[gecko]

Originally Posted by Simurgh To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Sure, men did not have much power either, but they all had power over women. But that is beside the point since we only talked about the queen as chess figure. And if you want to go and compare women and men’s lives fine too. Women had the right to die in childbirth, had the often presented opportunity to be raped by any noble who took a fancy to them; were allowed to glory in the position of outcast for bearing children out of wedlock (for reasons see above); oh and the women were part of that family that paid for men’s’ transgressions too.

Nah.

Men fought wars.

You sound breathless.

[Anza]

Seems like it's a competition nowadays: whose group is most discriminated against. I don't know, I find it sad that feminism and "masculinism" seem to be needed. Discrimination is bad, no matter who it's directed at. Violence is bad, no matter who is the victim.

[zibber]

Originally Posted by Shadizar To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

And ordinary non-noble men had actual power? Beyond the churchly "god-given" of course. If I remember my history correctly, ordinary non-noble men had the right to be taxed and die, sometimes they had the right to be conscripted and die. If they were lucky, they were allowed to have a family before they died; but that wasn't a right. And if you died without cause, you were abusing your rights and your family paid for it.

More power than their wives, is the point.

[Simurgh]

	Originally Posted by gecko To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Nah. Men fought wars. You sound breathless.

Oh really, they fought wars, you mean the ones they started? And your point?

What is your obsession with me personally? First you tell me that I look like a bitch, and then you tell me I sound breathless. Is that really necessary? Are you really that desperate to make a fool of yourself or are you just in training for the Darwin Awards?

[gecko]

	Originally Posted by Simurgh To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Oh really, they fought wars, you mean the ones they started? And your point?

Lol. You missed the point, again. Plainly, the chess queen indicates that women were valued, despite their 'secondary' position in visible hierarchy. Thus, you have no evidence nor reason to stipulate that men started wars, while women existed in some void.

	Originally Posted by Simurgh To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What is your obsession with me personally? First you tell me that I look like a bitch, and then you tell me I sound breathless. Is that really necessary? Are you really that desperate to make a fool of yourself or are you just in training for the Darwin Awards?

You possess symmetric traits I wish to acquire.

[Simurgh]

	Originally Posted by gecko To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Lol. You missed the point, again. Plainly, the chess queen indicates that women were valued, despite their 'secondary' position in visible hierarchy. Thus, you have no evidence nor reason to stipulate that men started wars, while women existed in some void.

Re the chess queen, it’s a game piece and just because there is a lone female figure on a chess board means just as little as having goddesses in a pantheon. Go all out and read about the position of women in the Middle Ages regarding their relative power. Belaboring the same point is getting tedious.

Re the wars women started: name a few and we can debate that issue. Women do not live in a void; we clean up your messes after all; nurse you when you shoot each other, and so on ad nauseam.

	You possess symmetric traits I wish to acquire.

Well, little boy (I just assume that because you sound a bit like a little child with a tantrum most of the time) it is somewhat strange that you consider the generic look of a female dog and breathlessness to be symmetric traits.

Did you read too many teen novels lately? Sit back, have some nice chamomile tea and listen to the Beach Boys. That will calm you right down.

[gecko]

Originally Posted by Simurgh To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Re the chess queen, it’s a game piece and just because there is a lone female figure on a chess board means just as little as having goddesses in a pantheon. Go all out and read about the position of women in the Middle Ages regarding their relative power. Belaboring the same point is getting tedious. Re the wars women started: name a few and we can debate that issue. Women do not live in a void; we clean up your messes after all; nurse you when you shoot each other, and so on ad nauseam.

You are like a brick. Women influenced men. Do you deny this?

	Originally Posted by Simurgh To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Well, little boy (I just assume that because you sound a bit like a little child with a tantrum most of the time) it is somewhat strange that you consider the generic look of a female dog and breathlessness to be symmetric traits. Did you read too many teen novels lately? Sit back, have some nice chamomile tea and listen to the Beach Boys. That will calm you right down.

Anxiety attacks are little more than subversive cowardice. Pander more, sweetie.

