This message was self-deleted by its author

[Warren DeMontague]

This message was self-deleted by its author (Warren DeMontague) on Mon Apr 1, 2019, 04:04 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[DavidDvorkin]

1. Darn. I was going to trademark The Patriarchy, but I see I was too late.

[tech_smythe]

2. i thought it was trademaked by the other side?

after all, if we're in it, why do we need to tm it?
BTW... what triggered this anyway?

[mistertrickster]

3. Swinging by the "Feminists" forum

is like going back 40 years.

Do these folks have no NEW IDEAS in four decades? It's all "pornography is bad, very very bad," (it objectivizes women, GASP!), "DUers blame women for their rapes as much as everybody else" (yet, oddly, there's no "Feminist group" over at FreeRepublic), "rapists are just normal men, doing what normal men do" . . . etc. etc.

I could never figure out how some poor SOB who was busting up concrete with a jackhammer is more "privileged" than freaking Paris Hilton, but by damn he IS just because he's part of "the patriarchy."

It's kinda like having the name Goldstein and being told you must be part of the world-wide Jewish control of banking and finance.

[Warren DeMontague]

8. In honor of the Feminists Group's, er, apparent altercation with the LGBT group, I think we should

pick a group to have a knock-down, post-lockin', thread-rippin', tear ass battle with.

I'm open to suggestions. Maybe Smoking Cessation? Birders? I know- Cooking and Baking! Fuck those folks! Suck on a muffin, ya cooking-baking-heads!

[tech_smythe]

12. you say that now... but wait till you've had my cookies

you'll be all like "omfg this is good, what were we fighting about?"

[mistertrickster]

13. Yup, it's true that both LGBT and women have been

discriminated against and are still discriminated against.

But to see people arguing about WHO is the most discriminated against is rather ludicrous, imho.

[Warren DeMontague]

14. I think- as an unaffiliated observer- the 'fight' was stirred up; or escalated- deliberately

by an external entity only interested in making trouble and watching the results.

Fortunately it seems folks have figured that out, now.

[WhoIsNumberNone]

17. Is THAT where all this fur started flying?

Seems like certain members of those two groups have been combing DU for the last week or so looking for stuff to alert on. It's getting out of hand if you ask me.

[mistertrickster]

20. I say, let's go for the Marxists! Since I'm a member of that group,

I can attack myself.

[stevenleser]

26. There are third wavers who post there, me being one of them. Of course, 3rd wavers are generally

attacked whenever they address some of the differences between themselves and traditional feminist advocates, but that is another story.

[Warren DeMontague]

27. Oh, would that that fight could be so easily defined as all that. 9 Dimensional Rugby, is what it is

don't even get me started on the recently banned transphobic, yet at the same time oddly gender amorphous themselves, sock puppets.

Still trying to figure out which folder to file that shit in.

[stevenleser]

28. LOL, now THAT is a visual. 9 Dimensional Rugby. Wow!

[tech_smythe]

29. forgive my ignorance... but what's a 3rd waver?

i think i vaguely know the term in politics? but not in this context.

[stevenleser]

30. My apologies, good question

Long and good article on wikipedia here---> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-wave_feminism

I think this paragraph sums up well:

Third-Wave theory usually incorporates elements of queer theory; anti-racism and women-of-color consciousness; womanism; post-colonial theory; postmodernism; transnationalism; ecofeminism; libertarian feminism; new feminist theory, transgender politics and a rejection of the gender binary. Also considered part of the third wave is sex-positivity, a celebration of sexuality as a positive aspect of life, with broader definitions of what sex means and what oppression and empowerment may imply in the context of sex. For example, many third-wave feminists have reconsidered the opposition to pornography and sex work of the second wave, and challenge existing beliefs that participants in pornography and sex work are always being exploited.[4]

[Upton]

31. So, in other words..

third wavers are more sex positive feminists as opposed to the old style sex negative feminism we see championed here at DU by the usual suspects....

Do I have that straight?

[stevenleser]

32. That is one difference, yes, but there are several others.

Many third wavers felt that the second wave skewed to the viewpoints of upper-middleclass straight white women. The third wave aims to be more inclusive of the experiences and viewpoints of many other groups of women to include women of color, lesbian and transgendered women, etc. The whole idea of the gender binary is thoroughly rejected by third wavers.

[Upton]

36. Thanks..

I tried reading your wiki link, but my head began to hurt about the time my eyes started to cross..your post was informative though. I think I have a good handle on the differences now. I also know which side I support.

[stevenleser]

37. You're welcome. Well, tell us, which side do you support? nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

34. Thanks Steven, that was helpful.

[RKP5637]

38. Thank you, this was helpful!!! My head was spinning. Excellent definition. n/t

[stevenleser]

33. I'll give you some insight into the thinking of a third waver. This one lady I knew who was big into

third wave feminism wanted to change the rape shield law. She felt that shielding the name and face of the rape victim implied that patriarchal society felt that the woman had a reason to be ashamed. She said that was bullshit. A rape victim has nothing of which to be ashamed and thus has/had no need to have her name and face hidden.

