Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 7/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The war of atheism
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 181 of 526 (678372)
11-07-2012 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by crashfrog
11-07-2012 12:13 PM


Re: zero bad
I agree with you, Mod, that Dawkins is being completely dismissive of Watson's issue with the elevator guy, and with the larger problem of sexism in "movement atheism" altogether. And that's the problem. Dawkins' reply is to continue to be dismissive. The problem isn't that Watson and others are refusing to accept his dismissal; the problem is that he's dismissing them. Dawkins is basically asking, here, exactly what the problem is that can't be solved by just ignoring it. People are trying to tell him, but because they use naughty words he doesn't feel like he has to listen.
I imagine that a large part of the problem is that nobody likes to think of themselves as sexist, or racist, or other words that are bad, and so their minds will immediately rationalize any excuse to make themselves feel better.
"I'm not sexist, I can't possibly be a misogynist, look at the horrible misogyny over there, I'm nothing like them! Clearly you're just overreacting; you don't have it bad unless you're getting acid thrown in your face or getting stoned for being a rape victim."
It's not all that different from the typical immediate reaction of a racist upon being confronted: "I'm not racist, I have a (insert race) friend!"
This says nothing at all, of course, about those who chose to attack Watson by suggesting that she deserved to be assaulted. I have a hard time wrapping my head around that, as it goes far beyond simple defensiveness.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by crashfrog, posted 11-07-2012 12:13 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 182 of 526 (678373)
11-07-2012 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Panda
11-07-2012 10:33 AM


Re: Slogans, Privelege and PoCs
Except that it was:
Except that it's not:
quote:
A human being has a body that is inviolate; and when it is violated, it is abused. A woman has a body that is penetrated in intercourse: permeable, its corporeal solidness a lie. The discourse of male truth--literature, science, philosophy, pornography--calls that penetration violation. This it does with some consistency and some confidence. Violation is a synonym for intercourse. At the same time, the penetration is taken to be a use, not an abuse; a normal use; it is appropriate to enter her, to push into ("violate") the boundaries of her body. She is human, of course, but by a standard that does not include physical privacy. She is, in fact, human by a standard that precludes physical privacy, since to keep a man out altogether and for a lifetime is deviant in the extreme, a psychopathology, a repudiation of the way in which she is expected to manifest her humanity.
She's not describing her own views. She's referring to the patriarchal view dominant in the culture as she sees it. Do I agree that view is present? Absolutely. Even more so when Dworkin was writing. But you've made a fundamental attribution error when you try to make Dworkin out to be some kind of radical who believes that a man can't have sex with a woman without raping her. That's just not something she ever said; that's more of the "strawfeminist" whose views are so much easier to rebut and dismiss than the actual views of any actual feminist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Panda, posted 11-07-2012 10:33 AM Panda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Rahvin, posted 11-07-2012 1:00 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 183 of 526 (678376)
11-07-2012 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by crashfrog
11-07-2012 12:35 PM


Re: Slogans, Privelege and PoCs
That's just not something she ever said; that's more of the "strawfeminist" whose views are so much easier to rebut and dismiss than the actual views of any actual feminist.
Curiously, no one here has tried to attack the views of mainstream feminists at all.
Is it fair to say that, if someone were to hold the view that all PIV sex is rape or that all men are rapists, that such a person would be wrong, and that the wrongness of such a view is completely independent from the view that women should in all ways be equal to men?
I mean, it seems possible for me to oppose the view of (as an example) black supremacists at the same time that I oppose white supremacists and support equal rights across all races. Whether a specific person actually espouses one of those views seems less relevant to me than which positions are actually supported and denounced. The message is more important than the messenger, in other words.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by crashfrog, posted 11-07-2012 12:35 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by crashfrog, posted 11-07-2012 1:11 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 184 of 526 (678378)
11-07-2012 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by crashfrog
11-07-2012 12:13 PM


Re: zero bad
I guess this discussion should actually belong over at Message 51 in Anyone ever heard of Rebecca Watson?, should you feel the desire to respond.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by crashfrog, posted 11-07-2012 12:13 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 185 of 526 (678379)
11-07-2012 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Rahvin
11-07-2012 1:00 PM


