rigorousintuition.ca

Wombaticus Rex » Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:57 am wrote:

Carol Newquist » Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:58 pm wrote:Alright (not Albright yet), let's take it for a ride since it's unambiguous. Is Madeleine Albright a Feminist?

No, because she is a murderer who believes the cost is worth it.

Her publicist would certainly tell you otherwise, but it's very simple: she is not. You cannot be anti-life and be feminist.

Abortion issues aside, can you not see that this says more about you than the phenomenon known as feminism. My conjecture is that only the great, great majority of those practicing what they consider 'feminism' are not 'anti-life'. That's good enough for me.

I am glad you grok that the central joke there was me, speaking on Feminism.

Still, like most labels -- most nouns, really, it is fucking useless for communication purposes.

Word to "Christianity."

Wombaticus Rex » Thu Oct 03, 2013 10:23 am wrote:I am glad you grok that the central joke there was me, speaking on Feminism.

Still, like most labels -- most nouns, really, it is fucking useless for communication purposes.

Word to "Christianity."

I love nouns. As they reverberate, I renown them.

minime » Thu Oct 03, 2013 10:18 am wrote:Abortion issues aside, can you not see that this says more about you than the phenomenon known as feminism. My conjecture is that only the great, great majority of those practicing what they consider 'feminism' are not 'anti-life'. That's good enough for me.

Phew, had to read that a few times to sort out what you meant.

..

minime » 03 Oct 2013 16:18 wrote:

Wombaticus Rex » Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:57 am wrote:

Carol Newquist » Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:58 pm wrote:Alright (not Albright yet), let's take it for a ride since it's unambiguous. Is Madeleine Albright a Feminist?

No, because she is a murderer who believes the cost is worth it.

Her publicist would certainly tell you otherwise, but it's very simple: she is not. You cannot be anti-life and be feminist.

Abortion issues aside, can you not see that this says more about you than the phenomenon known as feminism. My conjecture is that only the great, great majority of those practicing what they consider 'feminism' are not 'anti-life'. That's good enough for me.

Wombaticus Rex wrote:I am glad you grok that the central joke there was me, speaking on Feminism.

Still, like most labels -- most nouns, really, it is fucking useless for communication purposes.

Word to "Christianity."

minime wrote:

Wombaticus Rex » Thu Oct 03, 2013 10:23 am wrote:I am glad you grok that the central joke there was me, speaking on Feminism.

Still, like most labels -- most nouns, really, it is fucking useless for communication purposes.

Word to "Christianity."

I love nouns. As they reverberate, I renown them.

JackRiddler wrote:

minime » Thu Oct 03, 2013 10:18 am wrote:Abortion issues aside, can you not see that this says more about you than the phenomenon known as feminism. My conjecture is that only the great, great majority of those practicing what they consider 'feminism' are not 'anti-life'. That's good enough for me.

Phew, had to read that a few times to sort out what you meant.

ha - made my day
tx all

...

You cannot be anti-life and be feminist.

I see. That eliminates an awful lot of candidates from the Feminist pool. I'm left with Mother Theresa. Was she a Feminist? She was certainly empowered and no one could claim she was anti-life. Can you imagine Mother Theresa and Gloria Steinem hanging out together....smoking a couple of bowls and talking about zygotes and gametes? I'd love to be a fly on the wall for that one.

Jack, your response to me was a long-winded diatribe rationalizing Identity Politics. I don't subscribe to that philosophy because it produces precisely the outcome in the link I provided to Feminist.com. Let's take Feminism, for example. Amongst other characteristics used to describe this label, foremost amongst them is the use of the term empowerment. Power is at the core of that term. Power, imo. has a masculine stigma attached to it. Not so nice things come to mind when I think of power, and so, to me, empowerment means "hey ladies, yeah, sure, you can have some power too. Come on over here, we'll show you how it's done. That's right....put your index finger on the trigger like that and pull....but you don't have to pull hard....just a squeeze really. Feel that power? It's awesome, isn't it? Welcome to the club, Champ" I said this at another place where it wasn't so welcome....where I was called a Feminist on more occasions than I can count.

