(no subject)
Nov. 12th, 2005 11:01 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
which_chickWe all recall the pet peeve, right? The reign/rein/rain thing? See here. Ignore, for the moment, the complete wankitude of the column. Scroll down to the paragraph three from the end: But in a world where feminism holds the reigns of society, we overhaul the design of the family unit, weaken the effect of feminine sexuality and introduce the possibility of having our daughters, sisters and mothers fight on the front lines and work grueling jobs. Yes, yes, there's some butt-ugly structure there and it's not even packaged neatly to make it easier for the reader to unwrap, but lookit the reign thing, there. Honestly. Isn't there an editor? Isn't this kid a college student? (Doesn't anyone fucking knock anymore?)
We've done these before, kids, though not lately. The original article is the bold. I'm the regular text. No sense in confusing whose words are whose. Mr. Dimmich, who is probably a reasonably blameless whitebread conservative, is thefish in a barrel bold and I'm the shooter normal text. All good? Right, then. Shall we dance?
Feminist society would dissatisfy many women
You've asked them, then, have you?
Imagine if the world were a perfect place. Wouldn't it be great? If everyone learned to play fair and share everything, surely the lives of men and women alike would be better.
Cap'n, straw man off the starboard bow! Shall I initiate evasive procedures?
Or would it? Can men and women truly do the same things? Although possible, it seems impractical for women to be a part of a revolution to do the same things as men, yet sustain a position of independence. Any dictionary will define feminism as a movement that advocates for the equal rights of women. But it's more than that. Feminism encompasses connotations and often misrepresents the voice of every woman.
Was English your first language? This looks like it might be prose, but I don't seem to be able to get any meaning out of it. My primary difficulty is with this line: Although possible, it seems impractical for women to be a part of a revolution to do the same things as men, yet sustain a position of independence. What the fuck do you mean there? Impractical how? Gosh, you're not still talking about the pee-standing-up thing, are you? How does doing the same things as men mean women can't be independent? Do you have a PowerPoint slide for this?
If feminism prevailed, the world would be drastically different and women wouldn't like the final result.
And again, you've asked them about this? Or are you just using your male-hegemony superpowers to divine what women want?
The day men and women have the same level of power is the also the day when chivalry dies.
I looked at what wikipedia had to say about chivalry. In war, the chivalrous knight was idealized as brave in battle, loyal to his king and God, and willing to sacrifice himself. Towards his fellow Christians and countrymen, the knight was to be merciful, humble, and courteous. Towards noble ladies above all, the knight was to be gracious and gentle. The idealized relationship between knight and lady was that of courtly love. Can you please explain how men and women having the same level of power kills bravery, loyalty, self-sacrifice, mercy, humility, courtesy, grace, and gentility? 'Cause I'm not getting it. If you think chivalry can only exist where the strong gives way to the weak, maybe you need to redraw your maps. How'd you think knights acted towards each other? Sez here merciful, humble, and courteous. I'm not seeing a problem with that. Hell, the chivalry thing has a lot of virtues I think would look good on most folks, not just men-a-horseback.
Many women enjoy visiting bars and having men buy them drinks in exchange for a casual conversation. It seems that after all the work women put into getting ready for a night out, they won't compromise their ability to get free alcohol for the sake of self-independence.
This is interesting. You're worried about women having the same level of power as men... because it will mean that women have to give up stuff for that. I like what you've done here. It's really impressive and your concern for what the cunts really want (and of course you've asked them, haven't you?) has almost distracted me from the fact that what you're worried about is chix0rs being as powerful as men. I'll give you an E for Effort, there, kiddo. Nice try.
Other women appreciate a man paying for dinner or movie tickets. But in a world where men and women see each other as equals, a man might not open his wallet and show a level of gallantry toward an intriguing woman.
Oooh, a man might not show gallantry by opening his wallet. Wow. And I guess I'd never be able to tell that he was interested by the way we kept going places together or he kept touching my hand or forearm or shoulders during conversation or maintaining eye contact too long for 'just friends' to do or, y'know, asking me if I wanted to spend the night. Without the solid metric of wallet-opening, we poor women would never, ever be able to tell when men were interested in us. Oh, the horror!
Many of life's common courtesies would disappear if men and women were the same.
Is this because men are inescapably rude shits who require the civilizing influence of women? Because if that's what you're trying to say here, I'm going to dock you points for being rude to your own gender. Ten yard penalty, first down for the offense!
Women would have to protect themselves and a lot of women would find themselves walking home alone instead of being escorted home by a man.
