tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20435429.post4139530384681539651..comments2023-10-20T08:03:50.579-05:00Comments on Blogging While Feminist: Sex, desire, mini-skirts, and feminism.Plain(s)feministhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15056404699624958898noreply@blogger.comBlogger78125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20435429.post-75591524084950246532010-06-10T10:15:23.814-05:002010-06-10T10:15:23.814-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.buy viagrahttp://www.xlpharmacy.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20435429.post-16169642113603319132007-03-09T18:47:00.000-06:002007-03-09T18:47:00.000-06:00PF - Yep, I can see how that would be a little fru...PF - Yep, I can see how that would be a little frustrating...will refrain from fanning the flames any further.Cassandra Sayshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07775317504418213521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20435429.post-79906373619995925932007-03-09T11:25:00.000-06:002007-03-09T11:25:00.000-06:00PF:Right on and no problem.PF:<BR/><BR/>Right on and no problem.Renegade Evolutionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17905949172886730262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20435429.post-72562769803858427462007-03-09T11:11:00.000-06:002007-03-09T11:11:00.000-06:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20435429.post-89876848251673669102007-03-09T10:06:00.000-06:002007-03-09T10:06:00.000-06:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20435429.post-49469008524449502062007-03-09T08:57:00.000-06:002007-03-09T08:57:00.000-06:00Okay, okay, freakin' ENOUGH.WS:I do not want to re...Okay, okay, freakin' ENOUGH.<BR/><BR/>WS:<BR/>I do not want to read any more about what your take on radical feminism is or is not or about why someone else's position is wrong. *None of that is the topic of this thread.* You are derailing conversation. Continually. No more.<BR/><BR/>I tried to address this earlier, but apparently I was too subtle.<BR/><BR/>You have not said anything new in the last 60 or so comments.<BR/><BR/>Stop.<BR/><BR/>Ren Ev and others, if you want to continue this particular discussion about WS' feminism, I'm going to ask if you can move it someplace else. I hope that you'll still comment here - but I will pull out all my hair if I have to read one more of her treatises that ignores the rules of rational discourse and doubles back on itself. I really will.Plain(s)feministhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15056404699624958898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20435429.post-28050098243109949782007-03-09T02:33:00.000-06:002007-03-09T02:33:00.000-06:00“It’s not that you aren’t feminist enough it’s tha...“It’s not that you aren’t feminist enough it’s that you do not seem to understand how deep the tentacles are patriarchy are in your own thinking.”<BR/><BR/>And you have no idea apparently what your isolation from the modern world has done to yours.<BR/><BR/>‘Not only me. It doesn’t seem that you bothered to read what Epstein said. Feminism is becoming more liberal and thusly increasingly unable to appreciate what it is really confronting. Liberal feminism is well wishing, there just so much that it doesn’t grasp because of it’s own cardinals meaning it’s own philosophical structure. Much of MacKinnon’s writings demonstrate indepth why liberal feminism is not feminist. So yeah, I may indeed be on a conversion crusade. Clearly, I think if you got everything you wanted, women will not be liberated. Women will not be liberated as long as anyone cannot see that our bodies are not commodities.”<BR/><BR/>Face it, WS, all HUMANS are commodities.<BR/><BR/>”Mackinnon analysis is the same as mine. Liberal feminism means well but it’s just not compatible with feminism and hasn’t the insights to develop meaning practice.<BR/>So you, see I can disagree with thousands of liberal feminists and not doubt that I am a good feminist. What is the agreement on here? Miniskirts. Meanwhile while this thread has been going on 200 women have been raped, one killed, and thousands have been subjected to male violence. See what I mean?”<BR/><BR/>And what have YOU done to help them or stop that, other than sit around a love how radical and pure you are? You, oh, spend time working on a rape awareness rally? Pass out some blankets at a DV shelter? Listen to someone cry about what happened to them? Donate any time or money to help ANY of these women? Theories are pretty, WS, actions matter, and for all my Evil Whorin’ Patriarchal Ways, at least I DO something to ACTUALLY help women in the here and now other than sit around and pontificate. <BR/><BR/>”You’re right. You’re exactly right. I hear this claim frequently from, Men, MRAs, trans advocates, pro-sex advocates. When I hear them complain that just tells me they are paying attention.”