"Women's Issues" are "Side Issues?"

2004 posts / 0 new

Comments

Quote Zenzoe:

D_NATURED, check out what Capital said here: "So while you may hope and dream of Equal status, you are not, nor will ever be equal." Nice, eh?

You are not and will never be equal to he...or any other lower primate. I'm sorry, Zenzoe, but he's right. You are way over their heads...

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm
Quote D_NATURED:

Yes, I understand, it just seems like there's a lot of attention payed to improving the "sensation" of intimacy. In a sense, that's like the quest to create a better hot fudge sundae. They have lubes and potions, and now devices, that are intended to heighten sensual pleasure. Where does it end, with the orgasmatron? Or better yet a device that looks like a gun and you just point it at the genitalia of your intended "lover" and squeeze the trigger. Maybe sex is too important to leave it to people to perform. Maybe we could just have surrogate porn-bots doing it perfectly in our stead.

We can, then, stand back and watch the skill with which our sexual surrogate satisfies its mechanized mate. And if it's still not initiating robotic rapture, we can order the optional titanium man-missile, integrated with the next generation vi-bro, which no fem-bot can withstand. Or, if you run a fem-bot of your own, perhaps you would be interested in the new, user installable, vagi-matic retreads for all popular models.This week only, buy one case of KY's original robo-lube and get a free t-shirt.

What ever happened to the good ol' in and out without the closet full of equipment? I'm circumcised. Wasn't my choice. I still don't think I'm damaged or that I need to make it more sensitive. My wife would beg me not to.

You are one wonderful guy, D. Don't ever change!

Quote D_NATURED:

You are not and will never be equal to he...or any other lower primate. I'm sorry, Zenzoe, but he's right. You are way over their heads...

Ah-h, that's so nice to hear. But of course, we are not the same, and, as you know, sameness isn't the point! We have different talents, different minds, different everything. But we're still equals, by virtue of our basic humanity. We're still entitled to equal opportunity, etc., etc., etc. I think you know this speech...

I've known men like Capital, men who carry a lot of disdain for women. But usually they don't come right out and admit it like that.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Zenzoe & D_NATURED,i still stand by all my posts and why cannot friends disagree?? When the negatives outweight the positives,it`s a different story. I will move on with my forest view of the trees and the same with your's tree view of the forest. I like to ask this question,if the "say no to drugs" was a failure,what make you think saying no to sexism,etc.. will work?? Zenzoe,you say change start from with in the person,that sound almost like going to the root of a problem? If people aren`t born as sexist/racist, where should the change start?

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Ah-h, that's so nice to hear. But of course, we are not the same, and, as you know, sameness isn't the point! We have different talents, different minds, different everything. But we're still equals, by virtue of our basic humanity. We're still entitled to equal opportunity, etc., etc., etc. I think you know this speech...

Yes, I've even written it a couple of times. As for "sameness" vs equality, I think that one phenomena that enables sexism is the way people attribute masculine and feminine qualities to certain human traits. Courage and wisdom get to be masculine traits though they are no less present in women. Nurturing and compromise get to be feminine traits though they are no less valuable to men.

We deliberately pigeon-hole ourselves according to gender and deny ourselves the full quiver of human attributes that WE are capable of because they don't fit our baby making equipment.

This is one area where the individual change is vital. It's one thing for society to try to tell us what we should and shouldn't be like based on gender, it's another thing for us to hog-tie ourselves. We can't blame anyone else when we deliberately suppress parts of ourselves that don't fit our preferred stereotype. That sort of sexism is the fully internalized type that is, in my opinion, more dangerous than anything the one percent can throw at us.

I've known men like Capital, men who carry a lot of disdain for women. But usually they don't come right out and admit it like that.

The only thing worse than a douche bag is an honest one. We all come by our opinions through life experiences as much as by hearing others opinions. So, when men have a disregard for women, it is often because their relationships with them have been underwhelming.

Imagine the sad irony of someone being too full of resentment and outdated attitudes to appreciate women as equal participants in this life and, thus, remain unable to create meaningful relationships from which a more loving opinion of women is derived.

I have a friend who used to be a better friend than he is now. He is divorced and not seeking love and hasn't for over a decade. He has been very quick to accuse my wife of having total control over me, even advising me to save up an "I told you so" for later use, when I need leverage in an argument.

What he doesn't realize is that the desire to remain free of another's influence, is a relationship killer. You can't spend your love measuring and counting and avoiding the impositions of your mate rather than embracing the benefits they bring to your life. No woman wants to be treated like something that must be kept at arms length or judged mercilessly. No man wants that either.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm

Actually, tayl, drug and alcohol use has declined overall, as a trend, since "Just Say No": http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/charts/chart1.html

Although I would agree that the so-called war on drugs is a failure, and Nancy Reagan's motto naive, I think we would have to agree that the stigma associated with drug use, as well as information/education, has had the effect of sending the trend of drug use downward. That's one good reason to believe that any trend toward sexism and racism can be sent downward as well, as long as we apply a stigma, while providing education. You seem to claim ownership of the answer to problems, as if you know how to get at the "root," but we do not. I don't agree with that either. Going after the "root" has to be a multi-pronged attack, not just one, magical cure.

I must refer tayl to what D_NATURED wrote here: "This is one area where the individual change is vital. It's one thing for society to try to tell us what we should and shouldn't be like based on gender, it's another thing for us to hog-tie ourselves. We can't blame anyone else when we deliberately suppress parts of ourselves that don't fit our preferred stereotype. That sort of sexism is the fully internalized type that is, in my opinion, more dangerous than anything the one percent can throw at us."

I guess we all have our "pet oppressor," or favorite answer to, or cause of, the problems of our times. Tayl's is the 1%. My favorite culprit is similar to D_NATURED's, or so it seems to me:

Quote D_NATURED:

Yes, I've even written it a couple of times. As for "sameness" vs equality, I think that one phenomena that enables sexism is the way people attribute masculine and feminine qualities to certain human traits. Courage and wisdom get to be masculine traits though they are no less present in women. Nurturing and compromise get to be feminine traits though they are no less valuable to men.

We deliberately pigeon-hole ourselves according to gender and deny ourselves the full quiver of human attributes that WE are capable of because they don't fit our baby making equipment.