I do protect myself. And I do walk myself home if I am not staying the night. I did so in college and I do so (insofar as this means 'walking to my car and then driving home') these days. I'm not seeing where you are going with this. Am I supposed to just stay at the man's house until he deigns to walk me home? Y'know, that'd really, really cut down on my freedom of movement.
A man's reflex to open a door for a woman would be replaced with the thought of her being comfortable enough to open the door for herself.
This is why you frequently see so many women standing around outside buildings, waiting for men to come by and open the door for them, isn't it?
If both sexes were equal, love would become awkward as well. Marriage, or even deciding who should propose or pay for the ring, would be a different experience. The days of a husband pulling out his wife's chair would be over because men wouldn't want to risk hearing a reminder about how women can do things for themselves.
Given how impossible it is for equals to manage love, it's bloody amazing that all those fucking queers keep wanting to get married, innit?
It seems that if men and women acted as equals, dating would be pretty boring.
I like your use of the word seems here. Does this mean you've never tried to date an equal? Have you ever dated at all?
The chemistry created between two people is not defined by strong similarities, but by the differences and struggles for power that some feminists seek to destroy.
If you want differences and struggles for power, there are lots of people in the BDSM community who would be willing to help you with that.
Where there are equal rights, there should be equal responsibilities.
You know, this is the first thing you've said that I can agree with wholeheartedly.
In a fair world, both men and women would have rifles in hand, ready challenge the enemy on the battlefield. Yet few feminists are yearning to fight wars or work blue collar jobs with long hours.
Men are jumping at the chance to go fight wars and hold blue-collar jobs? I think the shitty end of the stick is shitty for everyone, there, bub.
Comparatively fewer women than men work grueling hours on the assembly line. Instead, many want to be key players in powerful companies or work for widely viewed media outlets where their voices can be heard.
This is a telling comment. Women only want the good jobs. That's why we have to keep them down, you see. If we let (and I *love* the word let, here. It says ever so much.) them be equal, they'll take all the good jobs.
A purely feminist society would dramatically change the family structure. In nature, females develop an inherent relationship with their young by bearing, nursing, and protecting them at a young age. This is why some of our earliest childhood memories involve, not our father, but our mother.
So my brother Joe's daughter Gwen, who screams when anyone besides Joe (including her mother) tries to hold her... she's defective? Babies get attached to the parent they see most. Historically, this has been the mother. There is no solid reason that it HAS to be the mother. I don't reckon that the family structure changing is the end of the world. Get out of your comfort zone.
Most fathers have a desire to provide for the wife and the children, and are often expected at the bare minimum to put food on the table. Mothers nourish their children, and if these caring mothers were placed in the work force, we force traditional family standards to be the exact opposite of what they are today.
So... what does this say about the huge number of absentee dads who aren't much for providing and have to be court-ordered to pay their child support? The traditional family structure works so well there, doesn't it?
It would be far from the truth to say that women are not entitled to have high-power positions in the work force or successful careers in the military. But in a world where feminism holds the reigns of society, we overhaul the design of the family unit, weaken the effect of feminine sexuality and introduce the possibility of having our daughters, sisters and mothers fight on the front lines and work grueling jobs.
I'm going to unpack this and hit each one by itself.
overhaul the design of the family unit: Fine by me. The nuclear family, which you appear to be referring to... dad, mom, 2.5 children and a house in the 'burbs with a picket fence... that hasn't been the design of the family unit for all of human history. It hasn't even been the design of the family unit for the last hundred years. It's a modern invention. Quit watching Leave it to Beaver, willya?
weaken the effect of feminine sexuality: I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that feminism will make women less sexy to themselves? Cause, y'know, I feel fine. Or are you saying that feminism will make your dick not work? 'Cause if we're talking about how well your dick works, I gotta say that that ain't my fucking problem. That's your problem. I feel moved to inform you that I am not willing to restrict my rights and freedoms for the greater glory of your erections.
introduce the possibility of having our daughters, sisters, and mothers fight on the front lines and work grueling jobs: This old chestnut gets trotted out every time, I swear. If we allow feminism, there will be women in body bags!!! WOMEN IN BODY BAGS!!! WOMEN IN BODY BAGS!!! Uhm. Yeah. There will be. And I have to tell you... it pains me to tell you this, but you really, really should know... there already are women in body bags. There have always been. Look, you ignorant fuckwit, just go read here -- scroll down for current conflicts.