<BR/><BR/>No, I am calling you a ten-penny dictator who disregards the thoughts, works, feelings and choices of other women because they are not as important as your cause.<BR/><BR/>”I really love it.”<BR/><BR/>Sounds pretty empty and isolated to me.<BR/><BR/>”Funny you should mention that:<BR/><BR/>Given the consequences for women of this formal theoretical structure, consequences that we live out daily as social inequality (not to mention its inherent blame-the-victim posture), I do not think it can be said that liberal feminism is feminist. What it is, is liberalism applied to women. If the sexes are equally different but not equally socially powerful, "differences" in the liberal sense are irrelevant to the politics of our situation, which is one of inequality. Radical feminism, as I understand it, is against gender hierarchy. Since such a critique does address the situation of women as I understand it, I term it simply feminism.”<BR/><BR/>Blah, blah, blah. We got that the fifth time you said it.<BR/> <BR/>”First of all, Twisty is an essentialist and real radical feminists are essentialists because essentialism is antithetical to radicalism.”<BR/><BR/>All the others WRONG to then, or maybe, is it you?<BR/><BR/> <BR/>”Well at least it’s well intentioned arrogance. I’m trying to save the world. ;)”<BR/><BR/>Yeah, well, sitting here being righteous and all, I’d say you’re doing a pretty shitty job of it, since it is obvious you care nothing about, you know, the actual people living on it. The Theory is All and everything.Renegade Evolutionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17905949172886730262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20435429.post-70095046723627101602007-03-09T01:39:00.000-06:002007-03-09T01:39:00.000-06:00Typo:First of all, Twisty is an essentialist and r...Typo:<BR/><BR/>First of all, Twisty is an essentialist and real radical feminists are NOT essentialists because essentialism is antithetical to radicalism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20435429.post-10533957970079522192007-03-09T01:36:00.000-06:002007-03-09T01:36:00.000-06:00However, I certainly do not like to see unwilling ...<I>However, I certainly do not like to see unwilling women told nothing they do for women matters because they might wear a short skirt, or told they are “not feminist enough” to be part of some high minded Radicals Club (not like most would want membership anyway) and belittled for their views and told what they think does not matter and is not valid and blah blah blah and how they ONLY think about themselves when the apparent hypocrisy of the accuser is more blatant than fish gone bad in the summer sun in Mexico City. </I><BR/><BR/>It’s not that you aren’t feminist enough it’s that you do not seem to understand how deep the tentacles are patriarchy are in your own thinking.<BR/><BR/>No, it won’t and science is showing that is because he is biologically pre-disposed to being gay.<BR/><BR/>No, appeal to the facts science has given to humanity.<BR/><BR/> Funny how politics can screw up a perfectly fun thing like sex…<BR/><BR/><I>”I hear ya. I don’t think the revolution is going to come. It’s not longer a possibility and women’s liberation cannot occur without one.”<BR/><BR/><I>Says you. The individual.</I><BR/><BR/>Not only me. It doesn’t seem that you bothered to read what Epstein said. Feminism is becoming more liberal and thusly increasingly unable to appreciate what it is really confronting. Liberal feminism is well wishing, there just so much that it doesn’t grasp because of it’s own cardinals meaning it’s own philosophical structure. Much of MacKinnon’s writings demonstrate indepth why liberal feminism <I>is not feminist</I>. So yeah, I may indeed be on a conversion crusade. Clearly, I think if you got everything you wanted, women will not be liberated. Women will not be liberated as long as anyone cannot see that our bodies are not commodities.</I><BR/><BR/>Mackinnon analysis is the same as mine. Liberal feminism means well but it’s just not compatible with feminism and hasn’t the insights to develop meaning practice.<BR/>So you, see I can disagree with thousands of liberal feminists and not doubt that I am a good feminist. What is the agreement on here? Miniskirts. Meanwhile while this thread has been going on 200 women have been raped, one killed, and thousands have been subjected to male violence. See what I mean?<BR/><BR/><I>And I see radical feminism very close to fascism in the hands of many, many people. And before you point out how selfish I am, I am certainly NOT the only one who sees it that way.