This gets to the heart of the problem, I'd say. I might add that our main problem as a society —for the 1% and the 99%— boils down to a preference for masculinity over femininity, toughness over nurturance, hardheartedness over mercy, coldness over warmth, cruelty over tenderness. Rather than the spirit of wholeness, a blend of the two poles of masculinity and femininity, as our value, the culture opts for the hard choice every time— war rather than diplomacy or policing; torture rather than empathetic interrogation; drones rather than ethical justice; nuclear power rather than sun and wind. It just amazes me: If it's horrible, it gets to stay; but if it's sane and reasonable, it's got to go. And this goes for the misogynistic trend in rap, tayl: Verbal insult and cruelty against women —hiding behind bravado— rather than honest feeling.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Zenzoe,if you believe that study,i have a bridge to sell you.(half joke) The proof that study is wrong,is the failure of the war on drugs.The failure is so bad,that California will probably legalize marijuana election day this year.Lessons from the past,women voted for prohibition,it didn`t work.The only way to stop a problem,is take away the reason.That`s basic logic,i didn`t invent common sense.Everybody has common sense,right? Yeah,if they use it. If you think suppress sexism is stronger than anything the 1% can do,all i can say is "prove it"??

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Btw, tayl, does the following song work for you as the woman's answer to misogynistic rap? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z8NP0eI4Og  

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:Don't ever change!

If I could could keep from changing I wouldn't, that's why we humans don't get a choice. Evolution must trudge ahead with us or without us. The trick is not to keep from changing but to try to make sure that, whatever you change in to, it's something better than you are now. So far, I think humanity's batting about five hundred.

BTW, I know what you mean...thanks.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm

Zenzoe,this song is too weak to match the one you`re upset about,but why torture yourself viewing this stuff? Rap make money for people in a dying empire,adding to all the other things that`s going on,these people can do a lot worser.

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Let's get something straight, tayl. I have no problem with rap music, per se. I think it's a wonderful, creative invention of creative minds. I have a problem with misogynistic rap, which is weak music written by and for sexist males, weak, because it denigrates women and treats them like trash. It is the essence of weakness to displace your anger about your status in culture onto someone you can bully, that is, to scapegoat a vulnerable group, i.e., women. It's bullying, plain and simple. Misogynistic rap, given that it displaces legitimate grievances born of racism onto women, as an expression of, by and for bullies, adds new meaning to the very notion of weakness.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Rap make money for people in a dying empire,adding to all the other things that`s going on,these people can do a lot worser.

No, they can't do "worser". The reason this empire is dying is that its participants are too ignorant to create something better.

If treating women like shit is just another buisiness opportunity for a racial underclass, maybe the empire SHOULD die. What you are saying is that, when things get bad, we shouldn't care how bad.

I disagree. Now is the time to care MORE.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm

D_NATURED, following up on my comment, above (This gets to the heart of the problem, I'd say. I might add that our main problem as a society —for the 1% and the 99%— boils down to a preference for masculinity over femininity, toughness over nurturance, hardheartedness over mercy, coldness over warmth, cruelty over tenderness. Rather than the spirit of wholeness, a blend of the two poles of masculinity and femininity, as our value, the culture opts for the hard choice every time— war rather than diplomacy or policing; torture rather than empathetic interrogation; drones rather than ethical justice; nuclear power rather than sun and wind. It just amazes me: If it's horrible, it gets to stay; but if it's sane and reasonable, it's got to go.), I wonder if you saw 60 Minutes last night? They interviewed the thug, Jose Rodriguez, the former head of the CIA's Clandestine Service. Anyway, he defended the torture used on high-level al Qaeda detainees, sickeningly so. And he validated my point, when he said, "...everybody in the agency had to put their big boy pants on..." See what I mean? Ultimately, it really boils down to hyper-masculinity as the driver of policy.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

D_NATURED, following up on my comment, above (This gets to the heart of the problem, I'd say. I might add that our main problem as a society —for the 1% and the 99%— boils down to a preference for masculinity over femininity, toughness over nurturance, hardheartedness over mercy, coldness over warmth, cruelty over tenderness. Rather than the spirit of wholeness, a blend of the two poles of masculinity and femininity, as our value, the culture opts for the hard choice every time— war rather than diplomacy or policing; torture rather than empathetic interrogation; drones rather than ethical justice; nuclear power rather than sun and wind. It just amazes me: If it's horrible, it gets to stay; but if it's sane and reasonable, it's got to go.), I wonder if you saw 60 Minutes last night? They interviewed the thug, Jose Rodriguez, the former head of the CIA's Clandestine Service. Anyway, he defended the torture used on high-level al Qaeda detainees, sickeningly so. And he validated my point, when he said, "...everybody in the agency had to put their big boy pants on..." See what I mean? Ultimately, it really boils down to hyper-masculinity as the driver of policy.

I refuse to accept cruelty as the defining masculine quality. Men, as well as women, should be up in arms about such a stupid comment. Actually, contrary to what Mr. Rodriguez said, what we all need to do is slip on something lacy and learn to talk to each other.

I'm sure I'm not the first to think of this but, maybe women should start wearing men's clothing. And maybe men who support women's rights should start dressing in women's clothes, just to flip the paradigm on its head. The fashions for women have, historically, been balls and chains. You can't out run a rapist in a hoop skirt. You can't defend yourself against charges of genetically predisposed frivolity by covering yourself in shiny baubles. Women have been set up by a male dominated society to disprove and disregard their own usefulness and some gladly obliged.

You're right, though. It's obvious that there is a, perhaps worldwide, preference for the masculine. Our species has taken what could have been a full house, discarded the three "useless" females, and played their pair of kings, bet everything on them...and lost.

We can't win when we only play half of the team. That needs to be the slogan for women's rights. Another slogan might be, "don't be a dick, be a man".

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm

Zenzoe & D_NATURED,i have no more to add to this thread,if i see some progress on "solutions",i see if i can help and learn again.I hope you understand my logic,i have to move beyond bad rap arguments and cannot do worser than bad rap and continue use of a fail solution.If you cannot understand,that`s more the reason to move on.

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I remember when rap music was a phenomenon that could be described as "grassroots culture." It used to be about expressing a wide range of opinions on things, a form of expression notable for conveying insight and criticism. Once it started to become popular is when it began to be corrupted by money.

nimblecivet's picture
nimblecivet
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I'll have to come back later to respond to the good comments I read —long day, me tired— but I just wanted to tell tayl that Al Sharpton, on his show Politics Nation on MSNBC, tonight used the Gandhi quote ("Be the change you wish to see in the world.") in reference to how young people can make a better society. I wanted to post the video, but I can't find it yet. Well, maybe tayl saw it already...I hope.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45755884/vp/47196716#47197139  It's there, but on the 3rd or 4th video segment, at the end.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote D_NATURED:

I'm sure I'm not the first to think of this but, maybe women should start wearing men's clothing. And maybe men who support women's rights should start dressing in women's clothes, just to flip the paradigm on its head. The fashions for women have, historically, been balls and chains. You can't out run a rapist in a hoop skirt. You can't defend yourself against charges of genetically predisposed frivolity by covering yourself in shiny baubles. Women have been set up by a male dominated society to disprove and disregard their own usefulness and some gladly obliged.