[Simurgh]

	Originally Posted by gecko To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You ...... sweetie.

irrelevant

[gecko]

	Originally Posted by Simurgh To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	irrelevant

to me

[Hydro]

I just found an article from 2008 about modern feminism on some website. Her the essence of it:

That old definition of feminism is now dead. It has been replaced by a new creed that is far more restrictive -- as the controversy over Sarah Palin attests. Out of the recent media frenzy, four general truths emerged about the new feminism: First, there is a particular class and professional bent to the practitioners of feminism. Sarah Palin has as many kids as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, she has as much of a prior political record as the once-heralded Rep. Geraldine Ferraro, who was named to the Democratic ticket by Walter Mondale in 1984 -- and arguably has as much as, or more executive experience than, Barack Obama. Somehow all that got lost in the endless sneering stories about her blue-collar conservatism, small Alaskan town, five children, snowmobiling husband and Idaho college degree. Second, feminism now often equates to a condescending liberalism. Emancipated women who, like Palin, do not believe in abortion or are devout Christians are at best considered unsophisticated dupes. At worse, they are caricatured as conservative interlopers, piggybacking on the hard work of leftwing women whose progressive ideas alone have allowed the Palins of the world the choices that otherwise they would not now enjoy. Apparently these feminists believe that without the ideas of Gloria Steinem on abortion, a moose-hunting PTA mom would not have made governor. The Democrat’s vice presidential candidate, Joe Biden, said Palin’s election, given her politics, would be "a backward step for women." Third, hypocrisy abounds. Many female critics of Palin, in Washington and New York politics and media, found their careers enhanced through the political influence of their powerful fathers, their advantageous marriages to male power players and the inherited advantages of capital. The irony is that a Palin -- like a Barbara Jordan, Golda Meir or Margaret Thatcher -- made her own way without the help of money or influence. Fourth, most Americans still believe in the old feminism but not this new doctrinaire liberal brand. Consequently, a struggling John McCain suddenly has shot ahead of Obama in the polls. Apparently millions of Americans like Palin's underdog feminist saga and her can-do pluckiness. Many are offended by haughty liberal media elites sneering at someone that, politics aside, they should be praising -- for her substantial achievements, her inspirational personal story and her Obama-like charisma.

I'm not an American and therefore I don't give a sh... about Palin or Obama and what you think they stand for so please try to concentrate on what the article says about modern feminism before you go ballistic and ramble about political preferences if you will.

[nowt]

[HIDE="Is happy you read it."]
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
[/HIDE]

	Originally Posted by Hydro To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I just found an article from 2008

[AnotherAvatar]

My understanding of Modern Feminism is a young girl dancing around a pole, maybe with a Porn cam at home, putting herself through college.

Gloria Steinem and their ilk are shaking their heads, not because the guys haven't embraced it, but because the daughters have rejected the core message.

I tend to look at the 'insiders' to see if they embraced the message.

[nowt]

Your understanding of Modern Feminism would never get you thru college no matter how you dance.

	Originally Posted by AnotherAvatar To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	My understanding of Modern Feminism is a young girl dancing around a pole, maybe with a Porn cam at home, putting herself through college.

[INTJRyan]

	Originally Posted by Hydro To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I just found an article from 2008 about modern feminism on some website. Her the essence of it: I'm not an American and therefore I don't give a sh... about Palin or Obama and what you think they stand for so please try to concentrate on what the article says about modern feminism before you go ballistic and ramble about political preferences if you will.

I concentrated, and it's still bullshit four years later. Concentrated bullshit maybe? I know when I need commentary on feminism, National Review and VDH is where I turn first.

[Shadizar]

	Originally Posted by INTJRyan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I concentrated, and it's still bullshit four years later. Concentrated bullshit maybe? I know when I need commentary on feminism, National Review and VDH is where I turn first.

Venereal Disease Hospital?

[Simurgh]

	Originally Posted by Hydro To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I just found an article from 2008 ......... before you go ballistic and ramble about political preferences if you will.

This article, devoid of source and context is little more than a piece of conservative propaganda. Even concentrating on the text does not make it anything else.