</I><BR/><BR/>You’re right. You’re exactly right. I hear this claim frequently from, Men, MRAs, trans advocates, pro-sex advocates. When I hear them complain that just tells me they are paying attention.<BR/><BR/><I>That really is the whole of your life, isn’t it? The great pure feminism. Wow. </I><BR/><BR/>I really love it.<BR/><BR/>”Again – out of individualism, you miss the point because you live in a society and if objectification is ok for you, you are also saying it’s ok for me too except <BR/><BR/><I>Right here in this very thread, who are all the collected feminists agreeing with more, me, or you? Me. Why, because at least some of my words ring in for them somewhere, so I am not always just Me Me Me, there is some We there too. You on the other hand? It’s all about WS and HER thoughts and analysis. </I><BR/><BR/>Funny you should mention that:<BR/><BR/><I>Given the consequences for women of this formal theoretical structure, consequences that we live out daily as social inequality (not to mention its inherent blame-the-victim posture), I do not think it can be said that liberal feminism is feminist. What it is, is liberalism ap¬plied to women. If the sexes are equally different but not equally so¬cially powerful, "differences" in the liberal sense are irrelevant to the politics of our situation, which is one of inequality. Radical feminism, as I understand it, is against gender hierarchy. Since such a critique does address the situation of women as I understand it, I term it simply feminism.</I><BR/><BR/>Seriously, out and about in this section of bloglandia, is there another Radical Feminist who sees things JUST like you do? Twisty? BB? Witchy? V? Amandaranta? Spotted Elephant? Any of them? If not, they too seem to have a common thread of thought, and certainly are not liberal feminists….so who, might, maybe, have things….wrong?<BR/>And no, I do not like to see unwilling women objectified.<BR/><BR/>First of all, Twisty is an essentialist and real radical feminists are essentialists because essentialism is antithetical to radicalism.<BR/> <BR/><I>Now, I have to go take a shower, and work this evening has less to do with that need than the arrogance here does. </I><BR/><BR/>Well at least it’s well intentioned arrogance. I’m trying to save the world. ;)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20435429.post-19471842068663626932007-03-09T00:49:00.000-06:002007-03-09T00:49:00.000-06:00Thank you, Ren. I'd add something, but it's really...Thank you, Ren. I'd add something, but it's really not needed.Trinityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06846032433424879965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20435429.post-52366581485557121172007-03-09T00:05:00.000-06:002007-03-09T00:05:00.000-06:00”Evolution is the more feminist of the two right?”...”Evolution is the more feminist of the two right?”<BR/>It’s the more logical, scientifically supported one too…<BR/><BR/>”I don’t know how you are using the word sexuality because it is used in different ways. But I can clarify. I think hormones influence drive levels but not direction or orientation. Giving testosterone to a gay man will not make him straight”<BR/>No, it won’t and science is showing that is because he is biologically pre-disposed to being gay.<BR/> <BR/>”You mean you appeal to the authority men have granted to science?”<BR/>No, appeal to the facts science has given to humanity.<BR/><BR/>”I don’t know if I have many views on sexuality. I share sex with some partners. I also know that some forms of eroticization are the basis for male dominance. Beyond that, I’m not curious about sex. To me it’s very personal and I have no desire to talk about it other than it’s poltics.”<BR/>Well, most folk, even women folk, are more sexually inclined and generally do not ponder every political aspect of every stage of the act(s), they do them for pleasure, usually mutual pleasure between themselves and their partner(s). I don’t think even most feminists ponder, “If he’s on top tonight, is that anti-feminist? What are the political implications of that?” Funny how politics can screw up a perfectly fun thing like sex…<BR/><BR/><BR/>”I hear ya. I don’t think the revolution is going to come. It’s not longer a possibility and women’s liberation cannot occur without one.”<BR/>Says you. The individual.<BR/><BR/><BR/>”I think the greatest possible service I can do is to work toward everyone radicalizing because I really do see liberal feminism as patriarchy.”<BR/>And I see radical feminism very close to fascism in the hands of many, many people. And before you point out how selfish I am, I am certainly NOT the only one who sees it that way.