I want to take your comment metaphorically, for the moment, rather than as a literal call for cross-dressing. When you refer to "fashions," I'm thinking of the stereotypes society has designated for men and women, that is, woman ='s "frivolity" and also care, love, polite deference, etc., and man ='s aggression, dominance, "cruelty," etc. (and I agree it's insulting for male to be equated with cruelty) Of course, the literal meaning works as well, and I wholly agree with, "Women have been set up by a male dominated society to disprove and disregard their own usefulness and some gladly obliged," in a literal sense, thinking of high-heels, "shiny baubles," heavy, charcoal-lined eyes, and the rest of our feminine attire that set us up to be objects first and people last. However, the metaphorical sense means more to me right now, because of what has happened between Alberto Ceras and me over on the blog post side of this forum. It's on my mind this morning, and your comment fits perfectly with what I need to say.

Anyway, D's comment helps me to understand the problem with AC's complaints about me, beginning with this complaint: "I see you, Zenzoe, as confined in your box of feminism and never likely to get out of it." Notice that he sees feminism as a "box," in other words, a constraining ideology that prohibits freedom. He said this, after I responded to his excusing of father-child incest with what he objected to as "vulgarities," namely by calling him, "Mr. Self-satisfied, Creepy Son of a Prick," and telling him he was thinking with his gonads.

What I failed to point out is exactly what D_NATURED reminds me of: the box AC resides in wants women to behave like "ladies," i.e., as within the stereotyping assigned to us by a patriarchal culture, the one where we remain under control, posing no threat to the entitlements of men, even those granting them rights to rape their own children. Thus, he cannot help this next complaint about me: "Wild ravings such as Zenoe's are clear indications of a person who has lost control." Lost control! That is, I failed to wear the clothes assigned to me by his patriarchal mind-set —I did not respond with care and understanding to his opinion, but, instead, shot insults at him— and he was upset by that.

Alberto loves the tout the reputation of the creative artist as the iconoclast, the breaker of social norms, the flouter of conventions, both in art and life. He thinks of them as breaking out of "the box," and he loves to remind us how society responds with horror and disapproval, wanting always to ban the unconventionality it cannot abide nor tolerate. Well then, how ironic that when I refuse to dwell in his "box" of conventionality about women's roles and wish to break out of it, not only wish to but try to smash it to pieces, he decides he wants me banned from the forum! Ha! I am the iconoclast he wants to ban!

Alberto, in wanting me banned, exhibited a betrayal and abandonment of his love of the iconoclast and revealed his true character—a conventional, common, ordinary patriarchal poop.

Clearly, Alberto is the one who resides in a box— the box of sexism and patriarchy. And that box holds to a conventionality and tradition as old as any other. Thus, when he looks at feminism, he wants to describe it as a box, projecting onto me a pinched mind-set he himself practices and exhibits —the clothes he wears— every time he complains about women who don't behave according to convention ("those horrible feminists").

In fact, the feminist in me seeks freedom, true freedom from the sort of constraining attire imposed on me by the Albertos of the world. And freedom means I can wear any damn thing I want, whether it offends the delicate sensibilities of sexists or not. Try to imagine how little I care. I will care, when it's appropriate, and no sooner.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

If we are all destined to exist from the perspective of a box, the least we can do is see what the boundaries are and break through where we can. Don't embrace confinement as tradition. Our attitudes are learned from childhood and we, as adults, must rethink what we think we think. It's part of being responsible, moral.

Of course the privileged don't want equality. Of course women's rights is not high on the male "to do" list. But there are a few of us who have considered what it's like to walk a mile in high heels, to be little more than a hole to so many. What a fucked up world. What a cruel genetic, geographic lottery people are part of.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm

You have a way of making true statements, one after another, D_NATURED. It's very good to read what you write.

And yes, we learn so much from childhood influences, much from parents, or peers, but also much from TV, videos and movies. If we want to know where people learn about the "boxes" we inhabit, or those that restrict our freedom, it doesn't hurt to look at the media we consume.

Speaking of misogyny, like we do here from time to time, what the hell is misogyny, anyway? Hatred of women? No, it’s more than that. It is not only hatred of the Feminine, which means the fear of feminine characteristics manifesting in the male psyche, but it is also hatred of masculine characteristics manifesting in the female psyche. I think you've noticed this too.

I don't know if you've read Derrick Jensen's stuff, but in The Culture of Make Believe, he writes of a conversation he had with a critic by the name of George Gerbner. There he quotes Gerbner as saying:

Quote George Gerbner:

Because most scripts are written by and for men, they project a world in which men rule, and in which men play most of the roles. Television and movies project the power structure of our society, and by projecting it, perpetuate it, make it seem normal...

Let’s say you try to countercast, or change the typical casting in a typical story. A woman, now, is going to wield power. She is going to use violence. Suddenly, you can’t tell any story other than the one that describes why this is so. The story has to revolve around why a woman is doing things that seem scandalous for her, yet seem normal for a man.

I've certainly noticed how that's done. And it is true whether violence is a factor in the story or not. Take the fact, for example, that the majority of American scripts where an older man is sexually involved with a younger woman: The story is never required to be about the discrepancy in their ages; their age difference is often not an issue, may not even be mentioned, and the story —some other issue— functions, regardless. That is because, as Jensen might explain, the “power structure of the society” is not threatened there. In contrast, just try to find a script where the woman is in a sexual relationship with a younger man, but the story is NOT about their age discrepancy.

I could give examples, but it's getting late— wait a minute...oops, it's time for the Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert hour. Can't miss that! (speaking of media...)

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Zenzoe,thanks for info/link and Gandhi wise words.I`m trying to progress on his wisdom to "How to be the change you wish to see". Change is a part of life,for good or bad.How far either will go depends on how "deep the roots are".

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Tayl, I'm so glad you were able to get to the Al Sharpton comments, if that's what you did. He's such a cutie pie, don't you think? Not that I intend to demean his person; he's a serious guy, of course. I just think he's adorable. ;-) And, of course, I'm glad if you now appreciate the Gandhi quote, especially because I know it's such a difficult thing to do, that is, be the change you wish to see in the world. I'm afraid I fall short of it all the time, especially if the change I'd like to see includes world peace! As you know, I don't exactly exhibit a peaceful attitude all of the time. But then, when I think about it, peace doesn't mean passivity, or compliance with injustice, or evil. I do think the change I'd like to see in the world also includes a zero-tolerance for cruelty and the abuse of vulnerable populations and individuals. Zero tolerance must include anger too. As St. Augustine said, "Hope has two beautiful daughters. Their names are Anger and Courage; anger for the way things are, and the courage to change them." I always liked that one.