Not all third wave feminists would agree with that, but as you can see, third wavers tend to have very different ways of looking at feminism than second wavers.

[MicaelS]

75. And if you do bring up the point of "privilege" as you stated..

Then the goalpost get moved to "Women get beaten and killed by their male "partners", all the time."

So when you read between the lines what you get is:

"Every man, no matter his socioeconomic level, is a simply a "wife" beater, rapist, or murderer in waiting."

[Broderick]

4. lmao

[libodem]

5. Did Wienergate

Make you sick? Seeing the word "wiener" all over GD threads for a month. Did you ever feel like it was your personal set of genitalia being discussed. Did you run locking and ignoring all that Wiener talk. Just wondering?

Does the word bastard infuriate you? What about Dick?

[Broderick]

6. All the cock talk was rather unnecessary when backed up with pictures

Like this one:

[libodem]

10. That is pretty chicken

[aptal]

16. Beautiful Cock!

[Warren DeMontague]

7. It made me so upset, I crashed my car.

[libodem]

9. OMG

That's funny. Were you clutching your pooka shell choker?

[Warren DeMontague]

11. All I know is, Rick Santorum showed up and started yelling at my Garage about how it was "ungodly"

[Upton]

15. What Patriarchy?

I've got a female governor and both my senators and rep are women as well. I guess throwing out labels goes hand in hand with refusing to acknowledge progress..

Like has been referred to upthread, the less than a handful of "feminists" that control their group here at DU are living back in the Dworkin/Mackinnon 80's. Which is no doubt why much of their arguments have a distinctly anti sex, anti male tone to them.

[Warren DeMontague]

18. "Jesus! I was just looking for a quiet place to have a drink!"

[Rex]

40. Oh yeah I remember that night.

What the hell were they so mad about?

[Matariki]

21. Pardon my estrogen

but damn, this thread is funny! LOL

[kdmorris]

22. Pardon my estrogen, too...

Holy shit.. suck on a muffin!

Sorry... just came through because I was looking for something in the Topics list and saw that there was a Men's Forum.

[Old and In the Way]

23. Here's a dick with a smiley face.

Just found this forum....I don't really know what the purpose of this forum is, but if it is 1/10 as entertaining as the feminist forum....I'll have to start checking in on a regular basis.

[Warren DeMontague]

24. I see your confusion, but I was thinking more along the lines of a smiling penis

you know, like this:

[Ruby the Liberal]

25. Or this.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

39. This place is funny like "Oh....ha!"

Over there it's funny like a laugh riot but after awhile you just get sad.

[Warren DeMontague]

47. Purpose?

Who said things need a purpose?

[libodem]

41. pearl clutching

Any equivalent term make you guys lose your shit?

[libodem]

43. priggish

Behavior offends me, too. I'm having an outrage overload. Kidding. I resent manipulation and control no matter who attempts it. Get those egg shells out for the language police.

[Upton]

45. You think that's bad..

I was on a jury last month in which the alert was sent for calling Michelle Bachmann an "airhead"..

I mean, we're talking THE Michelle Bachmann here...she IS an airhead. If you can't criticize her on a Democratic board, where can you?

Thankfully, in this case the jury slapped the alerter down 6-0, but it goes to illustrate just how frivolous some of these alerts are..

[Major Nikon]

49. That must have been before men started thrusting (raping) during sex

Ah the good ol' days.

[Major Nikon]

51. I've actually read a couple of Dworkin's books

If you really want to know how mentally disturbed she really was and/or you just need a good chuckle, read Intercourse.

[Tsiyu]

52. I think some people never had any good sex

But bad sex might make you mean.

I also think that there are a lot of people who grew up with distorted/mangled/shame-filled/painful/authoritarian notions of their personal sexuality, and they are working it out. The perverted churches add to people's negative experiences with sex.

"Sex is the most vile, filthy, disgusting sin imaginable and you should save it for someone you love."

I'm thinking more of women in a sense of having a negative view of sex, but men too have sexual hangups that interfere with their interpretations of others' and their own sexuality. And those hangups can be frightful, especially because sex can have such life-altering consequences, adding an element of risk to an already frightening endeavor.

Patience is a good thing.

And also, don't try to tell me there is no Patriarchal Conspiracy. ( tm here ) You might not be in on it, just like you're not having dinner with the Rmoneys and the Kochs, but that dinner is still taking place.

When legislators are regulating the female body to the degree that they are, no sane person can say that these assaults on women's rights are not inspired by an entrenched Patriarchy (sorry, dunno how to make the tm sign on this kb) in legislatures all over this nation.