<BR/> <BR/><BR/>”Despise sexuality? I didn’t say I did that. I just said I’m really glad I have a low drive. It give me more time to talk about why liberal feminism can’t be effective.”<BR/>That really is the whole of your life, isn’t it? The great pure feminism. Wow. <BR/><BR/>”Again – out of individualism, you miss the point because you live in a society and if objectification is ok for you, you are also saying it’s ok for me too except I say no it isn’t. How is a man supposed to get it? Are you proposing for women who don’t want to be objectified to hear habits of something?”<BR/>You made that question personal, so I answered that way. Listen, you have made every word you’ve typed about individualism, that individual being you. Right here in this very thread, who are all the collected feminists agreeing with more, me, or you? Me. Why, because at least some of my words ring in for them somewhere, so I am not always just Me Me Me, there is some We there too. You on the other hand? It’s all about WS and HER thoughts and analysis. Seriously, out and about in this section of bloglandia, is there another Radical Feminist who sees things JUST like you do? Twisty? BB? Witchy? V? Amandaranta? Spotted Elephant? Any of them? If not, they too seem to have a common thread of thought, and certainly are not liberal feminists….so who, might, maybe, have things….wrong?<BR/>And no, I do not like to see unwilling women objectified. However, I certainly do not like to see unwilling women told nothing they do for women matters because they might wear a short skirt, or told they are “not feminist enough” to be part of some high minded Radicals Club (not like most would want membership anyway) and belittled for their views and told what they think does not matter and is not valid and blah blah blah and how they ONLY think about themselves when the apparent hypocrisy of the accuser is more blatant than fish gone bad in the summer sun in Mexico City. <BR/><BR/>Now, I have to go take a shower, and work this evening has less to do with that need than the arrogance here does.Renegade Evolutionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17905949172886730262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20435429.post-12427024154979742692007-03-08T23:40:00.000-06:002007-03-08T23:40:00.000-06:00WS - No one's guts can be "analysis". That is not ...WS - No one's guts can be "analysis". That is not physiologically possible. If what you mean is that you have internalised a certain intellectual framework then sure, but if you think that anyone can divorce themself from their emotions completely you're kidding yourself, unless you are in fact Mr Spock.<BR/>And about the McKinnon books - I've read them. Minored in sociology and political science and all that good stuff, major area of concentration - feminism. One of the guiding lights of British feminism was one of my teachers, I did my research in the Fawcett Library...want to swap creds some more? Because I could go on for hours. It's very telling that you assume that those who disagree with you are unintelligent or uneducated, though. Very telling indeed. Has it ever occured to you that some of us read the books and didn't agree with everything they had to say? That that's why we don't call ourselves radical feminists?(Although we are still feminists, just of a different kind, and your continual implication that we are not is, well, condescending and uncalled for).<BR/>And by the way, if you want to talk about insulting..."In the nineties, as a liberal feminist, I came to see that my own liberal feminism was fucked up and that liberal feminism wasn't feminism at all."<BR/>You don't think that's insulting? The fact that you just dismissed an entire school of feminism and, by extension, all it's adherants?<BR/>As to the who do you know from the seventies thing...a little ageist, don't you think? And a way to deflect the conversation.<BR/>Also...McKinnon is not the only theorist in the history of feminism. Did you forget everyone else? Some of them had rather valuable things to say too.<BR/>I'm not going to go through the rest point by point, since RE and PF already did, but there is one thing I will say. <BR/><BR/>"Btw, what this thread really does is to demonstrate the huge issues between liberals and radical. "<BR/>On that we are agreed, or we would be if we replaced "radical" with "a small and not necessarily very representative percentage of radical feminists" and "liberal" with "all other feminists". <BR/><BR/>And about people making assumptions about you...you've done that to everyone else you've interacted with on this board. At least no one else here has given you a verbal pat on the head and a "good girl, have a cookie" the way you did to RE.<BR/><BR/>.Cassandra Sayshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07775317504418213521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20435429.post-45166930396973496232007-03-08T21:42:00.000-06:002007-03-08T21:42:00.000-06:00Do you believe in creationism or evolution?Evoluti...<I>Do you believe in creationism or evolution?</I><BR/><BR/>Evolution is the more feminist of the two right?<BR/><BR/><I> I am not arguing that society does not influence sexuality or gender, it does.</I><BR/><BR/><I> But the idea that biology has little or nothing to do with sexuality and sexual attraction?</I><BR/><BR/>I don’t know how you are using the word sexuality because it is used in different ways. But I can clarify. I think hormones influence <I>drive levels</I> but not direction or orientation. Giving testosterone to a gay man will not make him straight,<BR/><BR/>“ Sorry, just like you flat out refuse to ponder another answers on many things, I am not going to do it on this one. I think the scientific evidence proves my theory fairly resoundingly.”<BR/>You mean you appeal to the authority men have granted to science?<BR/><BR/>“The personal is political. There isn't any way to keep your job out when we talk about objectification.”<BR/><BR/>“Then do not pretend you can, for a second, keep your own views on sexuality or ANYTHING else out of it when discussing the matter either.”<BR/><BR/>I don’t know if I have many views on sexuality. I share sex with some partners. I also know that some forms of eroticization are the basis for male dominance. Beyond that, I’m not curious about sex. To me it’s very personal and I have no desire to talk about it other than it’s poltics.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I> You know, I could quit my job, but it would not change anything, except perhaps a woman who hated it and did not want to do it might end up taking my place. If I thought it would be some great strike against worldwide patriarchy, I would quit. But guess what? It wouldn’t be. It also would not give me the time or the money that I have now, to, you know, help women, living in the here and now, rather than after the great revolution (that may never happen) and all.</I><BR/><BR/>I hear ya. I don’t think the revolution is going to come. It’s not longer a possibility and women’s liberation cannot occur without one.<BR/><BR/><I>“I will say we did these things in the seventies and things were much better”<BR/><BR/>“Of course you do, and it is totally expected and rather arrogant of you to say so. You don’t believe in liberal feminism, so it is okay to disregard and belittle anything they do. You know, really…other than spouting radical theory, ripping on liberal feminists, insisting they are not feminists at all, and talking about how much better you did it back in the day…what, exactly, are you doing for women, NOW? Besides belittling and insulting those you are talking to here, of course.”</I><BR/><BR/>I think the greatest possible service I can do is to work toward everyone radicalizing because I really do see liberal feminism as patriarchy.<BR/><BR/>WS:<I>“Let me put it this way. I wouldn't wiggle my rear to attract a man, have sex with him and then complain about his objectification of my rear.”<BR/><BR/>Ren:You seen me complain ONCE about objectification on my own behalf? Seen me say “Oh I hate being objectified!” Have you? I happen to like attracting men and having sex with them. And you know, I would not say I despise sexuality then try to lecture people on it. </I><BR/><BR/>Despise sexuality? I didn’t say I did that. I just said I’m really glad I have a low drive. It give me more time to talk about why liberal feminism can’t be effective.<BR/><BR/>Again – out of individualism, you miss the point because you live in a society and if objectification is ok for you, you are also saying it’s ok for me too except I say no it isn’t. How is a man supposed to get it? Are you proposing for women who don’t want to be objectified to hear habits of something?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20435429.post-11555075971993095472007-03-08T18:02:00.000-06:002007-03-08T18:02:00.000-06:00Do you believe in creationism or evolution? I am ...Do you believe in creationism or evolution? I am not arguing that society does not influence sexuality or gender, it does. But the idea that biology has little or nothing to do with sexuality and sexual attraction? Sorry, just like you flat out refuse to ponder another answers on many things, I am not going to do it on this one. I think the scientific evidence proves my theory fairly resoundingly.<BR/><BR/>“The personal is political. There isn't any way to keep your job out when we talk about objectification.”