Men Explain Lolita to Me

[Mickey]

AnnLoretta wrote: "One point she made, and I'm sorry to repeat what you've already read, was that India made the decision to deal with rape as a human rights issue, not a women's issue or a men's issue, but a human issue."

I don't remember her making that point. The one that I find myself mulling over is when she was talking about how the mainstream culture in which the mentally ill live have an effect on the shape their illness takes. That's an interesting thought. She said something like, "In India, the insane are most likely to hear voices that tell them to clean their houses, in the United States, their voices are most likely to tell them to harm someone."

But anyway, why would rape be a men's or women's issue? It happens to both sexes. Sexual assault, child abuse, "silencing", discrimination-none of these are gender exclusive. The issues themselves aren't the exclusive property of feminism. Many worldviews have come out against and criminalized rape.

ETA: I also liked the Woolf essay. I think that's the reason I'm still open to checking out her work. I'd love to get a hold of her book on walking especially. Although I did find her distinction between "her" Woolf and "Sontag's" Woolf a little disturbing. I like to imagine that a writer can express her views without being changed by the reader. The idea of a writer's immortality is a little tarnished when thought of as so malleable.

[[deleted user]]

Mickey wrote: "AnnLoretta wrote: "One point she made, and I'm sorry to repeat what you've already read, was that India made the decision to deal with rape as a human rights issue, not a women's issue or a men's i..."

I'm sorry once again. I have not yet reached an essay in the book I am reading where the author discusses mental illness.

I am sorry again for having mentioned degendering rape, as it is something you very obviously have already done.

I won't bother you any longer. I apologize for taking up your time.

[E.D.]

And finally.......

Why absolutely no questioning of whether the feces could be the fluffy bunny's?

Fluffy Bunnies that fart glitter, right? :}

[Duane]

WTF is with all this "Silencing" of women? Howcome they're so easily silenced? I for one HATE hanging around with people who just fold up like a broken tricycle - They're BOOOOoorrring... I agree with Trump, as far as women goes - he saw one woman holding off an entire boardroom of men, and told a subordinate to find out who she was and hire her at any cost because "I want that mouth!!". Yeah, no shit - And if she comes with a skateboard and a switchblade knife along with an Assault Mouth, I'm in fucking LOVE. Wassamadda... Who's got a problem with *that*?

Anyway... lesseee, what do I need to fight with Laura about...

OK Laura... You're gonna have to remind me where I brought whatever it was down to U.S. politics, unless it was to deliberately aggravate YOU by bringing it down to U.S. politics. I SAID that I was HOPING for the sake of saving Humanity, that there weren't Millenials elsewhere other than here? I mean, if THAT plague (and yes, liberals are responsible) escapes our borders, YOU are DOOOOOooomed wherever you are, along with the *rest* of the planet. (Of curse, nothing in the preceding should be in any way construed to imply that I'm not an unreconstructed American nationalist AND don't know a damned thing about what other countries are REALLy like, despite my however extensive knowledge of *Some* historical periods... .)

Now, you swerved into an interesting point (damn, she swerves a lot) (<< Duane DESPERATELY suppresses the urge to make a Woman Driver joke >> ) (oops... I better stay close to my garbage can...), asking "where did the sexist med school nitwit get his sexism?" (sounds like a Rudyard Kipling story...). It's a fair bet that he got it by cultural osmosis, yeah, but he *could* have developed it on his own, if, I dunno - his mother subjected him to a big gaggle of her friends from cosmetology school, or something? But, the POINT is... it sort of doesn't matter, because YOU weren't dealing with him being *sexist*, you were dealing with his *expressing* it. I mean, denigrating the female students like that, is just plain naked aggression - I don't care WHAT the trappings are. He could have been denigrating *anybody* - he had to have been an aggressive asshole to start with, and THEN settle on, I dunno, whatever - women, minorities, white males, Martians, whatever - it doesn't even *matter*, as a means of spewing his venom. People can *think* whatever they want, and half (Or more?) of the time you'll never even know what they really think, but when they start acting it out, that's where the trouble starts, and *that* is driven by just plain old meanness (Not to beat a long dead horse into an unrecognizable bloody pulp, BUT...).

This individual "I don't know why but I don't like you" can be valid at the individual level, but it cannot explain big masses of people who share a trait (regardless of the particular label) constantly picking on people who share another trait.

Oh, like HELL it can't!! You get two pissed off monkeys together, and one of them wants to kill somebody from the other tribe who killed the first monkey's uncle (oh, God... did I REALLY say that?) and the second one will go along on the hit just because he's pissed off. He doesn't even have to be pissed off at the other tribe (but he WILL be before long...). Many "Experts" with whackademic credentials a lot longer than mine have held forth on THAT "Model" for human behavior... the individual conflict being a microcosm of group, national, and global conflicts... In fact, with the Arabs, it's a time-honored tradition - they have a saying, "Me against my brother; me and my brother against my cousin; me, my brother, and my cousin against the Infidel". See, now *they've* got it fingered out - The important thing is to start a war with *somebody* - now, let's see, who can we start it with and what excuse do we need, to make it look good for the Nobel Peace Prize committee... .

And NOW, E.D.,
Why absolutely no questioning of whether the feces could be the fluffy bunny's?
Fluffy Bunnies that fart glitter, right? :}
The only question here is whether you *deliberately* constructed this logical labyrinth or merely *stumbled* into it. There is no longer ANY question that you are an unreconstructed Priest or Rabbi.

You CLEARLY *Implied* - Or laid the groundwork for the unwarY (I.e. ME... Congratulations, <>#$%^&*(!!) to *conclude* from your initial "Joke" that *Something* untoward had happened to the Fluffy-Bunny, the Weasel, or BOTH. However, yes, you did NOT provide enough evidence for anyone to even draw THAT conclusion. I mean, yes, the Fluffy-Bunny could have licked his fur, ingested the glitter, and then taken a crap somewhere that the Bartender would find it. In fact, that's not even an implausible scenario considering that the Bunny got kicked out of the bar.

SO - Here, get out of THIS one: Leaving the Fluffy-Bunny AND the Weasel out of the picture for the moment, since they've been deconstructed to the point of complete uncertainty, What are we to conclude from the fact that the Komodo Dragon got kicked out of the bar WITH the other two, but THEN came BACK, in DEFIANCE? I think the Bartender better have a shotgun under the bar. (Yes, Laura, the Komodo may have gone Vegan, but that won't deter him (her?) for an instant from just killing the bartender and leaving his uneaten corpse... So...).

OH! And! Yeah, both men and women get raped (although the numbers are *highly*disproportionate). But it's sort of irrelevant...

https://img0.etsystatic.com/105/0/111...

[E.D.]

Duane wrote: "WTF is with all this "Silencing" of women? Howcome they're so easily silenced? I for one HATE hanging around with people who just fold up like a broken tricycle - They're BOOOOoorrring... I agree w..."

I didn't say it was the same Komodo.., or the same bar, did I?

This type of thing is why certain of my old school friends often screamed "puhleeeeeeze STFU and let us watch the walls melt" at me.

I blame The Socratic Method. :}

[Laura]

Holy shit, there is a Komodo gang hitting bars. The vegan Komodo was an outcast, probably, hanging out with fluffy bunnies and weasels. All Komodos are guilty until proven otherwise.

Duane, I will answer to you on my second coffee break, so don't think you got rid of me already! :-D

[Duane]

@E.D. - << Fume... >> I should BE so lucky as to MERELY get some school friends torqued at me. Your digressive, desultory deconstructive analytical tactics are bad enough when MERELY applied to a joke, but I've been at job interviews where they give you those "brain teaser" questions involving 14 ping-pong balls and a gun with 3 bullets or whatever, and I end up failing to solve the "problem" question because I can't help deconstructing and destroying the question itself, thereby infuriating the interviewer (And not getting hired) (lucky THEM...).

However I do recall one girlfriend screaming "YOU RUIN EVERYTHING!!" at me when I... fuck I don't remember the details of WHAT I did but I vaguely remember destroying the appreciation of a "meaning" conveyed by piece of artwork *somehow*, of curse, and having to make up for it with a *subsatantial* bribe...

OTOH I also had a CIA agent scream "digressive and desultory!" (you didn't think I came up with that on my *own*, did you?) at me in frustration at being able to get anything out of me, so there is *some* reward for such talents, as compensation for losing girlfriends...

The thing is though, you DID *imply*, at least, that you were submitting one of those "An X, a Y, and a Z Go Into A Bar" type jokes. And in so doing,you thereby entered into a contractual commitment (however unenforceable) to conform in *some* manner to the structure implied thereby. So, while having been sufficiently vague as to be able to TRY to claim it was a different Komodo, I don't think you're going to be able to provide a link between Komodo A1 and Komodo A2, sufficiently cohesive to sustain the "Joke" format. And you've got a similar problem with the Bunny and the Weasel... Your successive modifications are rendering the latter two worthies progressively more and more gratuitous, which is also undermining the "Joke" format which you originally presented.

(All of the above being subject to the disclaimer that that we're not playing Calvinball, of course...)

OH - And - Someone told me that they deliberately teach that sort of digressive analytical thinking in the Rabbinical schools. And she was postulating that THAT was the *real* reason for the Holocaust. (My point being that if she's right, bearded Jewish geezers *did* predate sociopathic Greek philosophers by some centuries - enough for them to be held in even more primary culpability...)

[Duane]

Laura wrote: "Holy shit, there is a Komodo gang hitting bars. The vegan Komodo was an outcast, probably, hanging out with fluffy bunnies and weasels. All Komodos are guilty until proven otherwise.

Duane, I will answer to you on my second coffee break, so don't think you got rid of me already! :-D ..."

You know, she could be right, E.D., given the compulsive animal nature of Komodos - I mean, despite your discursions, and her speculation about veganism notwithsatanding, there may be NO possible explanation other than that the Komodo ate the Fluffy-Bunny and possibly the weasel, and now s/he or a colleague who smelled Bunny on his or her breath has come back looking for more food...

AND,,,, there is NO hope of getting rid of people like you, Laura, other than by boring them senseless, which, since I can only manage to accomplish it accidentally, I would never speculate that it *had* actually happened... To which I might add, any *deliberate* attempt to get rid of you would immediately be sensed as weakness and result in a brutal "Coup De Grace" attack, in the manner of a shark sensing blood in the water. Which, while I thoroughly enjoy watching happen to *others*, I do NOT relish the thought of experiencing myself...

(Go ahead, insist that you're just a cute, harmless, lovable little fuzzball... I can feel it coming)

[Laura]

Ok Duane, here is what doesn't fit for me in your theory of "... one of them wants to kill somebody from the other tribe who killed the first monkey's uncle (oh, God... did I REALLY say that?) and the second one will go along on the hit just because he's pissed off..."

It works for aggression, but not for passive discrimination. Sure, I put the example of a doctor who was actively aggressive, but that doesn't explain the common mentality of a mass of people who are not necessarily aggressive. My case would be those teachers who were trying hard to be "gentlemen" with us, sparing us the gruesome, or the dude who expected his wife (who was MD) to use her profession just as hobby, not because he wanted to control her life, but because he felt he should be the one working hard and she should "have it easy at home" being a housewife, and many others.

Look at AnnLoretta's example of the man who said his "old lady" was waiting for him. He wasn't being "pissed off", I don't think (from her anecdote) that he hated his wife, yet he was being sexist. If a man like him is harmless or, even, a good man, he will try to do his best to "treat her right", but always from a sexist point of view, most likely because that's what he may have been raised and conditioned to believe was right. If a man like him is aggressive or a jerk, he will react to women like my anatomy professor. Thus, I do think you and I see the cause/consequence of this discrimination/labeling/oppression/whatever the other way around from each other, at least particularly in the issue of race/gender discrimination.

Other than that, the "classic bully" will not need a label or a special identification to go kick some ass, and they may fall into the category of the pissed off monkeys you describe. However, they will be more likely to unleash their pissed-off-ness on a target group that usually conforms the regular societal construct (if they're smart).

Duane wrote: "there is NO hope of getting rid of people like you, Laura, other than by boring them senseless..."

I would giggle at that, but my giggles were found offensive... I'll just stay here and burp glitter for ya.

[Duane]

OK, I've been thinking about that for a couple of days, and - it infuriates EVERY molecule of my being to admit it, but I think I agree with you... I mean, the boundary condition is somebody who, I dunno - can't stand bloated Dworkins, but they don't DO anything about it (or maybe even sAy anything about it), so it's sort of an innate ummm... loathing or prejudice? of some sort, that doesn't necessarily produce any behavior on their part other than, what? running like hell when they see a Dworkin approaching? I mean, it's *really* difficult to argue that someone is motivated by Inner Rage who "Merely" runs like hell when they see someone else of a particular, what? race? gender? socioeconomic class? body mass index? or whatever... I mean, yeah, *maybe* it's driven by *fear* (or just nausea), but they *could* be just "Prejudiced", right out of the shipping container... . The flip side of which, yeah, is men feeling "Protective" of women and becoming all chivalrous and protective because women are all helpless shrinking wallflowers, Or Something... Stuff Like That...

(EEEEEEeeeeeeeeeuuuuuuuwwwwww... YOU just got me onto something REALLY repulsive... You don't happen to know, since you're apparently a medical type?, which "Gender" does the SEX CHANGE operations on which type of "Trannies", do you? I mean, do they have *male* doctors turning men into women, or *female* ones turning women into men... Or vice perversa? Etc.??)

<< shudder... >>

hOWever, I still agree with *myself* (and YOU seem to be starting to as well... HORRORS... IHWTH) that IN cases of aggression and brutality, the Wrath (or Envy?) is there *before* the verbal trappings get adduced to make an excuse for it, no labels required (Or even possible, in the case of inbred half-human meth-addicteds...).

But, what else dawned on me, in conjunction with *that* conclusion, is that there's something else at work here, which is, "failure to not give a damn" (there should be a conjoined word in German for that... "Ungenichtgivendammen", or something...). I mean, it IS possible to reduce perception of humans to being merely something with flailing appendages and a knob at one end with a hole in it, where food goes in and noise comes out, and not EVEN make any distinctions... but you gotta be REALLY indifferent to get to *that* point (and it's BOOoorrrring...). If you did get there, though, then you'd at least be devoid of prejudices based on distinctions (although perhaps still availed of free-floating rage which you could then attach to, what? (I think I don't want to speculate... .)

I would giggle at that, but my giggles were found offensive...
WTF?? OMG??? (BBQ????) - WHERE did THAT happen... ? Did a Feminist object on principle to women giggling, Or Something? (I could believe that in an instant... .)

Everybody's working hard at getting offended, though, to the point of ridiculousness - I mean, "Old Lady" is a colloquialism from the *60's* when the Hippies started using it to describe a woman they were living with, ummm... "Out Of Wedlock"? And the "Hippie Chicks" referred to their "Old Man" in *exactly* the same way and in the same measure!! Revolting as it was, (and WHO is still saying it? Somebody with gray hair and a pot gut and bald except for a ponytail, and STILL smelling of marijuana and patchouli oil from 1967?) it had nOTHing to to do with "Sexism", or whatever somebody's gotten their panties in a wad about... I mean, yeah, hippies may have been as sexist as the day is long, but them saying "Old Man" and "Old Lady" have got nOTHing to do with it. I think both "Genders" of it have gotten replaced with "Squeeze", but I don't keep up with this stuff very well... and my give-a-shitter is badly broken

Hmmmm...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3qfY...

I'll just stay here and burp glitter for ya.
E.D. - ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION?? SHE just COPPED to EATING THE FLUFFY-BUNNY!! And I bet SHE'S got a Komodo costume in her closet!! OR WORSE YET she might be a KOMODO in a HUMAN costume!! We are both REALLY blind... (I KNEW there was a reason for those outsized Fangs - )

shit, this changes *Evvverything*... We REALLY gotta go finger this out again, now - we're back to Square ZEro. And you better warn that bartender, he's in SERIOUS trouble - a LOT worse than any mere "Komodo". FTM... ARE YOU SURE that was a Komodo you saw, and not one of those Alien Lizard Women from Sirius??? THAT would explain everything... *EVERYTHING* that's going on here.

[E.D.]

And at the end of the first bi-quadrenial, our score is Q to 12!

A word from our sponsor....

"Drool-plug."

[[deleted user]]

Mickey wrote: "AnnLoretta wrote: "One point she made, and I'm sorry to repeat what you've already read, was that India made the decision to deal with rape as a human rights issue, not a women's issue or a men's i..."

Dear Mickey: I am disappointed that you did not respond to me. Actually, what I did was stage a "silencing." I allowed you, a self-described woman, to "silence" me with your overbearing and dismissive rhetoric.

I have read your book reviews, and I have assessed the gap between us, you and me. Your reviews of George Eliot's works, in particular, are revelatory.

You failed to remember the most disturbing essay in Ms. Solnit's book, the one that discussed the rapes in India. "Failing to remember" is a self-justification without factual basis.

You are what I describe as a "post-gender, post-feminist." Allow me to remind me of something you will no doubt claim to already know. One way to silence opposition is to claim that all the problems raised by the opposition no longer exist, regardless of empirical evidence revealed by statistics.

Your goal in life is apparently to silence feminists. You believe, apparently, that feminists are only concerned with what goes on in their city, or county, or state, or nation.

You may not have intended to be as overbearing as you were. Phrases such as "Oh, I missed that," or "Let me go and read that again," or "Oh, that's an interesting perspective, however..." are very useful when one lives within a community.

You appear to be young, you claim to be a woman. However, this is the internet, and you may be a 48-year-old male with a keyboard and a wi-fi connection. Your speech patterns to your fellow human beings make that plausible.

If you truly believe we live in a post-gender, post-feminist world, you have been successfully neutralized by those in opposition to gender rights.

Just an experiment. Forgive me for making practical use of your posts. I would not treat a sister in such a way unless I believed there was a chance she had not examined all the angles.

[Mickey]

AnnLoretta wrote: "Dear Mickey: I am disappointed that you did not respond to me. Actually, what I did was stage a "silencing." I allowed you, a self-described woman, to "silence" me with your overbearing and dismissive rhetoric."

I didn't realize that you were expecting me to run after you. I took you at your word that you did not wish to continue the conversation. These things are, after all, entirely voluntary. As far as that being a "silencing", I certainly never took your keyboard away from you. I didn't prohibit you from posting. I didn't drown out your words. I simply have a different opinion than you, and I expressed my opinion on a book and a social movement. If you decide to protest this by staging a "silencing", I fail to see my responsibility in this. My only link in the chain is expressing my opinions and to be expected to hold off on that because you don't agree would be a sort of silencing.

I'm interested in talking about the essay or the book. Personal attacks aren't the reason I participate on this website. I find your labeling of me as anything amateurish and offensive. If you ever wish to have a decent conversation, I would advise you to refrain from that. It certainly doesn't show a respect for another woman to make her assessments and act accordingly.

If you wish to continue our previous conversation (and since we are now in the habit of advising each other on how to respond, perhaps you can dispense with the weird, passive-aggressive apologies), I'd like to point out that I didn't say that "all the problems raised no longer exist, regardless of empirical evidence revealed by statistics". Silencing, rape, child abuse, sexual abuse certainly do exist. I have never, never claimed they didn't. I simply stated they are not gender-specific. I also discussed how this fact, glaringly obvious to many, is behind much of the protests to Solnit's characteriztion in her essays (if you look back on the first page). To claim that it is gender-specific distracts from the issue. Feminism, far from championing the eradication of these things, often perpetuates them unwittingly. Look at this new accusation that I have "silenced" you (by expressing my opinions). People see this and this is a huge reason why feminism has little popular support.

ETA: Honestly, AnnLoretta, I am incredibly offended by your last post. I don't know if you're likely to have an interesting conversation if you're that interested in labeling and that unscrupulous when it comes to reflecting my views. When you left, I refrained from any parting cheap-shots, and then you come back on here and start the labeling and reworking of the discussion? Bad form, AnnLoretta. I thought perhaps you had just got caught up in the first conversation and deleted your posts out of embarrassment with how that turned out, so I gave you the benefit of the doubt when I started talking to you. Now you are doing the same tactics. I suppose I can next expect you will be calling me stupid. What a waste of my time.

[Karen]

I think, AnnLoretta, Mickey just pointed out what non feminists already know- that women who claim to be feminists do not want to hear opposing views. This is different from the type of feminism I understood in the 1970's, the new feminism that I don't want to be a part of. Tolerance of other views doesn't exist anymore.

[Karen]

Laura wrote;
"Duane, I will answer to you on my second coffee break, so don't think you got rid of me already! :-D"

Second coffee break? We only get one in America. Duane doesn't get any.

[Mickey]

AnnLoretta wrote: "You may not have intended to be as overbearing as you were. Phrases such as "Oh, I missed that," or "Let me go and read that again," or "Oh, that's an interesting perspective, however..." are very useful when one lives within a community.

You appear to be young, you claim to be a woman. However, this is the internet, and you may be a 48-year-old male with a keyboard and a wi-fi connection. Your speech patterns to your fellow human beings make that plausible. "

Instead of engaging in "silencing", it seems like you are upset with my "failure to encourage", which, you decide, is gender-specific (and age specific). I think it's interesting to ruminate about how idiosyncratic people are when it comes to how they view "the rules of engagement" as far as discussions and how much one's culture might also inform one's views.

I think what you are referring to is more a cultural difference. While I live in the South, I'm a transplant. I was born in North Dakota (which you know, having read my reviews). Having experienced both cultures, I find a big difference in how people communicate and the widespread "rules of engagement" that function in each.

Southerners tend to be very indirect and like to stage a scene that shows a friendliness and a graciousness that is often at odds with the underlying current between the participants. This is where I think you are getting "That's an interesting perspective, however...". It's not intentional fakery on their part at all, but a learned way of communication. It makes for extremely subtle distinctions that are often missed by others who grew up in more direct and open cultures.

Westerners, on the other hand, would consider that sort of communication to be insincere and patronizing. If you don't agree with a point, you do not have to preface it with compliments you don't mean. The line that you shouldn't cross as far as honesty goes is making it personal. To have differing opinions concerning a book or a social matter is fine, but opinions on a person in polite conversation can become "fighting words".

Not that I think that there are not people in the West who communicate as if the main aim is not to offend anyone or that Southerners can't be direct or unaccountably rude. People are people everywhere, but I think, having experience with both sets of expectations, I can identify some of the differences in our expectations as being part of the problem in our communication.

To my way of thinking, your continual bids for encouragement are odd. I shouldn't have to constantly tell you that you don't need to apologize for having an opinion that is different from mine. If I state an opinion on a book or a social matter, I don't feel the need to apologize for it. I may couch it in softer terms in order to be polite and I do bring up some positive points in an effort to be conciliatory (such as Solnit's talent and thoughtful tidbits), but I won't change my views because you disagree with them. The passive-aggressive way in which you protest this tendency is disconcerting, but I understand where it likely comes from. I'm simply trying to get you to see where I come from.

[[deleted user]]

Mickey wrote: "AnnLoretta wrote: "You may not have intended to be as overbearing as you were. Phrases such as "Oh, I missed that," or "Let me go and read that again," or "Oh, that's an interesting perspective, ho..."

Thank you for your compassionate posting.

This morning, since I posted my wrongly accusatory post to you, and since you replied, I learned that my father died in his sleep last night. What this means to me, who was raised in his household, where he was a constant drunk and a violent right-wing John Bircher, and while I thought I was on the lookout that I not imitate him in his interactions with others, what I've realized is that my participation in any discourse is deeply affected by the manner in which I was raised. I am looking for weaknesses, I do strike out. I apologize. I have a lot of work to do, personally. I may consider myself a liberal, but the way in which I interact with other people is deeply affected by my upbringing.

I am going to watch, and learn to listen, and learn from others.

I struck out in anger that I did not recognize as being anger. Give me time. Keep teaching me.

[Mickey]

AnnLoretta wrote: " I learned that my father died in his sleep last night."

My sincere sympathies for your loss...

[[deleted user]]

Mickey wrote: "AnnLoretta wrote: " I learned that my father died in his sleep last night."

My sincere sympathies for your loss..."


Thank you. My loss is very conflicted. I am more concerned about the violence i have inflicted on others., I'm an adult, by upbringing is no excuse.

[Duane]

E.D. wrote: "And at the end of the first bi-quadrenial, our score is Q to 12!
A word from our sponsor....
"Drool-plug.""

Now you look here, E.D., You skulkin varmint, Iffen you know whats good 4U you'se will put That drool-plug right back in the slobber-pot where you done found it.

And You keep yer cotton-pickin fingers offen the thump kegs, We-alls knows out here when yer kind has been out there in the dark tapping the Still and You can run but You cain't hide. And don't bother goin to the Sheriff, he's got a deputy right there for every run so's he gets his cut and if ANY of your'n is out there "Sampling" Yer gonna get A Big fat Fucking Surprise.

See?

Now otherwise you be good and keep yer mouth shut About what you seen, And we'll send the minister by with Some 4U.

Karen wrote: "Second coffee break? We only get one in America. Duane doesn't get any."

BREAK????

I don't NEED any Steeeenking "Breaks" -I have coffee on an IV Drip!!

[Karen]

AnnLoretta I am sorry for your loss.

[Karen]

Duane wrote;
"I don't NEED any Steeeenking "Breaks" -I have coffee on an IV Drip!"
Oh I thought so.

[Gary]

AnnLoretta wrote: "Thank you. My loss is very conflicted. I am more concerned about the violence i have inflicted on others., I'm an adult, by upbringing is no excuse."

I haven't seen anything in your posts that I would criticize as far as doing violence to others, but I applaud your sense of reflection and consciousness. All motives are worth questioning, particularly one's own.

[Mickey]

Gary wrote: "I haven't seen anything in your posts that I would criticize as far as doing violence to others, but I applaud your sense of reflection and consciousness. All motives are worth questioning, particularly one's own."

Very ironic, Gary. Do you look to your own behavior? Many people found your behavior on this thread to be objectionable. I wonder at your account of it.

[Karen]

Oh the irony! I do love irony.

[Mickey]

Gary,

I am actually very curious at the differences between your statements and your behavior. How do you reconcile them in your mind? What do you say to yourself that makes it acceptable to treat others like you did Karen and then apparently put yourself, with no intended irony, in a position of moral authority within the same thread?

[Laura]

Ok, things got tight at the institute for a bit, but I see there's some catching up to do over here.

Duane wrote: "hOWever, I still agree with *myself* (and YOU seem to be starting to as well... HORRORS... IHWTH) that IN cases of aggression and brutality, the Wrath (or Envy?) is there *before* the verbal trappings get adduced to make an excuse for it, no labels required (Or even possible, in the case of inbred half-human meth-addicteds...)."

I don't think I do, not entirely. I think everyone has their own prejudices against another group of people (which can be translated into different labels), regardless of whether this is acted out in violence, aggressive behavior, words, or simply a silent feeling of fear/disgust. People who could fall into the category of the angry monkey (too funny not to bring it up again) you mentioned will naturally address their rage toward the group of their prejudice. That's why you get extremely angry snarling weasels yelling about how the other side of the confrontation is full of snarling weasels, and it gets to the point where you can't even finger out what the hell it is they're really mad about. Sometimes, neither can they.

But the kind of extreme aggression you refer to makes me think more in the direction of what is commonly called psychopathic behavior (but I won't get too technical here). After all, breaking a kid's bones is by no means regular behavior in the statistics of any place or in any psychiatry book (which I did study, before someone who luuuuves schooling others loses their shit again because I'm schooling you).

The "Henry Bowers" of the world are clearly not regular behavior (fortunately), even though they exist with a certain frequency (unfortunately). I believe those are the cases in which I could agree with you, that there is an anger without target that needs to be satisfied, so it gets directed after whatever they can, but not out of personal conviction. Kind of like in that TV show about the serial killer who chose to murder terrible criminals, not out of a deep sense of justice, but because they wouldn't be missed and he wouldn't get caught.

But regarding this: "Everybody's working hard at getting offended, though, to the point of ridiculousness"... It just occurred to me, would you consider that there could also be, in some people, a need to feel offended that precedes the motive? I didn't give this one much thought, just asking. But for the record, I disagree that it's ridiculous to point out that it's not cool -in 2016- to call your wife "the old lady", especially in front of a woman who is not your drinking buddy, and in a somewhat formal situation. It would be just as inappropriate as me telling my boss that I can't wait because "my squeeze" waits at home.

Duane wrote: “there should be a conjoined word in German for that... "Ungenichtgivendammen", or something...”
There are several more or less funny ways of saying “I don’t give a damn” in German (funny within German limitations, of course). My personal favorite would be "Ist mir Wurst", preferably pronounced "Isch mir Wurscht" (read in German phonetics), which could be translated as “it’s sausage to me”. This is puzzling. I would have thought sausage was important to Germans! On the other hand, when they want to say "that's none of my business", they say "Das ist nicht mein Bier" (that's not my beer). Priorities matter.

Duane wrote: "I mean, it IS possible to reduce perception of humans to being merely something with flailing appendages and a knob at one end with a hole in it, where food goes in and noise comes out, and not EVEN make any distinctions... but you gotta be REALLY indifferent to get to *that* point (and it's BOOoorrrring...).
Oh no no no… The thing is not to see us all as gray genderless blobs that are in no way different from each other, and there’s where some radical feminists disagree with me. We’re not supposed to be treated as if such physical differences did not exist. For example, the “don’t give the pregnant lady the seat on the bus because equality” thing. It’s about finding a way around the differences, to give everyone equal opportunity.
Some made doodles and called it equality versus equity, or equality versus justice. I don’t care how it’s called in a particular language, but I do think that the second scenarios are the ones we should aim for, especially when instead of watching on a fence we’re talking about becoming a doctor, getting paid the same for the same job, etc. That’s what any social movement should be about, whether it addresses gender, sexuality, race, or any societal inequality that could be inherent to the particular context. It’s not about erasing or ignoring our differences. As you say, that would be boring.

About the other stuff…….. I think I will start giving you trigger warnings for “komodo”, “glitter”, “fluffy”, and maybe “calvinball”. And it's 2016, step away from that peyote.

Whew..... second coffee break is over (I get one in the mid-morning and one in the mid-afternoon, of course). That doesn't mean I don't drink between-breaks cups of coffee while I work, but the coffee I drink during my breaks doesn't get cold waiting for me to have time to sip it.

[Duane]

(AAAGHH!@ ActiVATe the Hull Shield! Man the starboard laser turrets!! Deploy the Glaseptic Nebulizer - she's BAAAaaack... )

(fuck where do I even *start*...)

"Tight At The Institute", huh? I presume you DO know that "Tight" is a colloquialism for "Stoned Drunk And Staggering"... so what kind of "Institute" is this anyway (not that it matters, OTHER than that if it's one that has lab glassware and retorts and stuff, THAT would explain **A LOT**).

<< sound of Laura banging her head on the screen... >>

Now then... preamble completed, AS I mentioned earlier it's apparent, after examining the evidence, such as Hawaiians crossing the street when they see a Samoan coming down the sidewalk toward them, that people DO react out of "prejudice" based on appearances. I mean, they "made" the Samoan *first*, and THEN they got scared, right? So, to further my analogy, do people just roam around looking for something to get scared of? Probably not (except for urban liberals of course). But it's equally clear that large numbers *do* roam around all pissed off at the world and looking for somebody or something to take it out on, and THEN use their, what - Whateverism or Whateverophobia, to *channel* their "Free Floating Rage". I.e., they don't NEED a "Label" or anything *else* in that case, and the basic animal rage comes *first*, BEFORE the highly sophisticated intellectually motivated Nazi racial theories Or Whatever. Etc... .

However, and any extant (and however unstable) truce on *that* subject notwithsatanding, you are ALL mixed up about psychopaths and angry monkeys. nOw you mIGHt be able to Skool me on psychology generally, but I'll guarantee you I've forgotten more about psychopaths than you'll probably ever know (and I wish I was wrong about the first half of that, and you better hope I'm right about the second half...). It is a VERY good question why psychopaths - sOME psychopaths - brutalize and torture and murder people. A psychopath basically has no conscience and very little experience of emotion or feeling at all, so why do they even delight (*some* of them) on causing pain for others? Nobody knows... But the vast majority of "People" who get off on brutalizing others are NOT psychopaths - They're your friends and neighbors! (well, not quite, but, you'd be fuggin surprised... .) You talk to guys who've been in combat and - if you can get them to open up - you'll find out how far the *average* person can descend into outright brutality, and how much they *enjoy* it - and THAT is what's at the origin of *most* of what you read in the papers.

I.e., we're *wired* for it. Monkey "B" is just waiting for monkey "A" to Show Him The Way... all he needs is a label so he can respect himself in the morning.

Serial killers, however, are another story... the consensus among sikes seems to be that *all* serial killers ARE psychopaths... We're not talking about your average parricide or whatever here, we're talking about the one who compulsively picks up prostitutes and murders them, over and over again... And while I doubt if Stephen King has much of a clue, go get a look at "No Country For Old Men" - that guy Anton Chigurh is a near *Perfect* portrayal of a psychopath. (Psychopaths are just SO trendy and romantic and *all* that, you know... I mean, their lawyers keep marrying them in prison - What could possibly go wrong?)

anyway...

I'm not debating whether it's "Cool" or not to call your wife OR Whatever your "old lady" or your "Squeeze" (ham operators use "XYL", or "Ex Young Lady", which is either better or worse, but my yardstick for that measurement is broken along with most of the rest of them by fishing for lost change under the refrigerator, except the yardstick that Jesus gave us at the county fair and that one is warped to where all the measurements are wrong and I'm threatening to KILL her if she doesn't get rid of it... oh, never mind) (and frankly, "Significant Other" just makes me PUKE and want to reach for the nearest liberal and brutally torture it to death and leave its dismembered body in 18 garbage cans in Duluth). What I'm saying is, it's NOT "*sexist*" - women call their husbands "the old man" and while you COULD argue that it's "Crass", "Lame", or... << Duane frantically rummages around in his box of adjective labels >> whatever, trying to make some sort of feminist Cause << Duane frantically rummages around in his file of special characters >> Célebre out of it, if you do, you're in the O-zone, so far out in the O-zone that nobody will even be able to find you with a long-baseline interferometer.

damn Frogs... <=- !!WARNING!! EXTREME "LABEL WARNING" LABEL!!!

And, READ CAREFULLY - I was NOT trying to finger out how to say 'Not Give A Damn", it was, "FAILURE to Not Give A Damn" - as in, due to the double negative, "Give A Damn", except that the implication is that you were SUPPOSED to not give a damn and FAILED to do so, and ended up Reprehensibly GIVING a damn. PAY ATTENTION!! And, German is PERFECT for stuff like that because they string together words and end up with, like, "Uberstompenfubar" or whatever, the problem being that I don't know German and so have to improvise. So quit emitting colloquialisms (Not that they're not amusing, mind you...) and start stringing syllables together, OK? The more the funnier. I.e., LEAVE the double negative in there!

<< fume... Steam... Damn kids; have to explain EVERYTHING to them >>

lessee... what next

I think with "Justice" and "Equality" and Etc. we're missing the whole point, which is *very* much like what I was talking about earlier w/r/t getting mad and beating the crap out of somebody because you're basically a mad little monkey, and THEN coming up with a label justifying it. What you've got with the SJWs, OccuBots, and other monocellular life forms is basically a bunch of whimpering, no-life little mama's boys who need a "reason" to exist, so they FIRST go off beating the bushes and looking under the bed for something they can label "Social Injustice" or Whateverism or Whateverophobia, so they can THEN come trendily and fashionably Screaming Unglued over . But the main objective is to come screaming unglued, and - if they're really lucky - to get trendily and fashionably peppersprayed by the police Evil White Oppressor's Fascist Thugs.

So given that much, about which I'm completely right as usual, the objective is no longer to deicide whether there really IS a racist or a Whatever under the bed, but to make SJWs come screaming unglued (and, with any luck, get their skulls bashed in by the police Evil White Oppressor's Nazi Thugs). *Then* the trick is, how to do that without alerting them to the fact that they're being suckered, which fortunately isn't too hard because they're all collectively dumber than a bag of Obamas... Maybe once they've all OD'd on designer drugs, thereby reducing the signal-to-noise ratio to something usable, somebody *might* be able to have a dicsucsion over whether there really IS a transexualophobe under the bed... Or something. Stuff like that.

Karen wrote: "Oh the irony! I do love irony."

Well, then, you can irony my shirts!!

(there, *if that* doesn't start WW IV, NOTHING will...)

[Karen]

Duane,I would iron your shirts but I really hate to iron.

[Laura]

Duane wrote: "I presume you DO know that "Tight" is a colloquialism for "Stoned Drunk And Staggering"... so what kind of "Institute" is this anyway"

Wow... well, that would really make my work a little more interesting!

Other than that........ you went off subject so much I would need more coffee. In particular, you missed my point about those equality doodles; you missed it so much it's in a different galaxy now. I know how much you love to use every opportunity you can find to insult your country's leftists, but at least try to stay in subject.

Yes, we have already agreed that radical ideas = not cool, long ago, so no point on beating the dead horse about that (although beating the U.S. leftist horse gives you a boner you can't resist). That doesn't mean that the racial/gender/whatever unjust issue does not exist. I don't care how much Dworkin disgusts you, gender inequality harms most women in workplaces and other situations. It does exist. I don't care how much you hate the left, there are racial issues in your country and many other countries, and other social injustices. Denying that is either pointless or blind.

[Duane]

*I* don't NEED coffee in order to go off subject... What's YOUR problem??

Yes, I love to bash leftists. And yes, there is all manner of injustice, Whateverism, and Whateverophobia. .BUT. ! Did it ever occur to you that those two things are *Connected*? I.e., at least *one* reason (among thousands) that I love to bash leftists is because they make all that WORSE. In fact, the more they scream and the less sense they make, the more worser they make it. And don't even get me *started* on the race hustlers like Sharpton and the gender hustlers like Dworkin... one exposure to one of *those* is enough to cause *anybody* with *any* sensibilities to run like hell no matter *which* side of *what* they're on.

And, WHAT subject do you want me to stay on? Go back to bashing Solnitwit, the Commufornia leftie-lieberal gender hustler? Or?

(Beating on the Left doesn't give me a boner, btw... But listening to them scream in agony, does... .)

[Laura]

Duane wrote: "Did it ever occur to you that those two things are *Connected*?"

Blah blah blah *gringo politics* blah blah... Come back when you answer to my point about the doodles and the rest of it, rather than snarling at people who aren't here to be snarled at :D

If these situations only happened in your country, I would at least try to listen to your "rightist" gringo rants. But the fact that these situations happen everywhere makes your point... well, again... not past your own borders (not to say nose again, lest someone come unglued again).

[E.D.]

All this sadomasochistic boner causation talk on a "Lolita" thread dealing with gender issues is agitating my gerbil.

[Duane]

Laura wrote: " Come back when you answer to my point about the doodles and the rest of it,"

Actually - don't fall off your bar stool now, but I sort of *Agreed* with you about what is really "opportunity" vs. the forced equality we're having rammed down our throats (Or elsewhere) here in your fantasized Gringo Heaven. But IT took me a GOOD half hour to finger out what "Doodles" are, and realize there were some (REALLY LAME) Cartoons involved. But I found them (OKAY, OKAY, I didn't SEE the Links in there, already... zwo drei vier.) (And whoever did the cartoons shouldn't quit their day job spraypainting over graffiti on bathroom walls.)

BUT - NTL - Now pay attention, this is a Teachable Moment - I MIGHT even agree with the "objective" (though it *galls* me to *Admit* it), but I do NOT want some Sniveling, nose-ringed piece of CRAP telling me I HAVE to believe this or that way, or I'm a "Sexist" or a "RAcist", or something. (Sieg friggin Heil, and Suck my Uzi, Fascist!.) And i PARTICULARLY don't want some jackbooted Government Thug telling me that (For those, we have I.E.D.s... .)

<< (E.D. looks up, thinking he heard his name called... ) >>

AND, for a fURTHer Teachable Moment, here - Pay attention closely: Lesson #43, in "Gringo" Politics: You do NOT have to be a "Right Winger" to hate Liberals! All that is required is a Brain. (A tall order I realize, but, ntl... .) They are VERY easy to hate (Especially the ones with nose rings who smell like pot smoke). And, in corollary, you do NOT have to be a Republican to hate DemonRats!! In fact, you don't have to work all *that* hard to hate ALL of them.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/2LzIoT_...

rather than snarling at people who aren't here to be snarled at :D

HuH? WTF are you talking about?? Where is anybody like *that* around. ? That's like saying there are people standing around a mosh pit who aren't there to be shoved. ??

<< Scratch... Format Error... >>

E.D., your gerbil probably needs to be taken in hand. You've probably been ignoring the poor thing. It just needs a little love and attention... You can't just leave it locked up in a cage without even a little exercise once in a while...

[Gary]

Cemre wrote: "So discuss a fictional work all you like, but don't expect to change anybody's opinion, because everybody experiences things differently."

I'm certain there is more than one purpose in art: make money, appreciate beauty, appreciate ugliness, exterminate some emotional issue of the past, engage in a little mental masturbation, the desire to create something brand new, etc.

One of the reasons for art is, surely, to communicate ideas in order to educate. With that in mind, I think you can change people's opinions, or maybe it would be more accurate to say that people can change their own opinions when presented with art. You can't expect that to happen, as you say, because it's a fairly difficult thing to do from either side: the artist presenting the material and the observer absorbing it. But despite your admonition that you don't think one should explain art to other people, I'd suggest that is one of the roles of art: to get people to change their opinions--or, at least, show them how to go about doing such a thing.

What you can't do (or shouldn't bother doing) is take responsibility for people changing their minds or not. For a range of reasons, some folks lack that capacity. But that's an issue for the artists' side of the equation, and we're mostly talking about the perception side here....

[Karen]

Cemre wrote;
"@Karen
I've always thought that the second wave feminism was far more radical and myopic than today's, but maybe it's just me."

Interesting opinion. Maybe it is because of our age difference and our backgrounds- but I find today's feminism more oppressive.
But I really wanted to compliment you on your above post, well done, especially this part I quoted below, you are so right on this!!

"Being blamed for something that you were born with can be frustrating. Being labelled an "oppressor" when you haven't done anything wrong personally, can anger you. I know it, it happened to me (no, it doesn't just happen to Westerners). But you have to listen to what people are saying. "Cis white men" and "SJW" are similar labels, they 're both used to silence people and they both indicate a refusal to listen (they're also rather Us-centric terms but let's leave it at that). Searching for a reason to be offended is strange, but being so offended that other people are offended is stranger."

[Duane]

Cemre wrote: "I don't think that one should explain art to other people. ..."

???WHAAAT????

DO YOU REALIZE WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING??????

You're gonna "Disenfranchise" THOUSANDS of Pecksniffian tweezerbeaks whose only reason for existence is to teach "Art Appreciation", in high schools, colleges, and mental institutions (But I repeat myself) All over the **WORLD**!!!

And have you EVEN thought of the ECONOMIC IMPACT of these radical notions of yours?? There would be "Trickle Down" effects!! You could put any number of manufacturers of turtleneck sweaters and tweed caps *CompletelY* out of business!!!

(Go for it...)

Karen wrote: "I find today's feminism more oppressive..."

Well, yeah, you're right, but it's ALSO got more BALLS (Hmm... Ovaries?)

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/...

And while there admittedly are more disgusting bloated squealing hatemongering troglodyte Dworkins, there are also more Nadezhda Tolokonnikovas who actually put their *lives* on the line, not just their blabbermouths...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadezhd...

[Karen]

"(like the thing she said about tampons being oppressive)"

LOL!!! Duane would you like to comment on this one?

And banning porn is not something I agree with, one of my many problems with feminists. I also think that there are just as many men haters among feminists now as there were in the '70's, and they wouldn't like me either because I don't agree with everything they say, and many of them are humorless. I'm also puzzled as to why the author of the article or any other woman would be offended by a man trying to explain Lolita to her. If anything, it opens up a great argument, which is fun. And if the man explaining Lolita is chauvanistic, all the more fun to challenge him.

[Karen]

Duane wrote: "Cemre wrote: "I don't think that one should explain art to other people. ..."

???WHAAAT????

DO YOU REALIZE WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING??????

You're gonna "Disenfranchise" THOUSANDS of Pecksniffian tw..."

Go Pussy Riot!! Yes I remember this, what courage! Hirsi-Ali is also a woman with much courage.

[Gary]

Cemre wrote: "I'm against the writer of the article dismissing people based on their identity; but I'm also very much against men "explaining" her the true meaning of the novel she's read, if you know what I mean."

The thing is, I don't think she did that. