Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
260. i appreciate you taking account past posts. i value when a poster is able to do that
Sat Mar 17, 2012, 10:35 AM
Mar 2012

Last edited Sat Mar 17, 2012, 11:08 AM - Edit history (2)

instead of working at seeing the worst of who we are. i am going to disagree there is any implication other than what "healthy" is. i chose that word for a reason.

one can be unhealthy in everything be it exercise, eating, drinking, gambling, saving money, spending money, and yes, even sex. there is a balance there. it is different for all of us, and we should know within self at the point of unhealthy. (though, thru experiences that shape us in early life a person may have a tough time recognizing the point of unhealthy or hurtful behavior because they have been unhealthily effected at a young age that messed up the ability) i feel i am about norm, and no different than others. i can feel when i am being unhealthy and when i am not. i assume most all of us can. and yes.... there are places even in sex when one can walk into unhealthy, whatever that would be for them.

for me, that is what is important. that leaves out the judgment, and allows the uniqueness of a person. but it is a reality.

there are a lot of people that believe as you, .... that we can own the word. i do not believe that. what i have watched over the years, and with the net and so many strangers in our homes today, thru the net and what i see in society and the media, i so disagree with you. i think it is clearly evident what a crock it is. whether it is blacks owning the words, and gay community or the women community. i think it is even worse in the women community cause the patriarchy is so ingrained with both genders unknowing participants.

when i hear the very men that are participating with great cheer in the 3rd wave and declaring themselves feminist because they stand for womens rights, then on the other hand denigrate, dehumanize, and are so very disrespectful to women in language, i know the owning of words does not work. they are separating womens sexuality from male sexuality. they are reinforcing that womens sexuality is about mans sexuality, not owned by women. and THAT is an issue to me. the label continues the mentality that women are here to serve. that is the evidence to me, that it is now about individual ownership but a group to serve.

i believe and feel that the words that we use are internalized and we make the words a reality to fit what we tell ourselves. i believe the words we use matter. no child kills themselves with four eyes. they do with the F word or slut.

always good to read your posts, that are almost always opposite of how i see things and almost always looking at the same end result. which makes it fun.

