as sheer lunacy. It’s also very helpful to own the media, big business, and the government to boot. Absolutely many people benefit from the patriarchy-weapons manufacturers, media conglomerates, and mainly conservative hetro’s. The patriarchy isn’t helping out indigenous people, poor people, and many women-basically anyone not part of the club. And since when has popularity been a measure of success? Does the proliferation of fast food joints mean that fast food is good for us? Is watching Jerry Springier good for us because it’s popular? Why do people do anything? Why do people smoke, take drugs, eat unhealthy foods etc. when they know it’s not good for them?

Sure there’s 300+ channels-the majority celebrating various aspects of consumerism, capitalism, patriotism and patriarchy, with little critical discourse. And is the sight of suv’s spewing out huge amounts of pollution while usually transporting only one person on paved, dry roads any indication of success? That and 400 kinds of ice cream fall into the category of bloated excess. I really can live without sushi and pizza ice cream.

quote:

---

It would even be much easier to blame women for bringing up such assholes, but that's obviously not a nice thing to say.

---

Do you actually believe that? Or is it some passive-aggressive horseshit that you’re stating? Do assholes not have fathers, peer groups, the male code, enablers (many are females), and a culture that celebrates assholeness? Much easier to just blame mothers. Feminism is such a scapegoat. As in a dysfunctional family, as long as you have a scapegoat you never have to address the real issues. Talk forever about the problems of feminism and you can skirt the issue of the patriarchy.

quote:

---

And before you attribute all kinds of phobias and forms of intolerance to something created by men (there is a little man-hating behind it) you better read some of the discussions on this site (eg. "Women's Inhumanity to Women") or many historical accounts of cruelty and venom in which women were quite involved

---

Speaking of spewing venom, I’m just amazed that a critique of the patriarchy brings on the old man-hating label. It’s just fine to bash feminism all you want but dare say anything about the patriarchy and you drag out that pathetic crap.

Incidentally I have read many of the discussions on this site, including the Women's Inhumanity to Women discussion started by you with the link that didn’t link. So I can’t comment much on Chesler’s views-only hearing about them through other people. I thought Rebecca West made some excellent points. I agree with the review that “Chesler is out of touch with the ways that feminism has evolved” based on what I’ve read of her views.
I wonder what you thought of this statement since it seems as though you admire her.

quote:

---

Most significantly, she urges young women to be unafraid of the repercussions of getting good and angry, and -- when appropriate -- not to be shy about directing that rage at men.

---

quote:

---

to our shock, even when we took great care to avoid "gender-based socialization", our little infant boys insisted on being boys - sticks as swords and "pow, pow" -while girls dressed up dolls and..... themselves.

---

I had to roll my eyes when I read that. That wasn’t my experience nor was it the experience of many people I know. Spring Hope, please, please, don’t speak for me.

You come across as fixating on the shortcomings of feminism and obsessing about WOMEN ARE JUST AS BAD AS MEN. No one is saying that some women aren’t assholes some of the time. But let’s keep some perspective. Some of the postings on the babble feminism thread are of the “lets state an example of women being bad” and then we can say that WOMEN ARE JUST AS BAD AS MEN. You must also look at the frequency of these behaviors, otherwise you could also say something like “a Canadian committed an act of violence towards another Canadian and therefore Canadians are just as violent as Americans”.

quote:

---

There's nothing wrong with being nice to each other. But saying people should not feel angry or defend themselves when injustices are committed against them is another thing entirely.

---

Thanks adlib. I think you understood my posting and made many excellent points. I believe it was Mordecai Richler who said that things will never change while people are being nice to each other.

SH-You claim that things aren’t simple. Isn’t that just stating the obvious?

You say I should talk to these marginalized groups. What makes you think I’m not from one of these groups or that I couldn’t know and hear them?

Spring Hope you talk about the “movement” and how people should be nice to each other, all the while resisting any critique of the patriarchy. The patriarchy’s actions and behaviors are not “nice”. So if your idea of a movement is one that focus’s on the shortcomings of feminism, speaking for all people, and turning a blind eye to the negative aspects of the patriarchy well, count me out.