These laws are fucking scary. Anyone with daughters should pay attention.

[Tsiyu]

54. Well, see, there is likewise no "Feminist Conspiracy" to discourage penetrative sex

There may be individual feminists (and Catholics, and others) who might argue against it, but I can promise you, in my 53 years, no feminist has ever suggested to me personally that I am being "raped" if I enjoy intercourse.

Never Happened.

Sex with a penis and a vagina (and whatever other orifices show up) ain't goin' nowhere. No danger of it being phased out any time soon. Any more than liquor is gonna get banned because some Southern Baptists think it's a sin to drink.

Women (and men) merely writing how they feel about the "politics" or ethics of intercourse do not a hazard, conspiracy or threat to sex make.

Women's reproductive rights are very much at risk. Can you put yourself in the shoes of a women - your own daughter or lover perhaps - who is facing a risky pregnancy, learning that if she ends up in certain states, they will let her die just so her baby can live inside her as long as possible? Can you imagine how it feels to have your rights to birth control denied, while watching men's access to Viagra be subsidized? Come ON!

While it is true that woman and men are pro-choice in about the same numbers ( growing numbers, fortunately in recent polls ) ....

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/womens-health/articles/2011/07/26/americans-show-rising-support-for-abortion-rights-poll

...it is also true that there is no legislation pending in any US political body ( no pun intended ) that I know of which seeks to outlaw or restrict consensual penetrative sex. When there is such a law, I will be the first to protest.

And, while your right to not countenance noxious, offensive and authoritarian opinions is certainly acknowledged, your discomfort with said speech cannot in any way, shape or form be made comparable to a woman's being denied the right to have control over her own reproductive choices.

Your annoyance isn't going to lead to an unplanned pregnancy.

[4th law of robotics]

55. As to a feminist conspiracy against penetrative sex .. . .

I think you should check out Sweden's rape laws:

http://redroom.com/member/sunny-singh/blog/do-swedens-rape-laws-infantilise-women-regardless-of-julian-assange

When consensual sex can be deemed rape due to an "unequal power structure between the two parties", and men are assumed to have more power, that effectively makes any hetero sex rape according to the law.

[Tsiyu]

56. I do not live in Sweden

American legislators are responsible for the loss of my rights.

If the Swedish laws adversely impact you, my condolences.

[4th law of robotics]

57. I don't live in pakistan

but I think the burning of women there for blasphemy is wrong.

Not so?

Also along that note: republicans here haven't actually overturned Roe v. Wade.

The concern is that things are moving in that direction, not that it has happened already.

I could see a similar law being implemented here in the future, the way things are going.


Men are already assumed pedophiles if they seek to be around children at all. Why not rapists for seeking to be around women as well?

[Tsiyu]

58. Not sure what your point is

But I've learned you rarely have one.

If you're saying, "Well, they've taken away your reproductive freedoms all over the States, but sheesh! Roe v. Wade is still intact so what's your problem?" that's pretty fucked up.

If you're saying that some far-fetched notion that intercourse will someday possibly, maybe, by some really outlandish stretch of the imagination, be outlawed is EXACTLY the same as having your reproductive rights actually taken away, that's even more fucked up.

Empathy ain't a strong suit; self-pity perhaps?

[4th law of robotics]

59. You claimed there was no feminist movement to ban penetrative sex

I showed you an example of basically such a ban (although not in name. Just like closing all planned parenthoods in a state isn't technically a ban on abortions).

You said this doesn't matter because it's in Sweden.

I pointed out that A) it was the trend in this direction that concerned me and B) that just because it occurs in another country doesn't mean it's ok.

You then replied with feigned confusion and ad hominems.

I think we're all up to speed now.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

60. And don't forget, there are many people.....

....who like to tell us how we need to implement "progressive" sex laws from other countries here.....

[Tsiyu]

66. When they start implementing them

lemme know

KNowing a real threat from a distant threat is a great trait if you want to keep the government out of people's genitals..

If you only care about men's genitals, why just come out and say so.

We women actually ARE having our rights taken away - hetero men not at all.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

67. "If you only care about men's genitals, why just come out and say so."

Ridiculous attack formulated by reading all of three posts by me. Just because I do care about men's genitals does not preclude caring about women's genitals. Apparently for you it does. You've certainly made that a lot clearer in this post than anything I've said in this thread.

I've condemned the religious right, the fascists and authoritarians and their war on all free thinking people of both genders when it comes to sex and health and will continue to do so. Do you?

Let's make this simple. Give your opinion on the Swedish law.

On edit: I noticed you threw in "hetero men". This is the men's group, there's no sign on the door addressing sexual orientation. I find that throw in curious.....and divisive.

[Tsiyu]

61. Your comparisons and false equivalence are frightening

and absurd.

Seriously.

But you knew that.