Also, since you appear to be in need of remedial clue, there's something very, very wrong with finding women-in-body-bags more offensive than men-in-body-bags. How can you possibly argue that it's more okay for people's sons, brothers, and fathers to come home in body bags than it is for people's daughters, sisters, and mothers to come home in body bags? (What kind of sick fuck are you, anyway?) Freedom is costly as hell and the price doesn't go down just because you think all the corpses have cocks.
Finally. About the grueling jobs thing. Do you have any idea how offensive this is? You're as good as saying that women don't really work now. You're saying that, y'know, the job I have... it's not really real. It's not grueling like REAL MAN jobs. (If a real man were doing my job, would that make it real? Why can't I have a real, meaningful job?) Do you think I'm fucking playing some kind of game, here?
I'm not here to say what is right or wrong, but those who are fighting for equality need to keep in mind the changes that may occur if society adopted a true feminist perspective.
You are too saying what is right or wrong. You've spent umpty-odd column-inches saying it, for fuck's sake. Don't apologize now. Have some balls.
For those who think a feminist society would be utopia, the perfect society is anything but perfect.
Fumble on the four yard line! Picked up by the defense! Look, if you're going to conclude your essay with any kind of force, you need to be able to write better than this. I'd have gone with Those who think a feminist society would be utopia need to realize that their perfect society would be anything but perfect. Learn to write, willya? If you must express your tripe, try to do so in a pleasing and elegant fashion that shows some fucking respect for the language.
If women choose to fight for equality, they should be careful what they wish for.
I always am. Always.
We've done these before, kids, though not lately. The original article is the bold. I'm the regular text. No sense in confusing whose words are whose. Mr. Dimmich, who is probably a reasonably blameless whitebread conservative, is the
Feminist society would dissatisfy many women
You've asked them, then, have you?
Imagine if the world were a perfect place. Wouldn't it be great? If everyone learned to play fair and share everything, surely the lives of men and women alike would be better.
Cap'n, straw man off the starboard bow! Shall I initiate evasive procedures?
Or would it? Can men and women truly do the same things? Although possible, it seems impractical for women to be a part of a revolution to do the same things as men, yet sustain a position of independence. Any dictionary will define feminism as a movement that advocates for the equal rights of women. But it's more than that. Feminism encompasses connotations and often misrepresents the voice of every woman.
Was English your first language? This looks like it might be prose, but I don't seem to be able to get any meaning out of it. My primary difficulty is with this line: Although possible, it seems impractical for women to be a part of a revolution to do the same things as men, yet sustain a position of independence. What the fuck do you mean there? Impractical how? Gosh, you're not still talking about the pee-standing-up thing, are you? How does doing the same things as men mean women can't be independent? Do you have a PowerPoint slide for this?
If feminism prevailed, the world would be drastically different and women wouldn't like the final result.
And again, you've asked them about this? Or are you just using your male-hegemony superpowers to divine what women want?
The day men and women have the same level of power is the also the day when chivalry dies.
I looked at what wikipedia had to say about chivalry. In war, the chivalrous knight was idealized as brave in battle, loyal to his king and God, and willing to sacrifice himself. Towards his fellow Christians and countrymen, the knight was to be merciful, humble, and courteous. Towards noble ladies above all, the knight was to be gracious and gentle. The idealized relationship between knight and lady was that of courtly love. Can you please explain how men and women having the same level of power kills bravery, loyalty, self-sacrifice, mercy, humility, courtesy, grace, and gentility? 'Cause I'm not getting it. If you think chivalry can only exist where the strong gives way to the weak, maybe you need to redraw your maps. How'd you think knights acted towards each other? Sez here merciful, humble, and courteous. I'm not seeing a problem with that. Hell, the chivalry thing has a lot of virtues I think would look good on most folks, not just men-a-horseback.
Many women enjoy visiting bars and having men buy them drinks in exchange for a casual conversation. It seems that after all the work women put into getting ready for a night out, they won't compromise their ability to get free alcohol for the sake of self-independence.
This is interesting. You're worried about women having the same level of power as men... because it will mean that women have to give up stuff for that. I like what you've done here. It's really impressive and your concern for what the cunts really want (and of course you've asked them, haven't you?) has almost distracted me from the fact that what you're worried about is chix0rs being as powerful as men. I'll give you an E for Effort, there, kiddo. Nice try.
Other women appreciate a man paying for dinner or movie tickets. But in a world where men and women see each other as equals, a man might not open his wallet and show a level of gallantry toward an intriguing woman.