[ September 18, 2002: Message edited by: Terry J ]

Although I don't understand what you mean here:

quote:

---

You say I should talk to these marginalized groups. What makes you think I’m not from one of these groups or that I couldn’t know and hear them?

---

Are you referring to this part of my post, where I was responding to Spring Hope, or something else?

Spring Hope:

quote:

---

Or, with regard to politically correct listings of victim groups, actually talk to gays and you'll discover that wars are waged just as much in gay communities as they are among lesbians, socialists, etc. etc. In fact, go into any communities of oppressed people and see how many of these model a way of living in a truly better world.

---

adlib:

quote:

---

Don't assume that any of us would have to speak to a gay person to know anything about it- you don't have to be heterosexual to post on this board do you?

---

---------------
Spring Hope, your response was what I feared. Unfortunately, you don't seem to realize that it is not "lack of love" that keeps people apart, but tactics of divide and conquer which materialize as oppressions. Couples in an abusive dynamic may truly "love" each other, but somebody needs to stop hitting, insulting and humiliating. As the very wise dub poet Debbie Young says, "sometimes the love is not enough". Sometimes, people have to think hard about themselves and their behaviour. A love-fest won't cure that.

quote:

---

with regard to politically correct listings of victim groups, actually talk to gays and you'll discover that wars are waged just as much in gay communities as they are among lesbians, socialists, etc. etc. In fact, go into any communities of oppressed people and see how many of these model a way of living in a truly better world.

---

I "actually" talk to gays, lesbians, and other oppressed people. I found the tone of the whole posting patronizing.

Assuming option to be true (2)nowhere in what I have written will you find the attributes attributed to me by your rhetorical implication confirmed.

I thought I had made myself very clear. But here goes again: the absence of hate and venom does not make people into vegetables. In fact, as any physiologist or martial artist knows, its absence actually makes people more creative and intelligent while ending the vicious and wasteful cycles of h and v which might have gone before (eg. in the Balkans, Israel, N. Ireland). We can still act powerfully and undistracted.

I will add to my list of what a great movement or society would actually look like this item:

The topic of this thread was about global patriarchy. If you're intersted in pursuing the love topic why not start a thread about it. Though I doubt Saddam Hussein and Dubya will buy it.

You obviously wanted to convey the impression to those listening in that I am:

"reducing the situation (eg. N. Ireland) to some hokey love-sweet-love simplicity"

Again,...... don't you see that you are projecting YOUR prejudices onto my words without knowing me or linking your mocking insinuation to anything I've written. Am I reducing such situations in the way you say? Nowhere do I even come close to "reductionism" or even condoning "hokey love-sweet-love simplicity".

Would it not be more effective solidarity-building to discuss with such as myself from the commong basis of where we see agreement? (If you had read me once more.) Or by cooperatively discerning any potential positive human motives in your fellow discutant before labeling them as "hokey" and simple?

For example, I agree with you that "the violence in (Ireland, etc.) is caused by many social/political/historical factors" (though, indidentally, that doesn't mean that more love would not help diminish such problems).

Then we could proceed to what we can do to produce REAL change. To me that is not just exchanging victim status or trading the agrieved for those who appear to agrieve, oppress and violate now. And that is what I have been hearing feminists, the left as well as Reform Alliance do.

Leftists who take issue with me here tend to blame forces solely outside of ourselves as persons; namely, the patriarchy, the corporate order, racists etc. etc. I say this is a fatal mistake!

If we focus only on taking down "the patriarchy" or "the corporate order" and do not address where we are personaly are coming from, we will import the ways of our current adversaries into our new order - wether it be socialist, Napoleonic, communist, syndicalist, anarchist, social democratic or whatever. To me that is what history teaches.

To make REAL change, I believe, requires a number of things we can all agree on, such as political awareness, solidarity etc.

But where I diverge from you is not by denying the need for courage, determination, firm action at times, etc. Not at all. It is in believing that what is absolutely crucial to REAL change is an ever broadening perspective on the human race and all life on this Planet among us, the movement.