Re: Slogans, Privelege and PoCs
Curiously, no one here has tried to attack the views of mainstream feminists at all.
Yes, you're right. Instead, the views of feminists that don't exist have been put in Rebecca Watson's mouth (or text, or whatever) and used as a basis for the conclusion that, whatever all the hubbub was about, it must have been her fault. Rebecca Watson's actual statements and views have gone unrebutted, which is what makes it so weird when people act like she's some fringe figure we can just dismiss from now on.
But, you know, somebody once wore a t-shirt or something - we dunno, nobody took a picture, it's just something that Bluegenes remembers happened once - so Watson is a disregardable slut. Good thing, too, or else we might really have some troubling issues to deal with.
Is it fair to say that, if someone were to hold the view that all PIV sex is rape or that all men are rapists, that such a person would be wrong, and that the wrongness of such a view is completely independent from the view that women should in all ways be equal to men?
Don't change the subject.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Rahvin, posted 11-07-2012 1:00 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Rahvin, posted 11-07-2012 1:35 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(1)
Message 186 of 526 (678382)
11-07-2012 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by crashfrog
11-07-2012 1:11 PM


Re: Slogans, Privelege and PoCs
Yes, you're right. Instead, the views of feminists that don't exist
So you assert, despite the fact that evidence has been presented that invalidates this claim. By multiple people, from multiple sources, none of which you have as of yet addressed.
have been put in Rebecca Watson's mouth (or text, or whatever)
Really? Where? While it has been claimed (and supported) that radical feminists exist, not once have I seen it claimed that Ms. Watson is one of them. Where has it been asserted that Ms. Watson believes that all PIV intercourse is rape, or that all men are rapists, or anything along those lines?
and used as a basis for the conclusion that, whatever all the hubbub was about, it must have been her fault.
Again, where has this been said? I don't see any people here claiming anything was Ms. Watson's fault at all. I have seen it reported that [i]others/i have made some pretty nasty verbal assaults on Ms. Watson, but none here, and none here defending them. I doubt you'll find anyone here on EvC who thinks it was okay to say that Ms. Watson should be raped, for example, and I'm sure that most of us feel that Dawkins was overly dismissive in his initial comments, agreeing more with the later statement as reported by PZ Meyers that (paraphrasing) pointing out a greater wrong elsewhere is no cause to dismiss a lesser, even minor wrong.
Rebecca Watson's actual statements and views have gone unrebutted, which is what makes it so weird when people act like she's some fringe figure we can just dismiss from now on.
Perhaps the reason that her statements have gone unrebutted is that most of us find no fault with her statements, and don't intend to dismiss her?
But, you know, somebody once wore a t-shirt or something - we dunno, nobody took a picture, it's just something that Bluegenes remembers happened once - so Watson is a disregardable slut.
I'll ask you to retract that, as nobody here at EvC has put forth such an opinion, and it is extremely offensive to falsely accuse us of doing so.
There are radical feminists with extreme anti-male views.
Rebecca Watson is not one of them, and her views do not significantly overlap with theirs in any relevant way.
Ms. Watson is in no way a "slut" or any other derogatory word. So far as I can tell, you're the only one using such language.
Ms. Watson felt understandably uncomfortable in what she acknowledges was an innocent situation, her point that even innocent activities can sometimes make some women feel uncomfortable and that such feelings are normal and okay was well made, and the reaction to her words rather than her actual words has included everything from rude dismissal to verbal assault, none of which was remotely okay.
Don't change the subject.
I don't believe that I have.
You carry an awful lot of snark and hostility towards people with whom you largely agree - I think you and I dispute only the existence of a tiny minority of radical feminists, and nothing else in this thread.
Why is that, do you think?

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by crashfrog, posted 11-07-2012 1:11 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by crashfrog, posted 11-07-2012 7:41 PM Rahvin has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 187 of 526 (678422)
11-07-2012 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Rahvin
11-07-2012 1:35 PM