Seems like a very good article to post in the Feminist Forum. nt Old and In the Way Mar 2012 #1
I don't see that happening. UnrepentantLiberal Mar 2012 #2
Not really. MineralMan Mar 2012 #107
Turns out it is getting a good discussion here on GD Old and In the Way Mar 2012 #123
It is. That's what GD is good at, generating discussions MineralMan Mar 2012 #125
It's shame that you can't cross link a post to a specific group though. Old and In the Way Mar 2012 #133
I think many now a day take the personal is political boston bean Mar 2012 #3
Do you agree with her statement: tammywammy Mar 2012 #4
I don't get that. There are lots of men that are far more supportive of feminist ideals then some Jennicut Mar 2012 #7
I agree tammywammy Mar 2012 #11
To me, most women's rights issues are ideological. Jennicut Mar 2012 #16
my husband was an unwavering supporter of Hillary Clinton in 08. He persuaded me that I CTyankee Mar 2012 #101
Keep an eye on Elizabeth Warren KamaAina Mar 2012 #159
I'm a feminist and I didn't support Hillary for President. PassingFair Mar 2012 #162
I humbly say no DonCoquixote Mar 2012 #9
On a side note, about that damned patriarchal power structure Zalatix Mar 2012 #91
I would expand on that... the patriarchal system makes finding a mate even harder! tech_smythe Mar 2012 #244
a step further seabeyond Mar 2012 #262
I would really really like to see the OP's response to that. 2ndAmForComputers Mar 2012 #10
Yes, I do. salib Mar 2012 #205
I tend to agree with you. n/t MadrasT Mar 2012 #206
I would STILL really really like to see the OP's response to that. 2ndAmForComputers Mar 2012 #214
Some of us women run from the angry militancy as well Ruby the Liberal Mar 2012 #5
What angry militancy are you speaking of? boston bean Mar 2012 #6
LOL! The article in the OP, and Ruby the Liberal Mar 2012 #8
Here is what I think boston bean Mar 2012 #13
Thank you, that was helpful insight. Ruby the Liberal Mar 2012 #14
I don't think you could transplant today's 3rd wavers into the culture 30-40 years ago Old and In the Way Mar 2012 #97
You may be Old and In the Way but I'm pretty sure you're not old enough to remember the 1st wavers Gormy Cuss Mar 2012 #134
Yeah, I'm not really up on my waves, I guess. Old and In the Way Mar 2012 #138
Yes, you were talking about second wavers. Gormy Cuss Mar 2012 #139
Actually, back in the late 60's, I was very focused on wave theories. Old and In the Way Mar 2012 #144
There is nothing wrong with being angry with other women. Daemonaquila Mar 2012 #192
You mean the sort of angry militancy that tells hetero women they can't be feminists if they're Warren DeMontague Mar 2012 #235
She lost me at: LadyHawkAZ Mar 2012 #12
Very well stated. Thank you! Ruby the Liberal Mar 2012 #15
i had to go back and read the article, because i did not hear her say any of that. seabeyond Mar 2012 #17
I think LadyHawk is commenting on the final paragraph mackattack Mar 2012 #19
that was some interpretation. nt seabeyond Mar 2012 #21
Really? Ruby the Liberal Mar 2012 #22
Well, when the author states... mackattack Mar 2012 #23
i think the difference would be seabeyond Mar 2012 #28
Forget interpretation, did you find the overall tone to be positive and welcoming? Ruby the Liberal Mar 2012 #31
Julie Bindel encourages women to become political lesbians tammywammy Mar 2012 #36
ha ha. thanks. i appreciate that. i am going to read that tomorrow. seabeyond Mar 2012 #44
Try finding some of her other articles when you get time. tammywammy Mar 2012 #48
i did. actually i didnt seabeyond Mar 2012 #53
I get ya tammywammy Mar 2012 #55
traditional views of women and feminists themselves... much softer, appealing yet powerful force. seabeyond Mar 2012 #131
I read the article mackattack Mar 2012 #47
So she doesn't ACTUALLY want equality... so much as to flip the table tech_smythe Mar 2012 #248
that is just an opinion of the poster seabeyond Mar 2012 #263
It wasn't just the one sentence LadyHawkAZ Mar 2012 #76
SB... you seem to forget YOU'RE a reasonable person tech_smythe Mar 2012 #246
i love you..... seabeyond Mar 2012 #261
What? Blacks get to express hatred of white oppression and still get good corporate jobs? Really? saras Mar 2012 #216
That is the subtitle of the article stevenleser Mar 2012 #199
You hit the nail on the head Major Nikon Mar 2012 #51
Here's a black woman speaking about First and Second Wave Feminism... MicaelS Mar 2012 #185
Wow. +1. n/t lumberjack_jeff Mar 2012 #117
This writer's opinions would be on the extreme edge of second wave thought Gormy Cuss Mar 2012 #137
That is true. nt boston bean Mar 2012 #172
You beat me too it but that is what lost me too. See my #195 stevenleser Mar 2012 #198
Very Well Put. n/t ElboRuum Mar 2012 #224
"For heterosexual women, feminism can be a nightmare." mackattack Mar 2012 #18