An example of a perspective change is what happened when the whole human race suddenly saw photos of Planet Earth without boundaries, taken from space. Suddenly it was totally apparent that we shared the same home. Despite Bush's bunch, I could point to personal evidence of much less interracial and ethnic suspicion and fear since then. Of course other perspecive changers have contributed to that too.

Of course, just the space shot (TV and the Internet) isn't enough. There are social forces which mitigate against such positive changes by manipulating what we see and hear, eg. about Iraq. Still, in my opinion, it is we, as indivdicuals who have to assume our responsibility in dismantling boxes of left, right, global patriarchy, feminist, white and black for all of these maintain limited perspecives, preserves of prejudice and degrees of dehumanization.

And, yeah, if you want to bring the "L" word into it (I get the impression that that word is suspect), one of the results of a broadening perspective is a greater capacity for including a wider range of others and respecting more of all humankind. To me love is certainly much closer when we have discovered that the stranger we suspected turns out to be pretty much like yourself or the folks next door.

The corrollary of what I am saying is that you can't continue doing what both left and right have been doing, just blame any situation on others and leave it at that. YOU and I have to change.

If you don't like how certain things are, don't just point out there. Be the alternative which you desire. Don't consent to being the victim of social forces. We are surely autonomous to some degree! So, embody the qualities which are humanizing wether you call yourself a communist, socialist or whatever. But, hatred and venom as fuel for (re)action, which an early contributor lauded as a positive part of the struggle, will simply pass on the old virus into the new order, even though the disease may have a different name.

That is the end of this discussion for me. We are about to start going in circles.

quote:

---

hatred and venom as fuel for (re)action, which an early contributor lauded as a positive part of the struggle, will simply pass on the old virus into the new order, even though the disease may have a different name.

---

quote:

---

Would it not be more effective solidarity-building to discuss with such as myself from the commong basis of where we see agreement? (If you had read me once more.) Or by cooperatively discerning any potential positive human motives in your fellow discutant before labeling them as "hokey" and simple?

---

quote:

---

People hearing, reading and responding to what others actually say, write and do rather than responding to what we attribute to them and which is based on assumptions and prejudices rather than fact. Herein lies a widely-recognized principle for wiping out racism, gender phobia etc.

---

quote:

---

Then we could proceed to what we can do to produce REAL change. To me that is not just exchanging victim status or trading the agrieved for those who appear to agrieve, oppress and violate now. (...)Leftists who take issue with me here tend to blame forces solely outside of ourselves as persons; namely, the patriarchy, the corporate order, racists etc. etc. I say this is a fatal mistake!

---

All this talk about "victim status" is a load of bunk. Really, what you are saying translates easily into "patriarchy, racism, and the corporate order don't exist. Stop 'playing the victim'". Which fits in better in Reform Party rhetoric than anywhere else.

As usual, talk of "love" without addressing power relationships thinly disguises lack of analysis. As evidenced by how you usurped this thread to talk about "love".

SuperGimp: Oh no, please bear with us.

We don't actually know each other. This is the first thread I think where I've met TerryJ and SpringHope. But if you look through the feminist forum, you will find many a usurped thread. It's kinda hard to have a real discussion when you have to keep fielding anti-feminist attacks...

[ September 21, 2002: Message edited by: adlib ]

ADLIB, I tend to agree with the feminists, since I came to political awareness through "identity politics" myself (do people in Canada and Europe use that term as much as in the US?)...

Lets make it more personal! (This always gets the party started!) What happens if we try to take away men's porn, or, to be precise, question the political status of the women IN the porn? (i.e. Are you exploiting slave labor?)

How many diapers have the men here changed in their lifetimes? Why or why not?

Love also is not racist baiting or sexist baiting another member of your group as you do in the following:

"it's a favorite tactic of racists, sexists, and other jerks to say that they were "misunderstood".

Otherwise, why bring this into this discussion?

As for "it's their tone, or body language", you're on pretty thin ice. The same goes for "Assumptions are bad when they are caused by bigotry".

Let me ask you: In a new order, would you be the judge to determine that? Perhaps you'd write laws banning hateful body language or tone first.