[4th law of robotics]

62. More ad hominems

[Tsiyu]

65. You don't get to call it ad hominem

just because your argument is lame

[4th law of robotics]

71. And again

are you actively trying to support my statements?

[Tsiyu]

72. This is the way I view what is being argued here

I am not trying to bash anyone, derail your thread or taint your group. Promise.

This will be the last post here so pay attention:

Let's pretend - for the sake of argument - that Mitt Romney and one of the Firefighters who has just been told he will only make miminum wage are having an argument:

Mitt: "There's no war against public sector workers or the working class! What bunk! How paranoid can you get! Luls!"

Firefighter: "Beg to differ, Bucko. The Republican mayor just cut my pay to $7.25 an hour! How am I supposed to raise my three kids on that pay?"

Mitt: "He He He. Just be glad you still have a job! Why, I've read several internet posts where people say they want me to lose all my money and have absolutely NO pay!"

Firefighter: "Huh? Are you serious?"

Mitt: "Of course I am! Can't you admit that me losing all my money someday would be far, far worse than you only making minimum wage today? I mean, really. I feel so threatened!"

Firefighter: "Wait. What? You're saying you're at an equal disadvantage to me? That some nebulous threat on someone's blog somewhere in cyberspace is exactly the same as my pay being cut yesterday?"

Mitt: "Why yes, and you should be happy you're not me! I could lose everything! At least you get $7.25 an hour!"

That's the way I view the arguments here. False equivalence in its purest state.

Here's where we women stand:

2011 marked a banner year in the Republican war on woman’s health. Close to 1,000 anti-abortion bills sped through state legislatures as the GOP-led House led a “comprehensive and radical assault” on a federal level. But in surveying their arsenal this year, 10 bills stood out as particularly perturbing and far-reaching efforts to stymie women’s access to abortion services, birth control, and vital health services like breast cancer screenings. Here are ThinkProgress’s nominations for the most extreme attacks on a woman’s right to choose:

Redefining Rape: Last May, every House Republican and 16 anti-choice Democrats passed H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act. Anti-choice activists Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) tried to narrow the definition of rape to “forcible rape,” which meant that women who say no but do not physically fight off the assault; women who are drugged or verbally threatened and raped; and minors impregnated by adults would not qualify for the rape and incest exception in the Hyde Amendment. Smith promised to remove the language but used “a sly legislative maneuver” that essentially informs the courts that statutory rape cases will not be covered by Medicaid should the law pass and be challenged in court.

– Abortion Audits: The No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act also bans using tax credits or deductions to pay for abortions or insurance. Thus, a woman who used such a benefit would have to prove, if audited, that her abortion “fell under the rape/incest/life-of-the-mother exception, or that the health insurance she had purchased did not cover abortions.” This requirement turns the Internal Revenue Service into “abortion cops” who, agents noted, would have to force women to give “contemporaneous written documentation” that it was “incest, or rape, or [her] life was in danger” which made an abortion necessary.

– Let Women Die: This October, House Republicans also passed the “Protect Life Act”, known by women’s health advocates as the “Let Women Die” bill. The measure allows hospitals that receive federal funds to reject any woman in need of an abortion procedure, even if it is necessary to save her life. Though federal law already prohibits federal funding of abortions, the GOP insisted that the health care law “contains a loophole that allows those receiving federal subsidies to use the money to enroll in health care plans that allow abortion services.”

snip: More at:

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/12/27/395239/the-gops-10-most-extreme-attacks-on-a-womans-right-to-choose-an-abortion/


If you're maintaining here that male sexuality is in as much peril as female reproductive choice, you will have to do a far better job convincing women. Merely quoting Dworkin is not gonna cut it.

And for those saying I "brought up hetero just to divide" that is horse shit. I brought up the distinction because homosexual male (and female) sexuality is legislated against often, so one cannot say the threat against homosexual males is nil. It's very real. That's all there was to to that.

Carry on.

[4th law of robotics]

74. In a women's forum dedicated to women's issues

if someone came in and interrupted a discussion about women with "yeah, well men have it worse in XYZ!". So for instance discussing women's bodies issues someone kicked in the door and said "yeah but more are far more likely to kill themselves so me have it much much worse, you women don't even understand".

They would get "ah but what about teh menz!" sarcastically in response shortly before being banned.

You have done the same thing in reverse (but with some ad hominems thrown in).

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

63. He wasn't saying that at all.....just the opposite

If you don't get that....don't really know what else to say to you other than good day.

[Tsiyu]

64. good day n/t

[hifiguy]

76. Charles Darwin would laugh himself into unconsciousness

reading such drivel. As would any other evolutionary biologist one might name.

How do individuals stupid enough to believe this garbage manage to tie their own shoes?

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

77. Well....you know who hates Darwin and evolutionary biologists....

....just sayin'....