I'm pretty sure that is not what the author meant. boston bean Mar 2012 #24
Ah! So "radical" is ok, but "militant" isn't. Ruby the Liberal Mar 2012 #26
Radical feminists locate the root cause of women's oppression in patriarchal gender relations seabeyond Mar 2012 #29
In saying it "sounds radical" boston bean Mar 2012 #30
So you feel that the article, being not radical, represents mainstream acceptable 2012 feminism? Ruby the Liberal Mar 2012 #34
I think that nothing in that article boston bean Mar 2012 #40
I am not asking for homogeneous - just the opposite. Inclusion. Ruby the Liberal Mar 2012 #43
That is a two way street, Ruby. boston bean Mar 2012 #49
There. Is. No. Patriarchy. Ruby the Liberal Mar 2012 #56
wow. nt seabeyond Mar 2012 #59
Do you get class warfare? Ruby the Liberal Mar 2012 #72
+2 double wow! Little Star Mar 2012 #104
see post 62 boston bean Mar 2012 #64
The second wave argument is.... mackattack Mar 2012 #70
Howdy! I *do* get that. My claim is that it is outdated. Ruby the Liberal Mar 2012 #74
Ahhhh ok mackattack Mar 2012 #78
As a Marxist Ruby, I agree with you, EXCEPT......... socialist_n_TN Mar 2012 #124
You are monumentally correct. hifiguy Mar 2012 #140
I'm glad I'm not a feminist. It seems very complicated. scarletwoman Mar 2012 #82
It seems very complicated. mackattack Mar 2012 #90
this is going to be the next seabeyond Mar 2012 #98
My HERO. Ruby the Liberal Mar 2012 #93
There is - first of all, look at the undeniable fact that women are not paid equal to men. chrisa Mar 2012 #197
Are you serious? Tumbulu Mar 2012 #212
This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Mar 2012 #240
"...is the struggle for equal rights between men and women. Not for men. Men already have more..." lumberjack_jeff Mar 2012 #126
we are multi task oriented and falls under human rights and equality. i dont think it is tough seabeyond Mar 2012 #128
If it were about equality, it wouldn't be necessary to multitask. n/t lumberjack_jeff Mar 2012 #130
of course. you are in a male movement. you focus on male issues. seabeyond Mar 2012 #132
Heh. Pretty exclusive "movement". lumberjack_jeff Mar 2012 #143
what i am really about done with, is people that ignore what is said seabeyond Mar 2012 #145
I can't ignore what you don't say. lumberjack_jeff Mar 2012 #149
and at the very least seabeyond Mar 2012 #156
It wasn't my intent to criticize and yes. You ARE the one who speaks up. lumberjack_jeff Mar 2012 #166
interesting. i really do LOVE discussing this with you seabeyond Mar 2012 #169
why should feminism have to worry about it? Scout Mar 2012 #135
Fine. You chose "eat the cake" lumberjack_jeff Mar 2012 #141
oh poor pitiful lambs, it's the evil feminist's fault... Scout Mar 2012 #168
I'm not whining. I'm saying. lumberjack_jeff Mar 2012 #170
maybe this post isn't, but many of yours are. you're nothing if not consistent. Scout Mar 2012 #173
"Consistent" I think this word means something other than what you think it means. lumberjack_jeff Mar 2012 #178
I read your post last night and had some thoughts to share with you Tumbulu Mar 2012 #231
That is a generalization that I would not make. lumberjack_jeff Mar 2012 #233
More later I'm on the road Tumbulu Mar 2012 #245
I misunderstood. lumberjack_jeff Mar 2012 #250
if she see's fit, yes Tumbulu Mar 2012 #251
back now Tumbulu Mar 2012 #249
not what the author says mackattack Mar 2012 #52
Two different sentences in two different paragraphs. boston bean Mar 2012 #71
Two different sentences in two different paragraphs...???? mackattack Mar 2012 #75
I was replying to your response to me, where I was speaking originally of this quote: boston bean Mar 2012 #83
Oh, no no no mackattack Mar 2012 #87
I understand mackattack Mar 2012 #27
This is where I think the problem arises. boston bean Mar 2012 #33
Or, people have heard it for ages, REJECTED it, and just now Ruby the Liberal Mar 2012 #41
What I am saying Ruby, is you can believe what you would like. boston bean Mar 2012 #46
Okay, hows this. I am woman. I am empowered. I am NOT OPPRESSED. Ruby the Liberal Mar 2012 #54
That is what you believe. boston bean Mar 2012 #62
Because I am not supremacist. Ruby the Liberal Mar 2012 #65
Come again? boston bean Mar 2012 #73
What do you replace it with Ruby the Liberal Mar 2012 #77
Replace it with Equality. nt boston bean Mar 2012 #79
So in acheiving that goal, feminist men are unwelcome. Ruby the Liberal Mar 2012 #81
I wrote "Replace it with Equality" - as in replace the patriarchy with Equality, not a Matriarchy.. boston bean Mar 2012 #85
But the author never calls for that mackattack Mar 2012 #84
It was an article written for feminists, meant to be interesting to read. boston bean Mar 2012 #86
I can see how someone might see it as radical. But truly, it is not. mackattack Mar 2012 #88