I am also ambivalent about violence. I know for a fact that had I ever been raped, given the opportunity, I would have gladly killed my rapist. But, in a way, part of the change I'd like to see in the world would be where women fight back in no uncertain, merciful terms. Am I wrong?

Quote Derrick Jensen:

“Violence...is a demonstration of power, and the real issue, once again, is who is doing what to whom. If time and again you hear and see stories in which people like you—white males in the prime of life—are more likely to prevail in a conflict situation, you become more aggressive, and if you are in the same culture, and a member of a group or gender that is more likely to be victimized, you grow up more insecure, more dependent, more afraid of getting into conflict, because you feel your calculus of risk is higher.

That...is how we train minorities. People aren’t born a minority, they are trained to act like a minority through that kind of cultural conditioning. And women, who are a numerical majority of humankind, still are trained to act like a minority. The sense of potential victimization and vulnerability is the key.”

I wanted to thank Nimblecivet for his comment earlier. I know he's busy, and it's time consuming to try to maintain conversations on more than one thread. However, I don't really know enough about rap music to be able to discuss it. Maybe tayl or D_NATURED, or somebody else knows more?

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
You have a way of making true statements, one after another, D_NATURED. It's very good to read what you write.

Thanks. I wish my "truth" were a little less depressing. At least you have your big girl pants on and could handle it.

I called Dave Sirota this morning on my local liberal talk radio and that asshole called me "heartless" for saying that people who go to war should expect to be injured or killed. He apparently exists in the famous American box where people think we can engage in military adventures without OUR guys getting hurt. We Americans, even lefties, seemingly have this feeling of exceptionalism that corrupts our every attitude, till we stop making sense. That's what boxes do.

I'm not heartless for pointing it out. He's heartless for maintaining the "OORAH" religion of the military, even when it is demonstrably false, and he's naive for thinking that people can go to war and remain unscathed, physically or mentally.

Don't think the military doesn't play a role in the subjugation of women too. They are very anti-feminine. In fact, the very first thing the military does to recruits is put them in a philosophical man box that they are not allowed to exit from.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm
Quote D_NATURED:
You have a way of making true statements, one after another, D_NATURED. It's very good to read what you write.

Thanks. I wish my "truth" were a little less depressing. At least you have your big girl pants on and could handle it.

I called Dave Sirota this morning on my local liberal talk radio and that asshole called me "heartless" for saying that people who go to war should expect to be injured or killed. He apparently exists in the famous American box where people think we can engage in military adventures without OUR guys getting hurt. We Americans, even lefties, seemingly have this feeling of exceptionalism that corrupts our every attitude, till we stop making sense. That's what boxes do.

I'm not heartless for pointing it out. He's heartless for maintaining the "OORAH" religion of the military, even when it is demonstrably false, and he's naive for thinking that people can go to war and remain unscathed, physically or mentally.

Don't think the military doesn't play a role in the subjugation of women too. They are very anti-feminine. In fact, the very first thing the military does to recruits is put them in a philosophical man box that they are not allowed to exit from.

Right, and rape of female soldiers and Marines is commonplace within the military these days.

Of course, I didn't hear your call to Sirota— wish I had. But as you describe it, it sounds like you made a very valid point. I mean, what do they expect? It's the very notion of citizens as fodder for the war machine that is heartless. And I'm sure many listeners understood your point and were happy to hear it.

I also think you would not be heartless in the presence of a family that had lost a son or daughter, or toward a soldier's suffering from PTSD. I, for one, know very well you are not heartless. Far from it.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Zenzoe,i agree with most of your post. I like Sharpton for calling out people,but he and other progressive hosts need to have better solutions to all the problems they talk about. "Women fight in merciful terms"? We should all fight in merciful terms,when possible.We don`t have to fight fire with fire or eye for an eye, when we focus on the big picture.Example,we are at war with terrorists and terrorism is a tactic.The big picture is the terrorists politics.Yes,it would be a lot easier to be the change in the world,when we know how to do it? How do we get race/sex education in the schools? Why isn`t Sharpton and others hitting pressure points about this and other issues like public banking?

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Because Al is myopic. Black issues seem to be his primary and central issues. Much like Zenzoe and women's rights. Many people have their platforms, at the expense of the "big picture" with all of it's details. Human nature for most people.

dhavid
Joined:
Jul. 16, 2010 10:41 am
Quote dhavid:

Because Al is myopic. Black issues seem to be his primary and central issues. Much like Zenzoe and women's rights. Many people have their platforms, at the expense of the "big picture" with all of it's details. Human nature for most people.

It's not myopia for women and black people to be concerned about equality in this country. They have been the historical recipients of the lion's share of oppression. What you are saying is the equivalent of saying someone whose ass is on fire is myopic for repeatedly asking for a bucket of water. Please indicate you understand that and aren't just being defensive because you think everything is equal now. It's not.

The "big picture" shows a lot of white men with their heads up their asses.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm
Quote tayl44:

"Women fight in merciful terms"? We should all fight in merciful terms,when possible.We don`t have to fight fire with fire or eye for an eye, when we focus on the big picture.Example,we are at war with terrorists and terrorism is a tactic.The big picture is the terrorists politics.

Well, in principle, I agree. That is, I agree that governmental fighting fire with fire, as in the war on terror, sometimes only makes things worse. Terrorists come in all sizes and shapes, where governments and corporations are concerned. However, where individuals in their private lives are concerned, sometimes it's necessary to fight back with equal force. I am not a pacifist.

Quote dhavid:
Quote tayl44:

Why isn`t Sharpton and others hitting pressure points about this and other issues like public banking?

Because Al is myopic. Black issues seem to be his primary and central issues. Much like Zenzoe and women's rights. Many people have their platforms, at the expense of the "big picture" with all of it's details. Human nature for most people.

Hi dhavid.

This attitude, the one that says, "You can walk, but don't try to chew gum while you're walking," that is, look at the "big picture," but don't you dare focus on anything else at the same time, makes me laugh. Plainly, it's a silly attitude. Only if you are ignorant of history can you hold such a view; only if you're ignorant of the times surrounding the women's suffrage movement and the civil rights movement, for example, or any of the advancements toward human rights witnessed in history, can you criticize us now for focusing on current injustices. Many "big picture" issues existed during those times as well, issues such as war, and if people had had to limit their concerns to such "larger" issues, we would not have made the progress we have made in areas dhavid and tayl seem to think don't matter much.