Happy you found something you like to read, but it’s just pandering to those who like to reify stereotypes concerning feminism by citing those elusive “most Americans”. While you offer the “ballistic” option, it is not worth the effort.

[AnotherAvatar]

I'm still waiting for the feminists to gather up their resources, put their money where their mouths are and head over to Africa/India/China/Russia and take up the fight.

Or maybe it's just been all about them and what they want this whole time...

[Simurgh]

	Originally Posted by AnotherAvatar To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm still waiting for ...............and what they want this whole time...

Aren’t you being just a bit patronizing/racist/oblivious? The places you name have their own feminists and although western feminists occasionally get involved in some project, there is no need to assume that non-western women need our “help”. They prefer to deal with their own issues.

And yes, it is about what we want…the whole time.

[zibber]

	Originally Posted by AnotherAvatar To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm still waiting for the feminists to gather up their resources, put their money where their mouths are and head over to Africa/India/China/Russia and take up the fight. Or maybe it's just been all about them and what they want this whole time...

What the fuck?

That's really ridiculous. Western feminists fight western fights, primarily.

There is plenty to do here.

Not only is that outburst completely misinformed, it's ethnocentric as hell. Our shit stinks, too.

Besides that very dudely implication that nah, everything is fine over here, as Simurgh said, you're also implicitly asserting the helplessness of dem Others. They are taking up the fight. Our place in theirs is that of allies, but they would be correct in wondering why the hell we aren't cleaning our own house before someone else's.

[Hydro]

	Originally Posted by Simurgh To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The places you name have their own feminists and although western feminists occasionally get involved in some project, there is no need to assume that non-western women need our “help”. They prefer to deal with their own issues.

	Originally Posted by zibber To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Western feminists fight western fights, primarily. There is plenty to do here.

Now look how they try to chicken out here!

When things become risky suddenly feminism is reduced to a very local affair where it is safe to bitch about those "oppressors".
Yeah, I can really understand that there's sooooo much to do to maximize that couch's level of comfort while others don't even know that there might be anything else than sitting in the mud.

I can really imagine you stomping through life as wannabe feminists and do-gooders disturbed by the sights and sounds of normality all around you that don't fit to your delusions.

I can't express how much I despise you ridiculous lot of bigots!

[Simurgh]

Originally Posted by Hydro To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Now look how they try to chicken out here! When things become risky suddenly feminism is reduced to a very local affair where it is safe to bitch about those "oppressors". Yeah, I can really understand that there's sooooo much to do to maximize that couch's level of comfort while others don't even know that there might be anything else than sitting in the mud. I can really imagine you stomping through life as wannabe feminists and do-gooders disturbed by the sights and sounds of normality all around you that don't fit to your delusions. I can't express how much I despise you ridiculous lot of bigots!

Oh, wake up already. This is the post-colonial world and most people in the west don’t suffer from the illusion that the planet is waiting for the enlightened west to save the poor ignorant natives anymore. And generally, feminists, regardless of point of origin, know enough to stay out of other people’s affairs unless asked to participate. It is called common courtesy, respect, and/or common sense. Those concepts are apparently in short supply in your environment, since you do not seem to be familiar with them.

And who is bitching about “oppressors” anyway? Are you stuck in a time warp or is this just another example of racist ideology looking for a pit to wallow in?

What you are imagining is a scenario that is modeled on the sheltered little life you lead and your limited understanding of what feminism has accomplished and is concerned with. And as far as you despising bigots; that’s a good one. Look in the mirror much?

[Latro]

	Originally Posted by zibber To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Not only is that outburst completely misinformed, it's ethnocentric as hell.

I'm not sure ethnocentrism towards a foreign culture entirely makes sense, though admittedly if it did this would definitely be an example of it.

	Originally Posted by Simurgh To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	And who is bitching about “oppressors” anyway? Are you stuck in a time warp or is this just another example of racist ideology looking for a pit to wallow in?

First example I found searching for keywords like oppress, oppression, etc.:

	Originally Posted by Simurgh To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	because inequality and oppression do exist

I agree with you overall, but this point doesn't really work, if I'm understanding your meaning correctly. "Oppression without an oppressor" doesn't make sense either.