She is speaking of a certain type of feminist boston bean Mar 2012 #89
Last I heard, the generally used definition of feminism was "equality for women". lumberjack_jeff Mar 2012 #122
for me, in my opinion, i think seabeyond Mar 2012 #127
"Equality for men" would be advocacy, not a search for equality. lumberjack_jeff Mar 2012 #129
you can keep asking, but if you ignore my answer seabeyond Mar 2012 #142
The system which created a congress 83% male... lumberjack_jeff Mar 2012 #120
This message was self-deleted by its author tammywammy Mar 2012 #68
EXCELLENT post, Grasshopper! obamanut2012 Mar 2012 #110
That is exactly what she meant, that is what she is known for obamanut2012 Mar 2012 #109
Some Feminists give Feminists a bad name. Germaine Greer comes to mind. William769 Mar 2012 #20
Here's an interesting article tammywammy Mar 2012 #32
Very interesting. Thanks. William769 Mar 2012 #39
See muriel_volestrangler's post #35 for more links tammywammy Mar 2012 #42
gee, that can be said about any group of people, don't you think William? n/t Scout Mar 2012 #136
Of course. It just seems more pronounced in some more than others. n/t William769 Mar 2012 #148
back atcha. "more pronounced" in some than others. Scout Mar 2012 #174
What nonsense. Odin2005 Mar 2012 #25
you know the one poster seabeyond Mar 2012 #37
That has zero, zip, nada, nothing to do with the OP. Ruby the Liberal Mar 2012 #45
you dont know what i am talking about. seabeyond Mar 2012 #57
LOL! Ok. Ruby the Liberal Mar 2012 #66
I have a pretty good idea what you're talking about Major Nikon Mar 2012 #80
That's not at all the point of the article. Daemonaquila Mar 2012 #193
Who the fuck said we can't talk about rape? Odin2005 Mar 2012 #247
Julie Bindel is highly controversial muriel_volestrangler Mar 2012 #35
I have no idea what this post is about Canuckistanian Mar 2012 #38
It is a promotion of 2nd wave feminism Ruby the Liberal Mar 2012 #50
It is amazing that almost every post I click on has a reply from you. You are crazy great. HangOnKids Mar 2012 #102
Ah! Thanks for the translation. HappyMe Mar 2012 #106
No, it isn't a promotion of 2nd wave feminism. It's a promotion of Bindel's curious and twisted take Gormy Cuss Mar 2012 #153
Youve probably heard it described as Womens Liberation mackattack Mar 2012 #60
Transphobic "feminism" needs to be consigned to the rubbish bin. Starry Messenger Mar 2012 #58
+1000! William769 Mar 2012 #63
+1 n/t tammywammy Mar 2012 #69
+1 n/t fishwax Mar 2012 #94
Yes! Vanje Mar 2012 #95
well said, short and to the Point. Whisp Mar 2012 #100
Exactly == "funbots" isn't demeaning to women? obamanut2012 Mar 2012 #111
Thank you Catherina Mar 2012 #179
+1. Clearly, some insults to women are more acceptable than others. 2ndAmForComputers Mar 2012 #213
The more I see, the more I'm convinced it's religious fundamentalism oozing out in a different form. Warren DeMontague Mar 2012 #236
I support both radical and fun fishwax Mar 2012 #61
i.... seabeyond Mar 2012 #67
basically I just think that fishwax Mar 2012 #92
excellent. thank you seabeyond Mar 2012 #99
Heres a thought - quit trying to define yourself as a "2" or "3" Ruby the Liberal Mar 2012 #103
for me seabeyond Mar 2012 #115
How could you have been born at the beginning of the Third Wave obamanut2012 Mar 2012 #119
i was born at the time women of the 3rd wave was born, not 2nd... nt seabeyond Mar 2012 #121
All men are not your enemy. SomethingFishy Mar 2012 #96
Not to make light of feminism, MadHound Mar 2012 #105
Julie Bindel, the OP article's author, is extrememly transphobic obamanut2012 Mar 2012 #108
Movements that are exclusive, rather than inclusive, tend MineralMan Mar 2012 #112
After reading that, I declare that I am a fun feminist. ZenLefty Mar 2012 #113
Yummy! What kind? obamanut2012 Mar 2012 #114
Gluten free peanut butter cookies with funbot sprinkes! ZenLefty Mar 2012 #118
That'll work -- I love peanut butter obamanut2012 Mar 2012 #147
I can't reconcile these two sentences. lumberjack_jeff Mar 2012 #116
A hateful bigot who doesn't understand Generation Y. Not surprising. Prism Mar 2012 #146
Great post, Prism obamanut2012 Mar 2012 #150
Really?! Prism Mar 2012 #152
I wouldn't say she's against marriage equality tammywammy Mar 2012 #188
I've read she is against all marriage/civil unions obamanut2012 Mar 2012 #210
Very well said. n/t lumberjack_jeff Mar 2012 #154
Yep. Spot on. "Puritanism is the nagging feeling that someone, somewhere, might be happy" Taverner Mar 2012 #157
very good post. thank you. i appreciate it seabeyond Mar 2012 #158
Radicalism works, until it doesn't Prism Mar 2012 #252
It started with Girl Power and has sunk into mindless hedonism. Why has sexual equality backfired? seabeyond Mar 2012 #160