Quote D_NATURED:

It's not myopia for women and black people to be concerned about equality in this country. They have been the historical recipients of the lion's share of oppression. What you are saying is the equivalent of saying someone whose ass is on fire is myopic for repeatedly asking for a bucket of water. Please indicate you understand that and aren't just being defensive because you think everything is equal now. It's not.

The "big picture" shows a lot of white men with their heads up their asses.

Yay, D_NATURED! That definitely is the "big picture." Truer words were never spoken.

I think defensiveness must be a factor, either that or projection—after all, isn't it "myopic" to say only their favorite topics are topics worth discussing? I don't do that to them. I have NEVER said the topics they're concerned are not important —I've commented on those many times here— or that I am not also outraged and horrified about American foreign policy and the problem of wealth inequity. But, if I dare to discuss issues that affect me personally, issues that contribute to the continuing oppression and abuse of women, I suddenly have a "platform," whatever that means. Whatever it means, it tries to shame me for bringing up bad things that happen to women in this culture. I think that's what's known as social conditioning.

Males, of all races, benefit from such oppressions and abuses, thus, to hear about it causes discomfort, and they need to stigmatize it, or risk looking at their own behaviors and attitudes toward women.

This is not the first time on Thom's forum that I have been told by certain males, in so many words, that my focus on women's issues is myopic. I've been characterized as being "prickly pear," that I am "confined in a box of feminism," and other insults. I mean, even where one progressive male posts a blog making comments excusing, justifying and rationalizing pedophilia and child rape by a father, he is not dismissed outright and shamed by all other males for trying to do so. He is coddled by silence, instead. Sure, attempts were made to counter his arguments, but those were temperate and fell short of condemnation. Can you imagine, if some person had come here and excused, justified and rationalized slavery —"Well, Jefferson had slaves, and there's a long tradition of slavery all throughout history, and I hope blacks can have open minds toward their enslavement..."— can you imagine any other reaction than condemnation? But, because the victims of incest between father and daughter are little girls, females, suddenly it becomes difficult to condemn it, to see what's wrong with that and condemn it in no uncertain words.

Oye.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I think the men who think your oppression is not the "big picture" can't imagine a big picture that doesn't have them in it. Whether they agree with Ayn Rand or not, they are coming from a place of selfishness. Certainly the big picture must include them. It does, just not as a victim. They fail to see the connection between the second class citizenship of women and black people as an affront to humanity as a whole, as the big picture.

There is this attitude, as Kerry demonstrated in the Sane Conversation thread, that acts like men advocating for women is an affront to manhood. He says "You're the man", or calls me "big guy", but what he really means is something much less than manly. White people who advocate for black people to have equal rights are also often treated as traitors to their race and derided as "nigger lovers", a similar dismissal. I happily accept these epithets on these forums because I know that men who feel small and powerless lash out at the strengths they don't possess. It means I'm doing something right.

As Kerry implied, I must, of course, be plying you with supportive statements for no better reason than to win your girly admiration, not your equality. The relations between men and women, for such neanderthals, exist in a perpetual state of caveman, where no higher motives can be trusted. His "I'll still respect you in the morning, honey" barb is his way of saying women don't really deserve respect and I'm phony for acting like they do. Men and women are OPPOSITES, in the misogynist mind, not equals. As opposites, they get the opposite of the freedom that males enjoy. See? It's all fair.

The great thing about the internet-and I'm not changing topics-is that anonymous little weaklings can spew things they would never feel brave enough to say to a real person. Thus, all of these latent bigotries and biases get exposed to a light they would not otherwise. As a result, their idiocy can be displayed without them having to physically answer to anyone-which is good for the bigot-and their words can be an eye-opener to others who might have thought these attitudes were extinct-which is good for intelligent dialogue moving forward.

I would like to thank Kerry and others who have made plain the scope of human rights issues that still exist in the twenty first century. I also would like to thank Zenzoe for helping to bring me around on some of my own attitudes. I will still respect you in the morning, Zenzoe, because you deserve it, as a decent human, not because you're a woman.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm

Zenzoe & D_NATURED, where has anybody say," to only focus on the big picture"????? You miss my point on fighting,the point is to fight intelligently,whether individual or community.To say no to drugs,isn`t a intelligent way to stop drugs,that`s an example of my point.Am i saying "stop saying no to drugs"?

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Thanks so much, D_NATURED. It hasn't seemed to me you needed much bringing around, but I appreciate the compliment. And I've never thought of your support for women's rights as condescending. I think most feminists would wish to be respected for their humanity, not for being members of the "opposite" sex and needing a boost for being "weaker." I never did get Kerry's "I'll respect you in the morning" bit. But then, a lot of his comments make no sense to me.

On the other hand, one can't deny the reality that sometimes we are vulnerable and need protection from our stronger brothers. And any moral support is always welcome.

I've got a slight fever today and a cold, so I'll just relate a little story about my mother and be done here for today.

Okay, so my mother was in her eighties and living at a senior retirement center. She had her own condo there and still had a car. One day, she wondered if her car needed oil, but she found she was unable to lift the hood of the car to check on it. Nearby, at the center's tennis court, a couple of old guys were playing tennis, so she went over there to get their help. And how did she get their attention? By calling out as loud as she could through the fence, "Hello...could you help me? I need the male muscle."

To tayl: Fair enough. You're right.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote dhavid:

Because Al is myopic. Black issues seem to be his primary and central issues. Much like Zenzoe and women's rights. Many people have their platforms, at the expense of the "big picture" with all of it's details. Human nature for most people.

Nuff said. What is obvious is obvious, except to the myopic.

dhavid
Joined:
Jul. 16, 2010 10:41 am

Zenzoe,why is one weak for needing help??? I say it again,that`s 1% thinking.If you need government ,the opposition say you want welfare.If a man need help lifting something that`s normal,but a women? A women started a revolution in Egypt by calling on men to protect her when she go to protest the government,is she weak?? We need to free our minds, if we going to change anything,right? Zenzoe,that fever/cold must really be bad,did you say i was right? (joke)

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote dhavid:

Because Al is myopic. Black issues seem to be his primary and central issues. Much like Zenzoe and women's rights. Many people have their platforms, at the expense of the "big picture" with all of it's details. Human nature for most people...

Nuff said. What is obvious is obvious, except to the myopic.

Quote D_NATURED:

It's not myopia for women and black people to be concerned about equality in this country. They have been the historical recipients of the lion's share of oppression. What you are saying is the equivalent of saying someone whose ass is on fire is myopic for repeatedly asking for a bucket of water. Please indicate you understand that and aren't just being defensive because you think everything is equal now. It's not.

The "big picture" shows a lot of white men with their heads up their asses.