At a family reunion last year, my sister-in-law spoke about her hero, Billy Jean King. This S-I-L had been ruled over by a tyrant, her husand and my brother, for quite some time before she basically said “fuck-off” and pursued her own interests. She attended college and received a degree in education and is now a teacher. She and my brother have three grown children. The conversation continued along the lines of women and their current and historical roles in society and women’s rights in general. My brother did not care to discuss any of this so remained in the other room and scowled. My S-I-L, obviously, supports equal rights but only in the sense that females get to do everything males do, hence her worship of Billy Jean King. I told her that this outcome was disappointing for me. She became immediately defensive because she assumed my statement was motivated by conservatism which most assuredly it was not. I clarified that my wish was that women could chart their own course and create their world, not assume predefined roles in the current world crafted and ruled by men. She’s not the brightest bulb, so she lashed out at me and said “what other world are you talking about? We’re on planet Earth. It’s not like we can go to Mars.” Her response made me realize just how seemingly impossible a truly new world is. Look how far you’d have to go. You’d have to wipe the slate clean and start fresh with a new generation for there to be any chance. A collapse could do that, but the collateral damage will be immense.

I love Stieg Larsson's trilogy by the way, and I love the character Lisbeth Salander. Women need more of this. They need more stories of women who forge their own paths, and not the paths laid out for them by men or the paths of men; the former path being traditional homemakers and the latter being feminist corporatism.

Carol Newquist » Thu Oct 03, 2013 10:51 am wrote:

You cannot be anti-life and be feminist.

I see. That eliminates an awful lot of candidates from the Feminist pool. I'm left with Mother Theresa. Was she a Feminist? She was certainly empowered and no one could claim she was anti-life. Can you imagine Mother Theresa and Gloria Steinem hanging out together....smoking a couple of bowls and talking about zygotes and gametes? I'd love to be a fly on the wall for that one.

Mother Theresa almost certainly was not a believer in the ideas of feminism. You're again conflating empowerment of individual women with feminism. Two different things, often related, sometimes not. Thatcher, for example: definitely not a feminist! Queen Elizabeth I? If she was, she would have been very covert about it; however, if we allow the terminological anachronism, she enforced an anti-feminist order.

These distinctions are really not hard for people of average intelligence, which I'm sure you possess at a minimum. So since you're still doing this a bunch of posts later, it means you're engaging in a common and very low-grade strawman attack, one very popular on the cultural right (ooh! a label!). Rightists (you might not be one, you're just using a common tactic as I said) are very leader and icon oriented. They seem to despise ideas, cannot bear them except when attached to avatars. So they like to pick anti-icons and make juvenile fun of a celebrity who represents "feminism" (or "liberalism," or whatever) and then pretend: ha ha, case closed!

In any case, that you think feminism is "anti-life" (either because of the right to abortion or just because) shows you had labeled it long ago. Another indicator of thinking influenced by modern "conservatism" (which isn't conservative in the original sense, another false label) is the tin ear for humor. Also, your material really sucks. Okay, it's only one "joke", so you're not doomed yet. But if you're going to try funny, please study real comedians and work harder, or give it up.

--

PS, speaking of labeling strategies: "Long-winded diatribe" - fuck off with your own. Also, clarify whether you have a past posting history here, as several have claimed (not me). Thank you.

Queen Elizabeth I? If she was, she would have been very covert about it; however, if we allow the terminological anachronism, she enforced an anti-feminist order.

Jack, you Riddler. Health to you.

In any case, that you think feminism is "anti-life" (either because of the right to abortion or just because) shows you had labeled it long ago.

I don't think any such thing. I don't know what Feminism is. All I know is what you think it is. I have no idea whether it's anti-life, pro-life or ambivalent about life. By the way, I apply the same challenge to the term Christian. I have know idea what a Christian is, and truthfully, I don't think the majority of people who consider themselves Christians know either....they just know they are, somehow....because they say so.

PS, speaking of labeling strategies: "Long-winded diatribe" - fuck off with your own.