Re: Slogans, Privelege and PoCs
So you assert, despite the fact that evidence has been presented that invalidates this claim.
No evidence has been presented. You've found completely reasonable statements, not any "radical" feminists who have asserted that all men are rapists. Not a single example of any t-shirt. You've been moving those goalposts so fast I'd have to capture it with those cameras they use to film nuclear explosions.
While it has been claimed (and supported) that radical feminists exist, not once have I seen it claimed that Ms. Watson is one of them.
Tangle made that claim in Message 38. What did you think he meant by "it reminds me off..."?
There are radical feminists with extreme anti-male views.
I don't doubt it. There's every kind of person with every kind of view. But for the most part, the "memory" that you and bluegenes and Tangle seem to have that they're all over the place, wearing t-shirts calling all men rapists just isn't true. It's a fabrication, and the people Tangle was "reminded" of simply didn't exist. There's an enormous effort to portray feminists like Andrea Dworkin and Catherine McKinnon as sex-hating harridans via completely manufactured quotes, like the ones you've promulgated. But they simply didn't say those things. I've proven it.
Why is that, do you think?
I dunno. In this thread and the other, you've lied about what I and others have said quite a bit. Was that supposed to make me feel good about you? People seem to be at their most dishonest when they try to argue with me. You're not the first, and the conclusion that I've reached is that there's just something about the compactness of my written word that makes people think I'm being brusque or rude, and they become determined to "put me in my place" by any means necessary, up to and including complete misrepresentations of my words (and sometimes their own.) I can't help it that I tend to respond to provocation in kind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Rahvin, posted 11-07-2012 1:35 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by kofh2u, posted 11-09-2012 9:46 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 189 by Tangle, posted 11-09-2012 11:19 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 192 by Rahvin, posted 11-09-2012 12:48 PM crashfrog has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3819 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 188 of 526 (678604)
11-09-2012 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by crashfrog
11-07-2012 7:41 PM


Re: Slogans, Privelege and PoCs
Feminists is a vague term but usually connotes certain opinions are both held and promulgated into the social contract in the form of amendments.
These amendments have succeeded by the mere force of argument and political support of politicians eager for the constituency of those people, who may be female, gay, of sympathizers of either sex.
To a large extent, fair discussion has been avoided by set of rules, a Political Correctness, in the Cultural Institution.
This rule making, once cultural and outside of, and in place of, the Political Institution, at first, has now been reinforced by those politicians who have become elected representatives who merely implement Laws or court decisions, like Roe Vs Wade.
The change in the Social Contract which has granted Sexual License to women without shame or Blue Law enforcement has created a cottage industry of Harlots who have the distinct advantage of merchandising their sexual favors, Tax Free and indiscriminately, pricing them at whatever the traffic will bear.
The result has been to create a Welfare State exclusively for fatherless children who are now the barbarians within out own gates, more threatening in terms of the financial costs of arrrsting and incarcerating them than the foreign threats at our borders.
Worse, these single mothers now are the largest voting block in the nation, capable of demanding more entitlements now that are the sum of our whole Military Budget.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by crashfrog, posted 11-07-2012 7:41 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by crashfrog, posted 11-09-2012 12:38 PM kofh2u has not replied
 Message 194 by Modulous, posted 11-09-2012 8:22 PM kofh2u has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 189 of 526 (678614)
11-09-2012 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by crashfrog
11-07-2012 7:41 PM


Re: Slogans, Privelege and PoCs
crashfrog writes:
No evidence has been presented. You've found completely reasonable statements, not any "radical" feminists who have asserted that all men are rapists. Not a single example of any t-shirt.
I'm sure you didn't mean to, but you seem to be forgetting my eye witness testimony. I saw banners and T shirts, with the slogan "all men are rapists" in the late 70s, in Manchester, UK.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by crashfrog, posted 11-07-2012 7:41 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by crashfrog, posted 11-09-2012 12:39 PM Tangle has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 190 of 526 (678621)
11-09-2012 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by kofh2u
11-09-2012 9:46 AM


Re: Slogans, Privelege and PoCs
What's the R-Squared for this trend line?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by kofh2u, posted 11-09-2012 9:46 AM kofh2u has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 191 of 526 (678622)
11-09-2012 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Tangle
11-09-2012 11:19 AM


Re: Slogans, Privelege and PoCs
I saw banners and T shirts, with the slogan "all men are rapists" in the late 70s, in Manchester, UK.
What banners and T-shirts, specifically?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Tangle, posted 11-09-2012 11:19 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Tangle, posted 11-09-2012 1:04 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 192 of 526 (678623)
11-09-2012 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by crashfrog
11-07-2012 7:41 PM