You see what I mean, don't you?

And there is more of this baiting of your adversary (that's me, fellow leftist, fellow babbler) to wit:

"What you are saying translates easily into "patriarchy, racism, and the corporate order don't exist. Stop 'playing the victim'". Which fits in better in Reform Party rhetoric than anywhere else."

Again, you show thereby the symptom (early, but symptoms nevertheless) of the same old virus which accounts for oppression, intolerance, racism, sexism etc. etc.

Maybe you can eliminate these outward forms of the disease, but, new forms will erupt as long as the virus....... and the conditions which sustain its spread ...... is not detected and made unwelcome. The virus I refer to is our own unexamined reactive tendencies to lash out at perceived others out there, after diminishing them, baiting them, making them guilty of associating with odious causes, or worse. You got to address this in ourselves AS WELL AS the problem institutional forces of injustice in the world. (Mandela did that. So did Ghandi. M. L. King. Starhawk is doing a damn good job at it too.)

Sure...but I also notice you didn't answer the question about the porn or the diapers, and that concerns me. Do you see that the personal is political? Do you see that how we act in our personal lives is important, and for men, this means very specific things we do or don't do?

Women carefully notice these things and do not trust us if we just give lip service. And why should they? How serious are we if we do not change our behavior and thought processes? My wife recently told me about a guy we both know that she dislikes...I was surprised, since he seems okay to me. She told me to notice how he interrupts women when they talk, or changes the subject to one he likes better. He does not do the same to men. And so, I noticed, and she was right. (I admit, unfortunately, I did not really notice until she TOLD me.) I did not HATE the man for this--but I did start saying things like "What were you saying, Sylvia?" etc, when he interrupted women to address me instead. I also would change the subject BACK when he changed it from whatever the women were saying. These are some small things we can do to validate women in our personal lives, and show them we are SERIOUS when we say we want their political participation and all that good stuff you are talking about.

I think you believe the personal is political when it comes to boycotting some product, for example, but maybe you don't see it when it comes to the porn and the diapers?

For instance, I think you understand the importance of my choosing not to live in a segregated neighborhood, and my choice to send my daughter to an integrated public (rather than segregated private) school, right? These are personal choices, but have political consequences. Porn consumption, the choice to patronize prostitutes, doing child care for single women (not just your own kids, either), purposely asking women's opinions at a meeting, are just some random examples of "personal" choices men can make, with political consequences.

Am I to understand you DON'T think 1) the personal is political and 2) identity politics is good? Why does it necessarily lead to "hate"?

SPRING HOPE: The virus I refer to is our own unexamined reactive tendencies to lash out at perceived others out there, after diminishing them....

But as a person with a disability, for instance, don't I need to TELL YOU when you are showing unexamined reactive tendencies? How are you going to know unless I tell you? Plenty of people offend me without really knowing it, just by making certain arrogant assumptions about my capabilities and dismissing me. I can tell them, and they can SHOW ME they mean business by changing, or they can continue in the asshole behavior and I will see for myself they have no intention of giving up privileged assumptions. I assume feminists are similar in their tactics. How are people going to know you are coming from a position of good will unless they 1) tell you first what is expected and 2) see what you do about it?

Apologies for length.

[ September 21, 2002: Message edited by: SuperGimp ]

quote:

---

I "actually" talk to gays, lesbians, and other oppressed people. I found the tone of the whole posting patronizing.

---

quote:

---

Lets make it more personal! (This always gets the party started!) What happens if we try to take away men's porn, or, to be precise, question the political status of the women IN the porn? (i.e. Are you exploiting slave labor?)

How many diapers have the men here changed in their lifetimes? Why or why not?

---

quote:

---

The virus I refer to is our own unexamined reactive tendencies to lash out at perceived others out there, after diminishing them, baiting them, making them guilty of associating with odious causes, or worse.

---

If you as a man have to "validate" or show women or any other person or class of people that you "are serious" in your personal behaviour, and you do this to enlist them for something - even for a great cause - you are disingeneous and well on your way to becoming a politician or ordinary seducer.

I didn't mean to offend you. Please think about it.