I didn't label you, Jack, but now you're certainly labeling me....as a "Rightest" or a "Conservative." This is too much...really, it is. You're proving my point. Look how much effort you're putting into boxing me for edification. You're frothing at the mouth and swearing, you're so worked up. That's the problem with labeling. You feel compelled to define me so you can smash me....for some reason. Why? Can't we just be without calling ourselves, or others, something?

Carol Newquist » Thu Oct 03, 2013 11:44 am wrote:

PS, speaking of labeling strategies: "Long-winded diatribe" - fuck off with your own.

I didn't label you, Jack, but now you're certainly labeling me....as a "Rightest" or a "Conservative." This is too much...really, it is. You're proving my point. Look how much effort you're putting into boxing me for edification. You're frothing at the mouth and swearing, you're so worked up. That's the problem with labeling. You feel compelled to define me so you can smash me....for some reason. Why? Can't we just be without calling ourselves, or others, something?

You...Carol Newquist have been frothing at the mouth since you...Carol Newquist got here just a couple of days ago...it's like you Carol Newquist had a chip on your... Carol Newquist's shoulder about something

Carol Newquist » Thu Oct 03, 2013 11:44 am wrote:

PS, speaking of labeling strategies: "Long-winded diatribe" - fuck off with your own.

I didn't label you, Jack, but now you're certainly labeling me....as a "Rightest" or a "Conservative." This is too much...really, it is. You're proving my point. Look how much effort you're putting into boxing me for edification. You're frothing at the mouth and swearing, you're so worked up. That's the problem with labeling. You feel compelled to define me so you can smash me....for some reason. Why? Can't we just be without calling ourselves, or others, something?

First of all, if I were to label you anything, I hope I'd spell it right.

Secondly:

what JackRiddler actually said about 'Carole', in contrast to above hystericized misrepresentation wrote:
Rightists (you might not be one, you're just using a common tactic as I said) are very leader and icon oriented.

Third, your schtick seems to be to reduce potentially interesting arguments to easily handled children's blocks. That's a kind of labeling strategy.

Jack, if you're a Feminist, as you say, it's not saying much for Feminism. Aggression is a masculine trait and has all manner of negative stigma attached to it. Belittling someone you believe to be your opponent, for whatever reason, is an act of aggression, and using the word hysterical to describe my behavior is something typically seen from tyrannical males....hence the brutal and sadistic practice of removing a woman's uterus because she talks back. It brings to mind the scene from the Godfather when Michael tells Kay Connie's hysterical when she tells Kay, lividly, that her husband's a murderous monster.

Feel free to spell check my work and let me know if you catch any typos. Thanks.

Carol Newquist » Thu Oct 03, 2013 1:30 pm wrote:Jack, if you're a Feminist, as you say, it's not saying much for Feminism. Aggression is a masculine trait and has all manner of negative stigma attached to it. Belittling someone you believe to be your opponent, for whatever reason, is an act of aggression, and using the word hysterical to describe my behavior is something typically seen from tyrannical males....hence the brutal and sadistic practice of removing a woman's uterus because she talks back. It brings to mind the scene from the Godfather when Michael tells Kay Connie's hysterical when she tells Kay, lividly, that her husband's a murderous monster.

Feel free to spell check my work and let me know if you catch any typos. Thanks.

I did not use the word hysterical in reference to you. I did not use that word at all.

I said you are hystericizing what I said. That implies a rational strategy to make things emotionally charged, so as to "win" the argument.

You are not interested in rational discourse, but you're happy to use any means to "win." Including being a rotten liar. Which you are.

Also, you've been aggressive, of course. Only to accuse those who respond (not even in kind, necessarily) of being... aggressive... and brutal... and male... oh, and look, now threatening your uterus. No less than that! Also, apparently, I'm a murderous monster.

And this started because I said I love feminists. Who, as you've pointed out, are anti-life, murderous monsters. So all's fair in attacking'em, I suppose.

You have no problems with labeling, Internet Persona "Carole" Whoever You Are. There are just certain labels you'd like to taint. That much is obvious.

.