Re: Slogans, Privelege and PoCs
No evidence has been presented. You've found completely reasonable statements, not any "radical" feminists who have asserted that all men are rapists.
When someone says that "ALL PIV intercourse is harmful towomen," that's an extreme view. Women carry the greatest potential burden from intercourse through the risk of pregnancy and increased STD transmission, but men are not harming women every time they have sex.
There are these things called condoms that men can use to prevent pregnancy or the spread of STDs. Men can also get vasectomies to eliminate the change of pregnancy, and the process is reversible as a bonus. Women can use IUDs, "the pill," and other options to limit pregnancy...and they can insist on condom use with partners to protect themselves from their potential added burdens. There are vaccines now for various forms of hepatitis. As a bit of good news, the FDA has also just recently approved the first human trials for an HIV vaccine, which would be amazing.
Further, sometimes neither sexual partner has an STD. SOmetimes one partner is infertile anyway...and sometimes pregnancy is a desired outcome.
The claim that PIV intercourse is harmful takes an extremely limited view of intercourse and essentially likens every single time you put your dick into a vagina to assault on a woman, and that is absolutely not the case.
The fact that the author of that blog made some reasonable observations does not excuse the fact that her conclusion does not flow from them. PIV intercourse is not a "harmful cultural practice!" It's a biological necessity for the continuation of the species, for one thing...and as I demonstrated above, showing that an act carries potentially greater consequences for one party does not mean that that act is harmful by nature.
My girlfriend rather enjoys PIV intercourse; she doesn't believe that I'm harming her, and she doesn't have sex with me out of some cultural pressure - she has the biological urge just as strongly as I do. I'm sure many women (and men, men are stereotyped just as strongly as women) have PIV intercourse just to keep their partner happy and don't particularly enjoy the act...but the experience of some does not then support the conclusion that the act is harmful in itself.
Not to mention the fact that you outright ignored most of what I presented. Saying things like "necrophilia supports male power" is rather an extreme view, wouldn't you agree?
What about this:
quote:
All of this female suffering, every bit of it, is due to the reproductive consequences to women of mandatory PIV and rape. And where almost all instances of rape include PIV, normalizing PIV also serves to normalize rape:
Normalizing PIV intercourse normalizes rape?! Are you shitting me here? This is absolutely equating PIV intercourse with rape, with the male taking the role of the aggressor - in other words, it calls all heterosexual sexually active males rapists.
Or this:
quote:
To call intercourse sex or conflate it with women’s or even men’s sexual pleasure is not merely misguided, but rather, a deliberate and effective means of normalizing female submission and suffering and increasing men’s individual and collective power.
PIV intercourse should not be conflated with male or female pleasure; instead, it's a "deliberate and effective means of normalizing female submission and suffering."
PIV intercourse does not simply "normalize female submission and suffering." Plenty of women take a more dominant role in sexuality, and many men enjoy bedroom submission. Our culture has been steadily promoting more and more freedom outside of "traditional gender roles," from the media on down. The author's view is compeltely detached from reality; she seems to view the act of PIV intercourse as akin to dogs vying for pack dominance - while this does typically involve a sexualized display, humans are not dogs and inserting a penis into a vagina does not in itself convey any sort of dominance or submission!
The author is treating all female sex partners as victims, "submitting" their vaginas to the "assault" of a man's harmful raping penis.
Seriously crash, it's like you read a single phrase of what I quoted and just ignored all of the rest. You noted a single reasonable set of observations and then disregarded all of the outlandish dialogue that was the entire reason for the post. It's like you're a poster child for confirmation bias here.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by crashfrog, posted 11-07-2012 7:41 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by crashfrog, posted 11-09-2012 8:41 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 193 of 526 (678626)
11-09-2012 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by crashfrog
11-09-2012 12:39 PM


Re: Slogans, Privelege and PoCs
crashfrog writes:
What banners and T-shirts, specifically?
That would be the T shirts and banners worn and waved by the females in the demonstrations on the steps of Manchester University Union.
Sadly, I never saw a bra burned; perhaps that was apocryphal too?