You might understand why I am leery about the assertion that the personal is political, because, then, personal behaviour tends to become dehumanized in just the way that you imply. Horrors! Shades of North Korean society under their communist god king! Little flittering shadows of it in some coded behaviour called "politically correct" have even been spotted in our society.

Agreed, how you act in your personal life towards others is important, ultimately, if the sum total of all of us, it is potentially important for all of world society. That is what I've been repeating, repeating, repeating in different ways.

Do as you would have others do unto you, is not a bad saying. It's the other side of the coin to political action.

Interpersonal behaviour, first of all, and intercommunal behaviour, ultimately, must have no ulterior motives behind it.

If you do things because "women" or men or first nations people or.....are watching to see if.........etc your acts are calculated acts.

No woman in any man's life will respect her man doing the diapers as a calculated act for gaining benefits for self or a cause of his. Even men can tell if women treat them in such calculating ways - although it usually takes them a little bit longer.

So, just do it for love, affection, regard, appreciation, honouring etc. in your personal sphere, because.......... Because these are their own reason. Do we really live for anything else........................? And of course politics will be the better for it!

Of course, with the best of intentions, someone will be offended or feel abused or whatever..... sometimes. He or she may interpret your bahaviour in ways that are totally foreign to you, even accuse you of anti-feminine or racist attitudes. But the alleged offence is not your fault. Perhaps you were naive and called women "ladies" in places where this is not nice language. Perhaps you called First Nations People, "native people" and upset someone. It is not your fault. It is the responsibility of the agrieved other to convey how what you said or did caused them to feel agrieved. Then you respond. Etc. Back and forth. Two humans communicating. And so we work things out. And so on into the civil sphere, political parties and movements.

quote:

---

Eek! Supergimp, what are you saying?!
If you as a man have to "validate" or show women or any other person or class of people that you "are serious" in your personal behaviour, and you do this to enlist them for something - even for a great cause - you are disingeneous and well on your way to becoming a politician or ordinary seducer.

---

quote:

---

You might understand why I am leery about the assertion that the personal is political, because, then, personal behaviour tends to become dehumanized in just the way that you imply. Horrors! Shades of North Korean society under their communist god king! Little flittering shadows of it in some coded behaviour called "politically correct" have even been spotted in our society.

---

From here on in, nothing a poster says can make up for making the leap from "changing diapers is a political action" to dehumanization, "communism", and coded behaviour.

SpringHope, your true feelings are becoming more and more obvious. If anything though, you only prove the title of this thread.

SPRING HOPE: Of course, with the best of intentions, someone will be offended or feel abused or whatever..... sometimes. He or she may interpret your bahaviour in ways that are totally foreign to you, even accuse you of anti-feminine or racist attitudes.

I speak not of FEELING abused but actual abuse...I speak not of mere offense but actual oppression. I think interpretations of the behavior are correct, especially after one has made certain thing clear, over and over.

For example: purchasing porn, contributing to an industry that (in the US) is run by the mafia and makes its money off runaway sexually-abused teenagers, illegal immigrant prostitutes and female drug addicts who need money, is an ACT...it is not simply about "offense". You can support this industry or not, as you can NESTLE, or any other industry or company you know to be immoral.

Feminists who feel differently about porn (this is why I didn't start the thread, Adlib!) usually make a point to learn which companies are partly run by women (may even be one owned by a woman? Not sure.) and which are not; which pay the women in the movies a living wage and provide health insurance, etc and which do not...

Like Adlib, I fail to see where changing a diaper leads to the cultural revolution....COME ON NOW.

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: SuperGimp ]

"things we can do TO VALIDATE WOMEN in our personal lives, and show them we are SERIOUS when we say WE WANT THEIR POLITICAL PARTICIPATION and...."

If I am reading it wrong? sorry! But I have seen such disingeneous behaviour between men and women all my life and it makes for shitty relationships or marriages.

Before the feminist movement many women in relationships were disingeneous in "things" they did for their men out of necessity. In recent years I have seen men kowtow to what their women wanted but in doing so they seemed to lose their own voice as well as their mates' respect with it. And women have good reason to be suspicious of such men!