Nuff said, except for white men with their heads up their asses.

Quote tayl:

Zenzoe,why is one weak for needing help???

You misread and misunderstood the point, tayl. When a writer puts quotes around a word, or phrase or sentence, it sometimes means supposed (doubtful or suspect), and/or the writer doesn't agree. For example, I put quotes around weaker, because I don't think we're weak.

Why do you keep working so hard at finding me wrong? That's what I wonder.

And, yes, it's a doozy of a cold. My immune system has been freaking out, big time. And, because of that I don't have a lot of patience today for BS.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Zenzoe,i never have time for BS.I would never imagine your thinking the female is weak,i refer to sexist,s/opposition thinking that. Get well.

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

When made to distract from the presidents terible record and attack on the 1st amendment by trying to make the catholic church break their beliefs by having to provide birth control it is a side issue compared to the economy.

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm
Quote CollegeConservative:

When made to distract from the presidents terible record and attack on the 1st amendment by trying to make the catholic church break their beliefs by having to provide birth control it is a side issue compared to the economy.

"College" conservative? How you managed to get into college with such pitiful spelling, grammar and writing skills I can't imagine. The standards for admission must have been lowered significantly, after I graduated from college.

Tayl, I have no idea what you're saying.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

My observation is that there are no "side issues." It seems most everyone has an issue, a cause, something central which forms a sort of center is the constellation of their personality. To the individual this issue is "central." For the gay person it may be gay rights, for the war hawk it may be that we need to have a BIG military, for the mother who lost a child to a drunk driver it may be MADD, for the woman who grew up during the womens rights movement this continuing struggle may be central. Al Sharpton's central issue seems to be black rights. He used his tv show to force the issue of Travon Martin ad nauseum. He would not have done the same if Travon had been white. For me it is the pursuit of the spiritual dimension of life.

Each has their issue, and to each their issue is central, as is the ego.

Why is this not obvious?

dhavid
Joined:
Jul. 16, 2010 10:41 am

Dhavid, now you're talking about individual focus as a normal aspect of the human personality. And you're explaining it without putting it in pejorative terms. Earlier, however, you put it in pejorative terms, calling it "myopic." That's not exactly flattering. Myopic is usually intended as an insult. And the reason criticism of Sharpton for his focus, for example, rings dubious is this: Do you criticize journalists who focus on sports, journalists such as Dave Zirin, for being "myopic?" I mean, the criticism seems to cherry pick, where the subjects of race or gender pose discomforting questions. But maybe I misunderstood you. That's always possible.

Anyway, I'm glad to know you don't think any issues are "side issues." I agree with that, obviously.

The reason I took your comment as an insult, dhavid, is that you've criticized me before for my feminist focus, or at least joined with NL and A in such criticism. (remember?) So, pardon me if I'm a little bit sensitive on that score.

It may also be that your own focus on spirituality felt dismissed, when, every time you brought a quote to me, or tried to introduce a spiritual leader or idea, I inevitably rejected it on account of "sexist" elements, or whatever. I have a hard time with any religion, because of what looks a lot like misogyny to me, in the texts or in their traditions. I would wish you wouldn't be insulted or disappointed by this, but I can't help wondering if it accounts for your use of the word "myopic" now. Anything there? If so, I apologize, but I cannot promise to pretend I don't see what I see. It too seems so obvious to me, so I have a hard time ignoring it.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
On the other hand, one can't deny the reality that sometimes we are vulnerable and need protection from our stronger brothers. And any moral support is always welcome.

Being physically smaller through no fault of their own does not make women any less deserving the full compliment of rights. Similarly, small men-who couldn't hurt a fly-deserve to be able to live free of oppression. Just because I, for instance, am naturally equipped to go around bullying people does not give me the right to do it. You and every other potential victim has my moral and my physical support. It's the least I can offer. We must all recognize what we can offer the greater good and give it, whatever that is. That's why the one percent are traitors.

When this country needs teachers, the learned step up. When this country needs strong young men to go die for a cause, they step up every time. When this country needs money, though, those with the most manipulate and corrupt the system for the purpose of lessening their own societal obligation. They are traitors. They take the one thing they can uniquely provide and they greedily ignore the greater national security their money could provide.

Women and men, rich and poor, are both vulnerable, at times, though. We also have our strengths and we all need others, for some things. If you need something killed or something heavy picked up, a man is often a good choice. If you are not well and need comfort, there is no substitute for a woman's touch. Are there physically powerful women and are there men who are capable of nurture, yes. These are really human qualities. There is no virtue or fault that is exclusive to one sex or the other, vulnerability included

In fact, nature is incapable of giving anything to women that men do not also have. Similarly, men have a manly version of everything womanly. Men have nipples because they must exist in women, for obvious mammalian reasons. Women have orgasms because nature needed men to have them, in order to stay sexually motivated. No human virtue or fault is exclusive to either sex. We are human, for better or for worse.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm
Quote D_NATURED:
On the other hand, one can't deny the reality that sometimes we are vulnerable and need protection from our stronger brothers. And any moral support is always welcome.

Being physically smaller through no fault of their own does not make women any less deserving the full compliment of rights. Similarly, small men-who couldn't hurt a fly-deserve to be able to live free of oppression. Just because I, for instance, am naturally equipped to go around bullying people does not give me the right to do it. You and every other potential victim has my moral and my physical support. It's the least I can offer. We must all recognize what we can offer the greater good and give it, whatever that is. That's why the one percent are traitors.

When this country needs teachers, the learned step up. When this country needs strong young men to go die for a cause, they step up every time. When this country needs money, though, those with the most manipulate and corrupt the system for the purpose of lessening their own societal obligation. They are traitors. They take the one thing they can uniquely provide and they greedily ignore the greater national security their money could provide.

Women and men, rich and poor, are both vulnerable, at times, though. We also have our strengths and we all need others, for some things. If you need something killed or something heavy picked up, a man is often a good choice. If you are not well and need comfort, there is no substitute for a woman's touch. Are there physically powerful women and are there men who are capable of nurture, yes. These are really human qualities. There is no virtue or fault that is exclusive to one sex or the other, vulnerability included

In fact, nature is incapable of giving anything to women that men do not also have. Similarly, men have a manly version of everything womanly. Men have nipples because they must exist in women, for obvious mammalian reasons. Women have orgasms because nature needed men to have them, in order to stay sexually motivated. No human virtue or fault is exclusive to either sex. We are human, for better or for worse.

No problem with any of that, thank you very much! Except for one thing: Women have orgasms because they like them. In nature, if it works, it gets to stay. If nature needed only men to be movitated for sex and reproduction, we'd have nothing but rape; women say Yes, or even pursue sex, because orgasm reinforces their interest. But, because women bear the consequenses of sex more than men do, they tend not to be driven strictly by selfish satisfaction.

I admit I'm actually rather envious of men for that reason: how nice it must be not to have to worry about pregnancy or being diverted from one's chosen path in life just for having had a night of happy sex. Nature isn't fair; but it is in our nature to devise ways to make life fair. And that's what birth control is all about. Thus, birth control is a social justice issue as important as any other.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

To dhavid: In researching the interrelationship and importance of women's rights, including birth control, to economic health and justice, I came across an articled entitled, The Concept of Shakti: Hinduism as a Liberating Force for Women. In reading it, I couldn't help wondering why dhavid has never brought up the concept of Shakti and Hinduism's positives with regard to the feminine principle, as an answer to all my complaints about sexism in Hindu texts.

From the article: "Vandana Shiva has written: The violence to nature as symptomatized by the ecological crisis, and the violence to women, as symptomitized by their subjugation and exploitation, arise from this subjugation of the feminine principle."

Also from the author, Frank Morales, M.A.: "...we are not so much witnessing the 'Hinduization' of Western thought, as we are the rediscovery of the feminine principle as an integral and inseparable part of our very being."

I found much of interest in the article, causing me to think twice about Hinduism. So, why haven't you mentioned any of this to me? After all, so much of what Morales writes of in that article speaks to my sense of how things are and should be; that is, neither the domination of male over female, nor the domination of female over male, but both in harmony, both powerful. Eh?

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote CollegeConservative:
When made to distract from the presidents terible record and attack on the 1st amendment by trying to make the catholic church break their beliefs by having to provide birth control it is a side issue compared to the economy.

Birth control IS an economic issue! It is an economic issue not only for women but for men as well; it is an economic issue for the entire world.

What do you suppose the world would look like without contraception? We’re at 7 billion now. With non-access to birth control being a leading cause of poverty, starvation, high unemployment, low wages, poor education leading to higher birth rates and further economic disasters in many countries, how can you possibly separate birth control from economic issues? That’s just plain unimaginative of you, to put it as politely as I can.

First, in countries with high population growth and low incomes, such as sub-Saharan Africa, many adolescent girls and women are unable determine their fertility, with population outstripping economic growth and the ability of health care and education systems to serve the people. http://www.unfpa.org/public/home/news/pid/10016

Second, in many middle income countries where population growth has stabilized, issues of urbanization and migration factor heavily into population dynamics, with impacts labour trends, consumption patterns, family compositions and more.

I can only assume, given conservative antipathy toward women’s reproductive rights, conservatives either don’t see the correlation between women’s reproductive rights and a healthy economy, or they don’t care, and they want women —and lots of men— poor, barefoot and surrounded by unwashed, neglected children who are destined to remain poor, unwashed and neglected their entire lives.


By ensuring access to contraceptives and family planning services, governments promote human development and economic growth. As discussed above, family planning has important health and educational benefits for women and children and thus contributes to increased productivity and economic well-being at both the household and societal levels. Additionally, prevention of unwanted births and reductions in maternal and infant mortality and morbidity rates can reduce the burden on health care sytems. Subsidizing reproductive health services, including contraceptives, enables governments to promote health more strategically and effectively allocate state funds.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Zenzoe,i`m learning when we have a failure to communicate,no meeting of minds in two or three posts,it`s best to move on.When we agree,we can move together and make the world smaller & closer.

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Tayl, I thought you might find something of worth in this talk, by Kavita Ramdas: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9Z_pccScW0   I thought of you toward the end, but I can't remember her exact words. See what you think?

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

FYI, for anybody, or nobody in particular. I just find Vandana Shiva to be hugely insightful regarding the origins of the oppression of nature, and, by association, women. This should interest tayl, though, because it speaks to the spirit of the 1% and how and why the damage began.

Quote Vandana Shiva:

When Europe first colonized the diverse lands and cultures of the world, it also colonized nature. The transformation of the perception of nature during the industrial and scientific revolutions illustrates how nature was transformed in the European mind from a self-organizing, living system to a mere raw material for human exploitation, needing management and control.

Resource originally implied life. Its root is the Latin resurgere, or to rise again. In other words, resource means self-regeneration. The use of the term resource for nature also implied a relationship of reciprocity between nature and humans.

With the rise of industrialism and the colonialism, a shift in meaning took place. Natural resources became inputs for industrial commodity production and colonial trade. Nature was transformed into dead and manipulable matter. Its capacity to renew and grow had been denied.

The violence against nature, and the disruption of its delicate interconnections, was a necessary part of denying its self-organizing capacity. And this violence against nature, in turn, translated into violence in society.

Anything not fully managed or controlled by European men was seen as a threat. This included nature, non-Western societies, and women. What was self-organized was considered wild, out of control, and uncivilized. When self-organization is perceived as chaos, it creates a context to impose a coercive and violent order for the betterment and improvement of the other, whose intrinsic order is then disrupted and destroyed.

Most non-Western cultures have regarded the wild as sacred, viewing its diversity as a source of inspiration for democracy and freedom. Rabindranath Tagore, India's national poet, writing in Tapovan at the peak of the independence movement, saw democracy in society as derived from the principles of diversity in nature, whose highest expression is found in the forest. The diverse processes of renewal that are always at play in the forest, varying from species to species, from season to season, in sight, sound, and smell, have fueled the culture of Indian society. The unifying principle of life in diversity, of democratic pluralism, thus became the principle of Indian civilization.

Whenever Europeans discovered the native peoples of America, Africa, or Asia, they identified them as savages in need of redemption by a superior race. Even slavery was justified on these grounds. To carry Africans into slavery was seen as an act of benevolence, transporting them from the endless night of savage barbarism into the embrace of a superior civilization.

The West's fear of the wild and its associated diversity is closely linked to the imperative of human domination, and the control and mastery of the natural world. Thus, Robert Boyle, the famous scientist who was also governor of the New England Company in the 1760s, saw the rise of mechanical philosophy as an instrument of power not just over nature, but also over the original inhabitants of America. He explicitly declared his intention of ridding the New England Indians of their absurd notions about the workings of nature. Boyle attacked their perception of nature as a kind of goddess, and argued that the veneration, wherewith men are imbued for what they call nature, has been a discouraging impediment to the empire of man over the inferior creatures of God. The concept of the empire of man was thus substituted for the earth family, where humans are included in the pluralism of nature's diversity.

This conceptual diminution was essential to the projects of colonization and capitalism. The concept of an earth family excluded the possibilities of exploitation and domination; a denial of the rights of nature as well as societies that revere nature was necessary in order to facilitate uncontrolled exploitation and profits.