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by crashfrog, posted 11-09-2012 12:39 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 194 of 526 (678685)
11-09-2012 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by kofh2u
11-09-2012 9:46 AM


Re: Slogans, Privelege and PoCs
The change in the Social Contract which has granted Sexual License to women without shame
Those sluts should be ashamed! Wait, weren't we living previous to this in a Social Contract where only men were granted the right to shame-free Sexual Licence? I mean who are these dirty, filthy, licentious women frolicking with but men?
created a cottage industry of Harlots who have the distinct advantage of merchandising their sexual favors, Tax Free and indiscriminately, pricing them at whatever the traffic will bear.
Sounds like corporatism to me. Or were you suggesting legalizing prostitution?
The result has been to create a Welfare State exclusively for fatherless children
Which is the whore-mothers fault, apparently.
Worse, these single mothers now are the largest voting block in the nation, capable of demanding more entitlements now that are the sum of our whole Military Budget.
Is this a Republican argument for contraception and family planning resources? I think you might be onto something there.
Furthermore - more than your whole Military Budget? Are you sure about that? There are what, about 10 million single mothers in the USA? And they claim more than 900 billion dollars a year? Isn't that like $90,000 each per year?
I appreciate you want to tie this together with feminists or 'gay sympathizers' but can you make this relevant to the divisions within the atheist community? Because I think we're in danger of losing sight of the topic. Maybe, if you feel particularly strongly you can propose a new thread where you can really let loose with telling us about the depraved libidinous shameless whores and the consequences of feminism and Sexual Licence on our Social Contract

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by kofh2u, posted 11-09-2012 9:46 AM kofh2u has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 195 of 526 (678686)
11-09-2012 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Rahvin
11-09-2012 12:48 PM


Re: Slogans, Privelege and PoCs
When someone says that "ALL PIV intercourse is harmful towomen," that's an extreme view.
Ok, but who said that? Not anybody you've quoted.
Women can use IUDs, "the pill," and other options to limit pregnancy...and they can insist on condom use with partners to protect themselves from their potential added burdens.
Those aren't "potential burdens." Those are actual burdens - having to pay for the contraception, suffer its side effects and worry about it's interactions with your other medications, and so on. Do you know that even though hormonal birth control is, in practice, safer than asprin, they still don't offer it over the counter? That means that if you want to use it, you need a doctor's prescription, which means you need a doctor's visit.
Rahvin, have you ever needed a doctor's permission before you could have sex? I never have. That's a real burden - not a "potential" one - that accrues only to women who want to have intercourse with men. Lesbians don't need birth control (unless it's to treat some various hormonal conditions) and men don't need it to have sex with men.
The claim that PIV intercourse is harmful takes an extremely limited view of intercourse and essentially likens every single time you put your dick into a vagina to assault on a woman, and that is absolutely not the case.
Who is the feminist that claimed that every act of PIV intercourse is an assault on a woman? Otherwise, again, we're talking about the things you're making up and pretending are real things feminists have said - which is exactly what I said people do. So you've proven me right.
PIV intercourse is not a "harmful cultural practice!" It's a biological necessity for the continuation of the species, for one thing...
The one is irrelevant to the other.
My girlfriend rather enjoys PIV intercourse; she doesn't believe that I'm harming her, and she doesn't have sex with me out of some cultural pressure - she has the biological urge just as strongly as I do.
I'm sure she loves it. But it doesn't change the fact that she's uniquely burdened by it. And you need to examine if your incredibly angry response to having that fact pointed out isn't, in fact, a cover for the guilt you feel at your privilege.
Saying things like "necrophilia supports male power" is rather an extreme view, wouldn't you agree?
It sounds rather more meaningless than extreme, really. I don't understand why it gets you so upset to hear it. It certainly doesn't bother me, and I don't consider it extreme just because I've never heard it before.
This is absolutely equating PIV intercourse with rape, with the male taking the role of the aggressor - in other words, it calls all heterosexual sexually active males rapists.
No, it's not. That's your invention. It's not even an interpretation - you're just quoting one set of words, and then saying that they really mean an unrelated set of other words. That's just nonsense.
she seems to view the act of PIV intercourse as akin to dogs vying for pack dominance - while this does typically involve a sexualized display, humans are not dogs and inserting a penis into a vagina does not in itself convey any sort of dominance or submission!
I'm sorry, I don't see where she's said anything about dogs at all.
Seriously crash, it's like you read a single phrase of what I quoted and just ignored all of the rest.
Ignored the rest of your made-up pseudo-translations? Yes, that's exactly what I did. We're talking about what Atheist+ feminists have actually said, remember? Not what you're pretending they said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Rahvin, posted 11-09-2012 12:48 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Rahvin, posted 11-09-2012 8:52 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024