That is why I couldn't read Supergimp's statement in any other way.

Read me again, Adlib, and you'll see that I am talking about genuine motives such as admiration, love and........"being respectful" (your words), etc. I add clear, unhindered communications to that.

Note that this is valid behaviour between all categories of people! All of the time! (Though not tolerating abusive, violent behaviour.)

You bait me as some kind of reactionary. Perhaps I should have mentioned a wider left-right spectrum of personal=political outcomes throughout history to make that harder. (The mixing of personal and political happened in Hitler's Germany too.)

It is common to both the right and the left to demean messengers with contrary information - or even questions. But, unquestioned ideas become ideology, then reasons for intolerance, then suppression. I critique the left and the Women't Movement with whom I generally identify, for what I call "keeping alive the virus of the same disease we are fighting".

"things we can do TO VALIDATE WOMEN in our personal lives, and show them we are SERIOUS when we say WE WANT THEIR POLITICAL PARTICIPATION and...."

If I am reading it wrong? sorry! But I have seen such disingeneous behaviour between men and women all my life and it makes for shitty relationships or marriages.

Before the feminist movement many women in relationships were disingeneous in "things" they did for their men out of necessity. In recent years I have seen men kowtow to what their women wanted but in doing so they seemed to lose their own voice as well as their mates' respect with it. And women have good reason to be suspicious of such men!

That is why I couldn't read Supergimp's statement in any other way.

Read me again, Adlib, and you'll see that I am talking about genuine motives such as admiration, love and........"being respectful" (your words), etc. I add clear, unhindered communications to that.

Note that this is valid behaviour between all categories of people! All of the time! (Though not tolerating abusive, violent behaviour.)

You bait me as some kind of reactionary. Perhaps I should have mentioned a wider left-right spectrum of personal=political outcomes throughout history to make that harder. (The mixing of personal and political happened in Hitler's Germany too.)

It is common to both the right and the left to demean messengers with contrary information - or even questions. But, unquestioned ideas become ideology, then reasons for intolerance, then suppression. I critique the left and the Women't Movement with whom I generally identify, for what I call "keeping alive the virus of the same disease we are fighting".

"things we can do TO VALIDATE WOMEN in our personal lives, and show them we are SERIOUS when we say WE WANT THEIR POLITICAL PARTICIPATION and...."

If I am reading it wrong? sorry! But I have seen such disingeneous behaviour between men and women all my life and it makes for shitty relationships or marriages.

Before the feminist movement many women in relationships were disingeneous in "things" they did for their men out of necessity. In recent years I have seen men kowtow to what their women wanted but in doing so they seemed to lose their own voice as well as their mates' respect with it. And women have good reason to be suspicious of such men!

That is why I couldn't read Supergimp's statement in any other way.

Read me again, Adlib, and you'll see that I am talking about genuine motives such as admiration, love and........"being respectful" (your words), etc. I add clear, unhindered communications to that.

Note that this is valid behaviour between all categories of people! All of the time! (Though not tolerating abusive, violent behaviour.)

You bait me as some kind of reactionary. Perhaps I should have mentioned a wider left-right spectrum of personal=political outcomes throughout history to make that harder. (The mixing of personal and political happened in Hitler's Germany too.)

It is common to both the right and the left to demean messengers with contrary information - or even questions. But, unquestioned ideas become ideology, then reasons for intolerance, then suppression. I critique the left and the Women't Movement with whom I generally identify, for what I call "keeping alive the virus of the same disease we are fighting".

"things we can do TO VALIDATE WOMEN in our personal lives, and show them we are SERIOUS when we say WE WANT THEIR POLITICAL PARTICIPATION and...."

If I am reading it wrong? sorry! But I have seen such disingeneous behaviour between men and women all my life and it makes for shitty relationships or marriages.

Before the feminist movement many women in relationships were disingeneous in "things" they did for their men out of necessity. In recent years I have seen men kowtow to what their women wanted but in doing so they seemed to lose their own voice as well as their mates' respect with it. And women have good reason to be suspicious of such men!

That is why I couldn't read Supergimp's statement in any other way.

Read me again, Adlib, and you'll see that I am talking about genuine motives such as admiration, love and........"being respectful" (your words), etc. I add clear, unhindered communications to that.

Note that this is valid behaviour between all categories of people! All of the time! (Though not tolerating abusive, violent behaviour.)

You bait me as some kind of reactionary. Perhaps I should have mentioned a wider left-right spectrum of personal=political outcomes throughout history to make that harder. (The mixing of personal and political happened in Hitler's Germany too.)

It is common to both the right and the left to demean messengers with contrary information - or even questions. But, unquestioned ideas become ideology, then reasons for intolerance, then suppression. I critique the left and the Women't Movement with whom I generally identify, for what I call "keeping alive the virus of the same disease we are fighting".

quote:

---

Adlib, read doing the diaper thing in Supergimp's paragraph, just above the one which illustrates and ends with his statement about "things we can do":
"things we can do TO VALIDATE WOMEN in our personal lives, and show them we are SERIOUS when we say WE WANT THEIR POLITICAL PARTICIPATION and...."

---

I don't see what's wrong with being validating to the people in your personal life, no can any "disingenous" motives be found in the statement that one must not simply say that one supports women, but one's actions must reflect that.

I think you're seriously reaching here.

quote:

---

I am talking about genuine motives such as admiration, love and........"being respectful" (your words), etc. I add clear, unhindered communications to that.

---

quote:

---

If you, Adlib, could just keep cool while you read people like me

---

"things we can do TO VALIDATE WOMEN in our personal lives, and show them we are SERIOUS when we say WE WANT THEIR POLITICAL PARTICIPATION and...."

If I am reading it wrong? sorry! But I have seen such disingeneous behaviour between men and women all my life and it makes for shitty relationships or marriages.

Before the feminist movement many women in relationships were disingeneous in "things" they did for their men out of necessity. In recent years I have seen men kowtow to what their women wanted but in doing so they seemed to lose their own voice as well as their mates' respect with it. And women have good reason to be suspicious of such men!

That is why I couldn't read Supergimp's statement in any other way.

Read me again, Adlib, and you'll see that I am talking about genuine motives such as admiration, love and........"being respectful" (your words), etc. I add clear, unhindered communications to that.

Note that this is valid behaviour between all categories of people! All of the time! (Though not tolerating abusive, violent behaviour.)

You bait me as some kind of reactionary. Perhaps I should have mentioned a wider left-right spectrum of personal=political outcomes throughout history to make that harder. (The mixing of personal and political happened in Hitler's Germany too.)

It is common to both the right and the left to demean messengers with contrary information - or even questions. But, unquestioned ideas become ideology, then reasons for intolerance, then suppression. I critique the left and the Women't Movement with whom I generally identify, for what I call "keeping alive the virus of the same disease we are fighting".

"things we can do TO VALIDATE WOMEN in our personal lives, and show them we are SERIOUS when we say WE WANT THEIR POLITICAL PARTICIPATION and...."

If I am reading it wrong? sorry! But I have seen such disingeneous motives all my life and they suck. Between men and women they make for shitty relationships or marriages.

Before the feminist movement many women in relationships were disingeneous in "things" they did for their men out of necessity. In recent years I have seen men kowtow to what their women want but in doing so lose their own voice as well as their mates' respect with it. And women have good reason to be suspicious of such men!

That is why I couldn't read Supergimp's statement in any other way.

Read me again, Adlib, and you'll see that I am talking about genuine motives such as admiration, love and........"being respectful" (your words), etc. I add clear, unhindered communications to that.

Note that this is valid behaviour between all categories of people! All of the time! (Though not tolerating abusive, violent behaviour.)

You bait me as some kind of reactionary. Perhaps I should have mentioned a wider left-right spectrum of personal=political outcomes throughout history to make that harder. (The mixing of personal and political happened in Hitler's Germany too.)

It is common to both the right and the left to demean messengers with contrary information - or even questions. By then, unquestioned ideas have already become ideology, which then is the reason for intolerance, sometimes followed by oppression. I critique the left and the Women't Movement with whom I generally identify, for this disease.