Oooh, a man might not show gallantry by opening his wallet. Wow. And I guess I'd never be able to tell that he was interested by the way we kept going places together or he kept touching my hand or forearm or shoulders during conversation or maintaining eye contact too long for 'just friends' to do or, y'know, asking me if I wanted to spend the night. Without the solid metric of wallet-opening, we poor women would never, ever be able to tell when men were interested in us. Oh, the horror!
Many of life's common courtesies would disappear if men and women were the same.
Is this because men are inescapably rude shits who require the civilizing influence of women? Because if that's what you're trying to say here, I'm going to dock you points for being rude to your own gender. Ten yard penalty, first down for the offense!
Women would have to protect themselves and a lot of women would find themselves walking home alone instead of being escorted home by a man.
I do protect myself. And I do walk myself home if I am not staying the night. I did so in college and I do so (insofar as this means 'walking to my car and then driving home') these days. I'm not seeing where you are going with this. Am I supposed to just stay at the man's house until he deigns to walk me home? Y'know, that'd really, really cut down on my freedom of movement.
A man's reflex to open a door for a woman would be replaced with the thought of her being comfortable enough to open the door for herself.
This is why you frequently see so many women standing around outside buildings, waiting for men to come by and open the door for them, isn't it?
If both sexes were equal, love would become awkward as well. Marriage, or even deciding who should propose or pay for the ring, would be a different experience. The days of a husband pulling out his wife's chair would be over because men wouldn't want to risk hearing a reminder about how women can do things for themselves.
Given how impossible it is for equals to manage love, it's bloody amazing that all those fucking queers keep wanting to get married, innit?
It seems that if men and women acted as equals, dating would be pretty boring.
I like your use of the word seems here. Does this mean you've never tried to date an equal? Have you ever dated at all?
The chemistry created between two people is not defined by strong similarities, but by the differences and struggles for power that some feminists seek to destroy.
If you want differences and struggles for power, there are lots of people in the BDSM community who would be willing to help you with that.
Where there are equal rights, there should be equal responsibilities.
You know, this is the first thing you've said that I can agree with wholeheartedly.
In a fair world, both men and women would have rifles in hand, ready challenge the enemy on the battlefield. Yet few feminists are yearning to fight wars or work blue collar jobs with long hours.
Men are jumping at the chance to go fight wars and hold blue-collar jobs? I think the shitty end of the stick is shitty for everyone, there, bub.
Comparatively fewer women than men work grueling hours on the assembly line. Instead, many want to be key players in powerful companies or work for widely viewed media outlets where their voices can be heard.
This is a telling comment. Women only want the good jobs. That's why we have to keep them down, you see. If we let (and I *love* the word let, here. It says ever so much.) them be equal, they'll take all the good jobs.
A purely feminist society would dramatically change the family structure. In nature, females develop an inherent relationship with their young by bearing, nursing, and protecting them at a young age. This is why some of our earliest childhood memories involve, not our father, but our mother.
So my brother Joe's daughter Gwen, who screams when anyone besides Joe (including her mother) tries to hold her... she's defective? Babies get attached to the parent they see most. Historically, this has been the mother. There is no solid reason that it HAS to be the mother. I don't reckon that the family structure changing is the end of the world. Get out of your comfort zone.
Most fathers have a desire to provide for the wife and the children, and are often expected at the bare minimum to put food on the table. Mothers nourish their children, and if these caring mothers were placed in the work force, we force traditional family standards to be the exact opposite of what they are today.
So... what does this say about the huge number of absentee dads who aren't much for providing and have to be court-ordered to pay their child support? The traditional family structure works so well there, doesn't it?
It would be far from the truth to say that women are not entitled to have high-power positions in the work force or successful careers in the military. But in a world where feminism holds the reigns of society, we overhaul the design of the family unit, weaken the effect of feminine sexuality and introduce the possibility of having our daughters, sisters and mothers fight on the front lines and work grueling jobs.
I'm going to unpack this and hit each one by itself.
overhaul the design of the family unit: Fine by me. The nuclear family, which you appear to be referring to... dad, mom, 2.5 children and a house in the 'burbs with a picket fence... that hasn't been the design of the family unit for all of human history. It hasn't even been the design of the family unit for the last hundred years. It's a modern invention. Quit watching Leave it to Beaver, willya?
weaken the effect of feminine sexuality: I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that feminism will make women less sexy to themselves? Cause, y'know, I feel fine. Or are you saying that feminism will make your dick not work? 'Cause if we're talking about how well your dick works, I gotta say that that ain't my fucking problem. That's your problem. I feel moved to inform you that I am not willing to restrict my rights and freedoms for the greater glory of your erections.
introduce the possibility of having our daughters, sisters, and mothers fight on the front lines and work grueling jobs: This old chestnut gets trotted out every time, I swear. If we allow feminism, there will be women in body bags!!! WOMEN IN BODY BAGS!!! WOMEN IN BODY BAGS!!! Uhm. Yeah. There will be. And I have to tell you... it pains me to tell you this, but you really, really should know... there already are women in body bags. There have always been. Look, you ignorant fuckwit, just go read here -- scroll down for current conflicts.
