h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Isnt that what Kaz was saying, by telling us of her own feelings then apologising for being so unabashed and confrontational?

I dont think it cheapens the discussion I think it adds an emotinal dimension which I dont think should hold total sway but neither should it be ignored or go unmentioned.

one love

I'm not going to gang up on Mullet.

Can anybody provide a link to a feminist statement that says that feminists want to keep their "advantages" and also gain the advantages that men have? I don't mean some anti-feminist like Camille Paglia (or RealWomen) making a statement of what she pretends feminists want. I mean an actual statement from someone like Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinham, Germainne Greer, bell hooks, Susan Faludi and such. (I won't mention Andrea Dworkin because that will make the job too easy.) An actual statement, not a joke or something taken out of context.

Anybody?

"Steinem" you idiot!

<>

And *this* isn't childish, Mullet? Not to mention over-the-top emotional bordering on hysteria. You actually 'cheapened' this thread from the start, by this first posting of yours.

You say you agree, in principle, with a mass-murderer and then attempt to tell another researcher she is 'cheapening' your argument by speaking emotionally?

Shame on you.

az

'"Steinem" you idiot!'

I hope no one thinks I'm saying Gloria Steinem is an idiot. I was meaning that I'm an idiot for misspelling her name a few posts ago. I looked back at it and though maybe it wasn't clear. Okay. I've dug myself deep enough.

I agree Az. And I don't think that Kaz's post was childish; I tried to make a similar point back in the "fathers' right to abortion" section of this thread. Kaz's post is a logical conclusion of the argument espoused in Mullet's first post. And it points out the absurdity of that first post.


(hi Blicky. Your hair looks great.)

hi anhaga,

Kaz was just snapping at him, and with fair reason I'd say.

Meanwhile, yes, doesn't blicky have fab hair?


az

Nothing compared to yours, of course.

Oi! No making fun of my so-called *HAIR*!!!

az

When I was a child my father tried to bring me up without emotion, he said it was unnecessary and that I should live a logical life.

Once I managed to get away, I could live my own life the way I wanted to, which is emotionally.

Many men have tried to tell me to live diferently, they want me to live their way, not mine. They are scared of emotions, I am not, they do not cheapen live, they make my life better.

Many woman and men are emotional, many people tell us its childish, and that we should grow, but thats the point, we have grown up, which is what enables us to be true to our feelins.

Hooray, Kaz!

I just meant that she said "oh not I should be murdered" like she was drawing that as a logical conclusion of my opinions.


And yes, granted, that first post was a childish emotional outburst and I really didn't explain properly what I meant. Can't think why I wrote it.

I'm pretty sure we all agree, including you, Mullet, that the initial post was unfortunate. I hope we can lay the discomfiting aspects of that post to rest now. I would, however, still like to meet one of the feminists you alluded to in that post. Seems nobody's able to provide a link to the opinions you find problematic.

When I first moved to Colorado there was something in the news about Colorado not passing some sort of gay rights law. I don't remember much more than that, but I remember thinking, what's the big deal, why should gays have any special rights? I didn't have strong feelings about it at the time and didn't bother looking into it any further. But I think I understand now. Gays, women, and other oppressed groups aren't looking for special rights ... they are looking to be treated equally. And though our laws aren't perfect, that is what we are supposed to be striving towards. Women and men aren't equals. No two individuals are equals, but we all deserve to be treated equally.

So although the first post may have been unfortunate, it may have still been beneficial.

Hmm I feel the need as a young man to comment here and i suspect im going to be ripped apart... but here goes

Men have ruled the world for thousands of years, but the way i see it, is that this has become like emotion in 1984 by Orwell. If something is gone/was never there then it takes some adjustment when it comes back/is introduced. Women have come so far in such a short time when you consider how long men have been dominant and all credit to them i say. However, you've also got to understand that change takes time. To change the norm after thousands of years cant be done in a decade, or sadly maybe not in a century. Maybe my sons and daughters will be equal, maybe there sons and daughters will. Soon it'll be equal.