<BR/><BR/>Then do not pretend you can, for a second, keep your own views on sexuality or ANYTHING else out of it when discussing the matter either. You know, I could quit my job, but it would not change anything, except perhaps a woman who hated it and did not want to do it might end up taking my place. If I thought it would be some great strike against worldwide patriarchy, I would quit. But guess what? It wouldn’t be. It also would not give me the time or the money that I have now, to, you know, help women, living in the here and now, rather than after the great revolution (that may never happen) and all.<BR/><BR/>“I will say we did these things in the seventies and things were much better”<BR/><BR/>Of course you do, and it is totally expected and rather arrogant of you to say so. You don’t believe in liberal feminism, so it is okay to disregard and belittle anything they do. You know, really…other than spouting radical theory, ripping on liberal feminists, insisting they are not feminists at all, and talking about how much better you did it back in the day…what, exactly, are you doing for women, NOW? Besides belittling and insulting those you are talking to here, of course.<BR/><BR/>“Let me put it this way. I wouldn't wiggle my rear to attract a man, have sex with him and then complain about his objectification of my rear.”<BR/><BR/>You seen me complain ONCE about objectification on my own behalf? Seen me say “Oh I hate being objectified!” Have you? I happen to like attracting men and having sex with them. And you know, I would not say I dispise sexuality then try to lecture people on it. <BR/><BR/>“So which of the eigteen issues you have on the table did you want to discuss?”<BR/><BR/>Oh, pick one…I only asked you “who does that benefit” about 12 times or so.Renegade Evolutionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17905949172886730262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20435429.post-6529373195575099572007-03-08T17:19:00.000-06:002007-03-08T17:19:00.000-06:00Naturalism is at base an epistemological posture g...Naturalism is at base an epistemological posture growing out of the search for a ground on which to found true reality perception, a location of constancy, a bedrock beneath social shifts, variance, and relativity. Nature is a fixed, certain, and ultimately knowable reality to which there is tangible demonstrable truth, intersubjectively communicable, regardless of perspective. The idea of naturalism, in fact, is that nature is not an idea, but an object reality, meaning that it is thing. Sex as biology, gender as physical body, occupies this place in liberal feminism. In this view, body originates independently of society or mind; then, to varying degrees but invariably and immu-tably, it undergirds social relations, limiting change. In radical feminism, the condition of the sexes and the relevant definition of women as a group is conceived as social down to the somatic level. Only incidentally, perhaps even consequentially, is it biological.<BR/><BR/>I see what the difficulty is now. You see, liberal feminists have no solution other than reform and we know that really isn't going to work.<BR/><BR/>So which of the eigteen issues you have on the table did you want to discuss?<BR/><BR/>Btw, what this thread really does is to demonstrate the huge issues between liberals and radical.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20435429.post-59826646507227026992007-03-08T17:10:00.000-06:002007-03-08T17:10:00.000-06:00The personal is political. There isn't any way to ...The personal is political. There isn't any way to keep your job out when we talk about objectification.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>We could go back to pilgrim dress, and sure enough, ankles would be erotic again. Bet on it. You cover one part, another will "inspire the gaze". </I><BR/><BR/><BR/>You know what? This never occurred to me. It really is something to thing about.<BR/><BR/>I will say we did these things in the seventies and things were much better<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>We cannot change men, men have to change men. We can offer them opinions, tell them what we think and feel, but we cannot PROGRAM them.</I><BR/><BR/>Let me put it this way. I wouldn't wiggle my rear to attract a man, have sex with him and then complain about his objectification of my rear.<BR/><BR/>Part of this discussion exactly highlights the difference between radicals and liberals and it is why we don't jive. Social constructivist emphasises learning.