Isn't calling a woman or group of women "hedonist" a form of an attempt at slut-shaming? stevenleser Mar 2012 #201
+ 1 ! Vanje Mar 2012 #209
Yes, it's slut shaming n/t obamanut2012 Mar 2012 #211
interesting article, thanks for the link Tumbulu Mar 2012 #221
This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Mar 2012 #242
I think we're watching a pendulum in motion Prism Mar 2012 #253
when you have an increase seabeyond Mar 2012 #259
The thing is, have 50 and 60-somethings EVER wrote about 20something trends and approved? Warren DeMontague Mar 2012 #266
I had not ever heard of Bindel prior to this. boston bean Mar 2012 #163
The question of gender MadrasT Mar 2012 #180
There's no reason The Philosopher Mar 2012 #227
It's not a debate I particularly enjoy Prism Mar 2012 #254
Awe-inspiring post cthulu2016 Mar 2012 #165
It's posts like this that make visiting DU every day a very worthy experience! bullwinkle428 Mar 2012 #176
Nailed it. As always. Catherina Mar 2012 #186
Very nice post. Rex Mar 2012 #189
Beautifully stated. nt Starry Messenger Mar 2012 #190
It's hard to take anything she says seriously knowing her bigotry toward Transgendered people stevenleser Mar 2012 #203
Not thrilled with her "political lesbianism" either Prism Mar 2012 #255
some great points there -- nice post fishwax Mar 2012 #207
Great post! nt Vanje Mar 2012 #208
really well written. thanks. La Lioness Priyanka Mar 2012 #217
Wow. This was a genuine pleasure to read. LadyHawkAZ Mar 2012 #229
Why can't we bookmark replies? LiberalAndProud Mar 2012 #238
This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Mar 2012 #239
Gay men are always throwing a monkey wrench into 2nd wave Prism Mar 2012 #256
maybe it is not about her believing that it is a reality. maybe it is making a point. seabeyond Mar 2012 #264
This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Mar 2012 #265
She should be happy that feminism is going mainstream, I believe. chrisa Mar 2012 #151
how has owning the word slut as in slut walk, worked for us? seabeyond Mar 2012 #161
Maybe the word can never be owned, but its power can be taken away. chrisa Mar 2012 #164
i get the concept. i played it, too. i think we clearly show an example how the power was not seabeyond Mar 2012 #167
another kinda way out there thought, that i would like to explore seabeyond Mar 2012 #171
I'm afraid that these examples are the end results of the oversexualization of our kids librechik Mar 2012 #187
yes, I agree (nt) Tumbulu Mar 2012 #218
I'm going to try to address both the above posts in this one LadyHawkAZ Mar 2012 #243
i appreciate you taking account past posts. i value when a poster is able to do that seabeyond Mar 2012 #260
Aw jeez...not this shit again Taverner Mar 2012 #155
... Rex Mar 2012 #184
does anyone besides me hate "Slutwalks?" librechik Mar 2012 #175
Never heard of a slutwalk Rex Mar 2012 #181
post 167 and 171. have been thinking about this seabeyond Mar 2012 #182
I'm with you Tumbulu Mar 2012 #219
A strong woman is not a strident woman. naughty nina Mar 2012 #177
Poor troll Rex Mar 2012 #183
A strong Pizza served is not a bad pizza! Thanks MIRT/Admins! stevenleser Mar 2012 #200
I welcome your complete scorn... Oh, wait... ElboRuum Mar 2012 #226
What a load of horsecrap - no such thing as "proper, radical feminism." Daemonaquila Mar 2012 #191
+1 - I have been re-educated by being here on DU these last few weeks. Whisp Mar 2012 #204
Amen to that Alcibiades Mar 2012 #223
This is dehumanizing. Funbots? mahina Mar 2012 #194
Article starts with a failed premise: "If your brand of feminism seems good to men, its bad" stevenleser Mar 2012 #195
BINGO!!!!!!!!!!! nt TeamsterDem Mar 2012 #215
Um, seems a sexist thing to say what "most men" do TeamsterDem Mar 2012 #196
There are too many feminists aren't there? CreekDog Mar 2012 #202
OK, another chiming in DonCoquixote Mar 2012 #220
Thread went about as expected. flvegan Mar 2012 #222
I saw this song and dance performed live twenty years ago Sen. Walter Sobchak Mar 2012 #225
Can we go back to women's liberation? Alcibiades Mar 2012 #228
the author has a few good points but its clouded by her desire to denigrate women La Lioness Priyanka Mar 2012 #230
+1 Rex Mar 2012 #232
This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Mar 2012 #234
The "radical" feminism I encountered on DU has made me lose a lot of sympathy for feminists... DutchLiberal Mar 2012 #237
The author of the posted article is a hater of transsexual people and in general a self Bluenorthwest Mar 2012 #241
Whatever bluestateguy Mar 2012 #257
NEWS FLASH: A 180-degree total inversion of humankind will never, ever happen. dogknob Mar 2012 #258
This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Mar 2012 #267
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Why "fun feminism&qu...»Reply #260