Diversity, as a threat, had to be wiped out of a worldview where European men were the measure of being human and having human rights...

[more here: http://www.swaraj.org/shikshantar/shiva_vandana.html  ]

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

Zenzoe wrote: Dhavid, now you're talking about individual focus as a normal aspect of the human personality. And you're explaining it without putting it in pejorative terms. Earlier, however, you put it in pejorative terms, calling it "myopic." That's not exactly flattering. Myopic is usually intended as an insult. And the reason criticism of Sharpton for his focus, for example, rings dubious is this: Do you criticize journalists who focus on sports, journalists such as Dave Zirin, for being "myopic?" I mean, the criticism seems to cherry pick, where the subjects of race or gender pose discomforting questions. But maybe I misunderstood you. That's always possible.

Anyway, I'm glad to know you don't think any issues are "side issues." I agree with that, obviously.

The reason I took your comment as an insult, dhavid, is that you've criticized me before for my feminist focus, or at least joined with NL and A in such criticism. (remember?) So, pardon me if I'm a little bit sensitive on that score.

It may also be that your own focus on spirituality felt dismissed, when, every time you brought a quote to me, or tried to introduce a spiritual leader or idea, I inevitably rejected it on account of "sexist" elements, or whatever. I have a hard time with any religion, because of what looks a lot like misogyny to me, in the texts or in their traditions. I would wish you wouldn't be insulted or disappointed by this, but I can't help wondering if it accounts for your use of the word "myopic" now. Anything there? If so, I apologize, but I cannot promise to pretend I don't see what I see. It too seems so obvious to me, so I have a hard time ignoring it.

I used to look forward to watching Al Sharpton. For weeks the only topic he discussed was the Travon Martin injustice. Weeks! He used his show as a bully pulpit to make sure justice was done. I will say it again - he would not have done the same if TM was white. I stopped watching him after that.

Concerning your dislike for some "spiritual" things I shared - it made absolutely no difference to me.

Concerning myopia - I would more or less equate your seeming preoccupation with "women's issues" with Al Sharpton's emphasis of black issues. Apparently this is something you disagree with. We disagree. C'est la vie.

dhavid
Joined:
Jul. 16, 2010 10:41 am

Wow, dhavid. You really are cold, aren't you? No response whatsoever to my comment at #392? No desire whatsoever to heal our conflict? What happened to you? Where'd you go? You might as well unfriend me at Facebook, with that attitude.

It's all so easy for you, a white male, to dismiss the focus of an Al Sharpton, given that you have never suffered racial or sex discrimination and oppression in your whole damn life. Those are just words to you, without the memories, the wounds, the feel of a boot on your neck, or the sight of your child hanging from a tree with a noose around his neck. You and your kind do not suffer daily harassment and intimidation on the streets; you and your kind are not murdered for being your kind, not raped for being weaker physically. Easy for you to complain about the expression of outrage that goes on for weeks— you've nothing to be outraged about, nothing that you have experienced first hand.

Somebody has to make up for what Fox News ignores. C'mon, dhavid. Have a heart.

Quote Vandana Shiva:

The way out requires a transcending of those pluralities replacing monocultures by diversity, dualisms by complementarity, and recognizing that in a world full of difference and diversity we are not at war with each other, we just need to understand each other and through that understanding enrich each other's lives, because it is only with the respect of how much the other gains, that we gain ourselves.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Zenzoe, the reason I didn't comment to post #392 is because I don't know much about Orthodox Hinduism, nor do I care to know. Most of my knowledge comes from the writings/ talks of various intellectuals, theologians and mostly mystics from India. I have no religion.

dhavid
Joined:
Jul. 16, 2010 10:41 am

Thanks for responding, dhavid, and that's fine, but Vandana Shiva does not come from an orthodox religious perspective. She is a scientist —physicist— and a philosopher in her own right. I have heard her state she doesn't know much about religion, and I got the impression she's rather neutral on the subject. What she appears to do, though I admit I am only just now getting into her writings, is to incorporate the world view of her native culture into her specific philosophy, using it to support her insights into the ills we face today. As you know, it's all about metaphor. I just thought it was instructive to see the origin of the whole notion of the Feminine Principle, which the Hindu concept of Shakti appears to embody; though —and this is what I thought you might appreciate— as the writer Morales points out, "Both the feminine and the masculine are necessarily present in the Divine;" and this is reflected in Vandana Shiva's philosophy, where she insists, for example, complementarity must replace duality.

Strange you should say you have no religion. Wasn't it you who told me you were a Vedantist?

Honestly, I'm saddened by your cold responses. I want to say, "Who are you, and what did you do with my friend Dhavid?"

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I want it understood that women's issues —concerns, place in society and whatever oppressions we may face— reflect our CENTRAL place in the solution of our collective problems as a species. Address the whys and wherefores of women's problems, and the whys and wherefores of all other issues become apparent.

Vandana Shiva, Staying Alive: "Maldevelopment is maldevelopment in thought and action. In practice, this fragmented, reductionist, dualist perspective violates the integrity and harmony of man in nature, and the harmony between men and women. It ruptures the co-operative unity of masculine and feminine, and places man, shorn of the feminine principle, above nature and women, and separated from both. The violence to nature as symptomatised by the ecological crisis, and the violence to women, as symptomatised by their subjugation and exploitation, arise from this subjugation of the feminine principle. I want to argue that what is currently called development is essentially maldevelopment, based on the introduction or accentuation of the domination of man over nature and women. In it, both are viewed as the ‘other,’ the passive non-self. Activity, productivity, creativity which were associated with the feminine principle are expropriated as qualities of nature and women, and transformed into the exclusive qualities of man. Nature and women are turned into passive objects, to be used and exploited for the uncontrolled and uncontrollable desires of alienated man. From being the creators and sustainers of life, nature and women are reduced to being ‘resources’ in the fragmented, anti-life model of maldevelopment."

On reductionism, FYI, check out the duck on Wikipedia's page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism   Shiva: "The structure and methodology of modern science are reductionist; ...reductionism as a patriarchal mode of knowing is necessarily violent to nature and women.”

Vandana Shiva, Staying Alive: “Ecology movements, women’s movements and peace movements across the world can draw inspiration from these categories as forces of opposition and challenge to the dominant categories of western patriarchy which rule the world today in the name of development and progress, even while they destroy nature and threaten the life of entire cultures and communities.”

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Currently Chatting

Has Kansas Found the Cure for the Reaganomics Disease?

Reaganomics is like a bad disease; It just keeps on spreading. Thanks to 34 years of failed Reaganomics, the gap between the wealthy elite in America and everyone else is at an all-time high.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system