"things we can do TO VALIDATE WOMEN in our personal lives, and show them we are SERIOUS when we say WE WANT THEIR POLITICAL PARTICIPATION and...."

If I am reading it wrong? sorry! But I have seen such disingeneous motives all my life and they suck. Between men and women they make for shitty relationships or marriages.

Before the feminist movement many women in relationships were disingeneous in "things" they did for their men out of necessity. In recent years I have also seen men kowtow to what their women want but in doing so lose their own voice as well as their mates' respect - for good reason.

That is why I couldn't read Supergimp's statement in any other way.

Read me again, Adlib, and you'll see that I am talking about genuine motives such as admiration, love and........"being respectful" (your words), etc. I add clear, unhindered communications to that.

Note that this is valid behaviour between all categories of people! All of the time! (Though not tolerating abusive, violent behaviour.)

You bait me as some kind of reactionary. Perhaps I should have mentioned a wider left-right spectrum of personal=political outcomes throughout history to make that harder. (The mixing of personal and political happened in Hitler's Germany too.)

It is common to both the right and the left to demean messengers with contrary information - or even questions. By then, unquestioned ideas have already become ideology, which then is the reason for intolerance, sometimes followed by oppression. I critique the left and the Women't Movement with whom I generally identify, for this disease.

"things we can do TO VALIDATE WOMEN in our personal lives, and show them we are SERIOUS when we say WE WANT THEIR POLITICAL PARTICIPATION and...."

If I am reading it wrong? sorry! But I have seen such disingeneous motives all my life and they suck. Between men and women they make for shitty relationships or marriages.

Before the feminist movement many women in relationships were disingeneous in "things" they did for their men out of necessity. In recent years I have also seen men kowtow to what their women want but in doing so lose their own voice as well as their mates' respect - for good reason.

That is why I couldn't read Supergimp's statement in any other way.

Read me again, Adlib, and you'll see that I am talking about genuine motives such as admiration, love and........"being respectful" (your words), etc. I add clear, unhindered communications to that.

Note that this is valid behaviour between all categories of people! All of the time! (Though not tolerating abusive, violent behaviour.)

You bait me as some kind of reactionary. Perhaps I should have mentioned a wider left-right spectrum of personal=political outcomes throughout history to make that harder. (The mixing of personal and political happened in Hitler's Germany too.)

It is common to both the right and the left to demean messengers with contrary information - or even questions. By then, unquestioned ideas have already become ideology, which then is the reason for intolerance, sometimes followed by oppression. I critique the left and the Women't Movement with whom I generally identify, for this disease.

"things we can do TO VALIDATE WOMEN in our personal lives, and show them we are SERIOUS when we say WE WANT THEIR POLITICAL PARTICIPATION and...."

If I am reading it wrong? sorry! But I have seen such disingeneous motives all my life and they suck. Between men and women they make for shitty relationships or marriages.

Before the feminist movement many women in relationships were disingeneous in "things" they did for their men out of necessity. In recent years I have also seen men kowtow to what their women want but in doing so lose their own voice as well as their mates' respect - for good reason.

That is why I couldn't read Supergimp's statement in any other way.

Read me again, Adlib, and you'll see that I am talking about genuine motives such as admiration, love and........"being respectful" (your words), etc. I add clear, unhindered communications to that.

Note that this is valid behaviour between all categories of people! All of the time! (Though not tolerating abusive, violent behaviour.)

You bait me as some kind of reactionary. Perhaps I should have mentioned a wider left-right spectrum of personal=political outcomes throughout history to make that harder. (The mixing of personal and political happened in Hitler's Germany too.)

It is common to both the right and the left to demean messengers with contrary information - or even questions. By then, unquestioned ideas have already become ideology, which then is the reason for intolerance, sometimes followed by oppression. I critique the left and the Women't Movement with whom I generally identify, for this disease.

I was puzzled why my piece did not appear. I didn't understand the page 1 and 2 thing. Hence the mass of repeats.

Talk about miscommunication.