[zibber]

	Originally Posted by Latro To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm not sure ethnocentrism towards a foreign culture entirely makes sense[...]

Do you know what ethnocentrism means?

*waits while you google it*

[Simurgh]

	Originally Posted by Latro To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm not sure ethnocentrism towards a foreign culture entirely makes sense, though admittedly if it did this would definitely be an example of it.

Ethnocentrism is the descriptive term in this case. Ethnocentrism is always other directed. And in this case assuming that women in Africa and Eurasia need western women to “help” them is ethnocentric, and if you need a more common term, racist as well. His assumptions betray a patronizing attitude born in colonialist thinking. And I had hoped we in the west had gotten past that by now. Too optimistic on my part, mea culpa.

	I agree with you overall, but this point doesn't really work, if I'm understanding your meaning correctly. "Oppression without an oppressor" doesn't make sense either.

The point is that hydro stipulates that: “When things become risky suddenly feminism is reduced to a very local affair where it is safe to bitch about those "oppressors".”

Hence my question who is he referring to when he mentions the local affairs and oppressors. I assume this is a reference to the example I had posted earlier about local application of feminist work in progress. Nowhere did I mention that anyone was being an oppressor. I merely laid out the situation as it exists in a real case scenario. That he reads into it is not my problem but his and betrays his unwillingness to look at what is in front of him and what he wants to see. Guilty conscience maybe, as in when the shoe fits wear it?

	First example I found searching for keywords like oppress, oppression, etc.:

This is the post you are referencing.

	Originally Posted by Simurgh To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Oh, only the loud ones bother you then. Well, since there appear to be more of those who are loud and you might now manage to catch on to the fact that they are being loud because inequality and oppression do exist and that many women don’t want to take it laying down, as it were, anymore. They have an impact because there are people who actually agree with them.

Yes, oppression exists, but not even the much hated “stone-cold-lesbian-feminists” attribute it solely to men. I think everyone understands that oppression is and has been part of the human condition and is not predicated upon gender but on circumstances that are mostly of a political nature. That men happen to be in a position of authority and power in general and have more opportunity than women have had to act as oppressors historically is well documented. This said, it does not change the fact that hydro makes a remark that I question in the context of his post.

That feminists want to lessen said oppression as far as women are concerned is a given too. Should we now go back into that discussion and revive it?

[Latro]

	Originally Posted by zibber To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Do you know what ethnocentrism means? *waits while you google it*

I do, and already did. In fact I'm fairly sure I used it more than once in this thread already.

But by "towards" I meant "in favor of". If the "center" is the direction one is "facing" then one is "ethnocentric towards" one's own culture. I'm not sure if this is standard usage, but whether it is or not I shouldn't use it, since "behaving ethnocentrically towards ..." clearly puts the other culture in the "...", which gets confusing. Thanks for the implicit correction, no thanks for the pointless condescension.

Anyway, I see now that you meant that he was being ethnocentric in the sense that the other culture would not be able to deal with their own problems, so the term was appropriate. I thought you were saying he was being ethnocentric by weighing other cultures' problems more than his own without reference to his culture's involvement in those problems; that idea is what doesn't make sense.

The point is that hydro stipulates that: “When things become risky suddenly feminism is reduced to a very local affair where it is safe to bitch about those "oppressors".” Hence my question who is he referring to when he mentions the local affairs and oppressors. I assume this is a reference to the example I had posted earlier about local application of feminist work in progress. Nowhere did I mention that anyone was being an oppressor. I merely laid out the situation as it exists in a real case scenario. That he reads into it is not my problem but his and betrays his unwillingness to look at what is in front of him and what he wants to see. Guilty conscience maybe, as in when the shoe fits wear it?

I think he means basically that in other cultures it's not so simple to bitch about oppression, because speaking up could get you killed. I don't think this makes Western feminists cowards, however.

	That feminists want to lessen said oppression as far as women are concerned is a given too. Should we now go back into that discussion and revive it?

Was there discussion of women oppressing women in this thread already? I don't recall.