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20435429.post-82709795467812418332007-03-08T17:03:00.000-06:002007-03-08T17:03:00.000-06:00Great...line up the feminist biolgist theories aga...Great...line up the feminist biolgist theories against every other SHREAD of scientific evidence that says otherwise, made by both male and female scientists, world wide, and see which is more believable as a matter of FACT. Female animals go into heat for a reason, human women have periods for a reason, so they can breed. Male is attracted to female, female to male, in a majority of cases because this is natural. Pharamones are exuded as attracting agents, naturally, to ensure procreation. This is not Patriarcy Propoganda, it is science. It is proven, and sorry, some feminist studies saying otherwise do not stack up to the tons, years worth, stacks of evidence to the contradictory. Yes, a human can CHOOSE to ignore these things, can choose not to have sex, be genderless, asexual, even force themselves to be "hetro" to fit into society or "homosexual" for political reasons, but that does not change science and nature... sorry.Renegade Evolutionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17905949172886730262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20435429.post-62555265457482848082007-03-08T16:50:00.000-06:002007-03-08T16:50:00.000-06:00"Sex attraction is learned? Sorry, I have to call ...<I>"Sex attraction is learned? Sorry, I have to call bullshit on that. Sex is a basic, primal instinct...the drive to procreate. "</I><BR/><BR/>See without looking up the references, there was simply a dismissal to maintain you world view, a patriarchal world view at that - It's called object reality for that matter and what we do not see is that it is contructed.<BR/><BR/><I>"If sex attraction is not natural, there would not be all this scientific research into whether or not homosexuality is biologically based or not."</I><BR/><BR/>Because it about power and gender hegemony. Male objective science is being use to bolster patriarchy and serve the needs of men as it always has.<BR/><BR/>Before I am misquoted, my assertion was that "sexuality is <BR/><BR/>"There would be no scientific reasearch into what traits animals, all of them, including humans, find attractive in seeking a suitable mate. Sure, I may not be attractive to a feral child...but a feral Male over the Age of 17 or so? Hormones in play, he sure as hell is going to look at some sort of woman and find her attractive."<BR/><BR/>Why? Simply because you believe it, but that is not what feminist biologist say.<BR/><BR/>I taught motivation and emotion for years. Humans have no instincts. We have basic reflexes yes but not instincts.<BR/><BR/><I>And, if so many radical feminist hate the word natural, why do you see them espousing "the natural look" (unshaved, no make up, no cosmetic surgery) so often?</I><BR/><BR/><BR/>ALL of those things are not about "natural" they are in resistance to the artificial construction of differences that we gender - GENDER.<BR/><BR/>Natural little to do with it. Every thing you mentioned is about the construction of gender differences.<BR/><BR/>The feminist aversion to natural is because patriarcy fuses the cultural and attributes these gender difference to nature.<BR/><BR/>You know what there is extensive radical feminist analysis on all of this. Each of these topics are major threads in themselvesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20435429.post-62413668220221011292007-03-08T16:33:00.000-06:002007-03-08T16:33:00.000-06:00WS:Keep my fucking job out of it for a moment. Me...WS:<BR/><BR/>Keep my fucking job out of it for a moment. Men are not stupid, and if they are all hell bent on continuing to keep us objectfied, they WILL. We cannot FORCE them to moderate anything, even via Radical Feminism. We could go back to pilgrim dress, and sure enough, ankles would be erotic again. Bet on it. You cover one part, another will "inspire the gaze". We cannot change men, men have to change men. We can offer them opinions, tell them what we think and feel, but we cannot PROGRAM them.Renegade Evolutionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17905949172886730262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20435429.post-30656222403073749702007-03-08T16:26:00.000-06:002007-03-08T16:26:00.000-06:00"Men need to modify their behavior, not the other ...<I>"Men need to modify their behavior, not the other way around."</I> <BR/><BR/>We're getting there! Blessed be to radical feminism.<BR/><BR/>How are you going to get men to modify their behvior by conforming to everything the have set up?<BR/><BR/>The answer is that it's not likely to happen. We have to change too because we are in a dynamic with them. They cannot change unless we change. This is the meaning of a dynamic. Gender is a major part of male dominance. What we are taking is the eroticization of gender.<BR/><BR/>It we keep attracting men on a sexual basis, that are going to continue to objectify is.<BR/><BR/>Do you think we just ask that they nt objectify us? Can you legislate it?<BR/><BR/>But again, we need to remember that you have a stake in being objectified as you mentioned in your first post. That's what's hurting us.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20435429.post-46196458947364789202007-03-08T16:22:00.000-06:002007-03-08T16:22:00.000-06:00Sex attraction is learned? Sorry, I have to call ...Sex attraction is learned? Sorry, I have to call bullshit on that. Sex is a basic, primal instinct...the drive to procreate. The Four F's: Fight, Flight, Feed, Fornicate. If sex attraction is not natural, there would not be all this scientific research into whether or not homosexuality is biologically based or not. There would be no scientific reasearch into what traits animals, all of them, including humans, find attractive in seeking a suitable mate. Sure, I may not be attractive to a feral child...but a feral Male over the Age of 17 or so? Hormones in play, he sure as hell is going to look at some sort of woman and find her attractive.<BR/><BR/>And, if so many radical feminist hate the word natural, why do you see them espousing "the natural look" (unshaved, no make up, no cosmetic surgery) so often?Renegade Evolutionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17905949172886730262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20435429.post-42804114062221913642007-03-08T16:15:00.000-06:002007-03-08T16:15:00.000-06:00…I mean, think about it, back in the day, showing ...…I mean, think about it, back in the day, showing an ANKLE, and ANKLE was ILLEGAL in some states because the ankle was too sexy to be viewed in public by men because it might inspire them to feelings of lust…same with hair and wrists… the MORE something is revealed, the LESS erotic it can become…I mean, you know any men who would be driven to a lustful frenzy by an ankle or a wrist these days?Renegade Evolutionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17905949172886730262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20435429.post-66589874003653718772007-03-08T16:13:00.000-06:002007-03-08T16:13:00.000-06:00"wrt objectification, gee, first post on the threa...<I>"wrt objectification, gee, first post on the thread, I stated flat out some level of initial ojectification is natural...and it does not matter if you are in a short skirt or overalls, if someone finds you attractive for a reason, they are going to look. "</I><BR/><BR/>But it's not natural (a liberal position). Sex attraction is learned.<BR/><BR/>Feral children and adolescents are not sexually around by the things in this society. Renegade, you would not be a turn-on for an eighteen year old feral adolescent because sexuality is NOT natural. It's learned.<BR/><BR/>References and citations:<BR/><BR/>Sexing the Body - Fausto-Sterling<BR/><BR/>www.feralchildren.com<BR/><BR/>On feralchildren.com there is a discussion of many nineth and twentieth century attempts to elicit socialized sexual responses via pornography. It does not occur.<BR/><BR/>One things radical feminists do eschew is the word "natural"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20435429.post-63160922999761086542007-03-08T16:10:00.000-06:002007-03-08T16:10:00.000-06:00WS:Once again, to Orwellian for a lot of women, me...WS:<BR/><BR/>Once again, to Orwellian for a lot of women, me included. Men need to modify their behavior, not the other way around. For some reason, all of us going back to dressing like the woman who came off the Mayflower to make the boys behave themselves sounds a lot like shooting Women, the Collective, in the foot. Because then they can just show and prove they cannot behave themselves, ever, and we are stuck in pilgrim gear, forever, and women are still going to get raped.Renegade Evolutionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17905949172886730262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20435429.post-79383849355537223262007-03-08T16:05:00.000-06:002007-03-08T16:05:00.000-06:00I am also going to go way out on a limb and mentio...I am also going to go way out on a limb and mention the dreaded word responsibility...as is, own your own shit...<BR/><BR/>If a woman does not want to be subject to the gaze or possibly objectified, she should not wear a short skirt. Doing so may encourage the gaze. So, if you wear something that encourages the gaze, own your shit if you get it. The gaze is not rape... there is never a case of rape where the woman deserves it, but the gaze? The gaze is not rape, and while maybe not deserved, certain styles do invite it. Thus, own your own shit.Renegade Evolutionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17905949172886730262noreply@blogger.com