Also, since you appear to be in need of remedial clue, there's something very, very wrong with finding women-in-body-bags more offensive than men-in-body-bags. How can you possibly argue that it's more okay for people's sons, brothers, and fathers to come home in body bags than it is for people's daughters, sisters, and mothers to come home in body bags? (What kind of sick fuck are you, anyway?) Freedom is costly as hell and the price doesn't go down just because you think all the corpses have cocks.
Finally. About the grueling jobs thing. Do you have any idea how offensive this is? You're as good as saying that women don't really work now. You're saying that, y'know, the job I have... it's not really real. It's not grueling like REAL MAN jobs. (If a real man were doing my job, would that make it real? Why can't I have a real, meaningful job?) Do you think I'm fucking playing some kind of game, here?
I'm not here to say what is right or wrong, but those who are fighting for equality need to keep in mind the changes that may occur if society adopted a true feminist perspective.
You are too saying what is right or wrong. You've spent umpty-odd column-inches saying it, for fuck's sake. Don't apologize now. Have some balls.
For those who think a feminist society would be utopia, the perfect society is anything but perfect.
Fumble on the four yard line! Picked up by the defense! Look, if you're going to conclude your essay with any kind of force, you need to be able to write better than this. I'd have gone with Those who think a feminist society would be utopia need to realize that their perfect society would be anything but perfect. Learn to write, willya? If you must express your tripe, try to do so in a pleasing and elegant fashion that shows some fucking respect for the language.
If women choose to fight for equality, they should be careful what they wish for.
I always am. Always.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
twitwit
Date: 2005-11-13 02:30 am (UTC)Melvin: "Hey Brenda...it's the fourth week of the semester, let's roll out the "dangers of STDs" article."
Brenda: "No, no. That's next week. You forgot that we started the first week of September this year. It's time to do the story about people living off-campus this week."
Regular papers are not much better. I start to see repetitive human interest stories once I live in an area about two years and get to know people more. If actual news occurs, this may disrupt the front page somewhat, but the rest of the paper is largely planned. This is because it is impossible to put together any reasonably sized newspaper on a short deadline. Even the news stories frequently include several paragraphs of rehash from day to day, sometimes wth no changes at all. It's sort of like the TV shows that give you the "catch up" bit on the last show.
I think that it may be possible to do a short paper on a deadline with all original, more or less "new" content that is not pre-planned, but you need a big population base of people to work with and it is expensive. Since newspapers are not about news, but are instead about the delivery of advertising, they try to regularize the cost of producing the delivery medium by planning things to put in the paper, hence crap like editorials.
The kid above is evidently the Collegian's wanna-be conservative hack. It was his turn to pull out the "Feminism is like a dog chasing a car...once you catch it, you may not know what to do with it" editorial topic out of the hat. I've seen the gambit played much more effectively before. I agree that the writer was not particularly good. On the other hand, the chicky-chicks on campus will do their thing, and reply in a rabid fashion. Hopefully, their writing will be better, but I doubt it.
Gotta teach kids how to have ideological wars early on so that they can learn how to do it more effectively in the real world. Hopefully, they will realize that it matters just as much in the real world as it does in college, which is to say (and you can read between my lines well enough by now that this really isn't needed) it does not matter at all.
If this guy wanted to take a less-traditional angle on the topic, he should have done what the guy at Harvard did, and hit the real issue, which is that we cannot legislate or mandate statistical equality of results based on sex. Then, if he really had sense, he would have argued that we should accept a certain level of disparate results as a natural consequence of the differences, and that mandating anything other than equality of opportunity makes us all poorer and leads inevitably to a loss of freedoms for everyone. Knocking feminism because it may mean people won't open doors for you is just shallow and stupid.
He should go dig out some Hayek and some studies on sex-based inequality and hashed out an article. That might have been interesting. Of course, that might also have meant real work instead of just puffing. Even what I have suggested is not particularly original, but it would have been a better premise and a better read than the dreck that he came up with which was simply inflammatory crap.
On the other hand, perhaps he is being true to his journalistic nature, as fanning the fire sells papers. Making people think doesn't always do that.