What annoys me was a statement i heard (maybe on here maybe somewhere else) that a woman has the right to be a woman. Now this doesnt enrage me, its that if you raise masculinity then many people sadly attacht it to sexism. Personally being male i think its fine.

Anyway im done, ive dug my hole.

Where do I begin? *Men have ruled the world for thousands of years* OK, you mean all of world leaders have been male, or that every major sociopolitical decision has been made by a man? You know both those statements are false so I must assume that you mean *Men have had the greatest influence on past history* or even *Men have unfairly had the greatest influence on past history*. I hope and pray that you didn't mean in social or family instances. While of course the women of the world only recently (in historic terms) have been granted something other than identification as chattel in regard to their husbands, common and very old sayings along the lines of *Behind every great man is a great woman* and others would bely your opinion. Cleopatra, Catherine the Great, Queen Elizabeth I, Madame Currie, the list goes on and on. The only thing holding back women were some mysogenist men and some poorly framed law. Your opinion is quaint and provincial but I'm sorry, it's a fantasy.

If you read back men have been, and have been seen as, the dominant gender.
I meant neither. Im fully aware of all those (Joan of Arc needs to get on that somewhere) but as was said earlier, men still are pretty dominant everywhere around such as buisness and politics. It still happens and its going to take time before that changes is my point.

'Your veiw is quaint etc etc'
Thank you for insulting me, but my veiw is as valid as yours, and attitudes like that arent productive.

Let me start by apologising for being an idiot. Let me apologise for writing a post in a hurry. Let me apologise for typing without thinking properly.

Now to say something risky: My actual views haven't changed since my first post. Sadly, that first post was badly expressed. What I meant to say, or what I mean to say now that I'm older, wiser, more able to express what I'm saying, is that there are some so-called "feminists" who see women as superior to men. They are a minority but, alas, there is an all too common feeling that all feminists are like that. They give real feminists a bad name. Which annoys me. Annoys my girlfriend too, seeing as she is a feminist. A proper one. To the best of my knowledge, despite what some of you may think of me from my first post, I've not yet killed her in a fit of rage (apologies to anyone that that comment may have offended, I'm highlighting how silly some people have been in this thread; Including me).

However much any of you ask, I doubt I'll be able to find a quote of Germaine Greer saying that women are superior, and then women deserve more rights. Because, weird as she can be sometimes, she's actually a sensible person. She is a feminst. A proper feminist. Not the kind that annoy me. But, nonetheless, some do exist like that. They give the rest a bad name. They lead to misconceptions, which lead to things like the Montreal Massacre or, in this case, my first post in this thread.

Apologies again. Not that that means I'm backing down on what's important to me. I'm going to fight for equality. Be it women being paid equally to men, or fathers' rights to see their children.

I should clarify: "Let me apologise for writing a post in a hurry. Let me apologise for typing without thinking properly." refferred to my intial post on this thread, not the last one. The last one was carefully thought through.

I understand what you're saying, Mullet.

I think I mentioned back somewhere in the thread that I've never come across any of those feminists that give feminism a bad name. I sometimes wonder if they're not a fiction created by the Backlash, a fiction which has come to be an accepted 'fact'. This sort of straw man (straw woman in this case perhaps) is a quite common tool of reactionary movements: the homosexuals that want more rights than anyone else, the lazy Mediterraneans, the terrorist Muslims, the International Jewish Conspiracy. Too often these straw figures are accepted as real, albeit rare, by well-meaning individuals.

Many's the time I've asked people to show me an example of the feminists that want more than men or who feel that women are superior to men and I've never had anyone come up with one. In fact, I can only think of one person who calls herself a feminist who argues that one sex is superior to the other and that's Camille Paglia whose whole thesis seems to be that men are superior to women.

That having been said, Mullet, I understand where you're coming from and I certainly don't want to get this old argument fired up again.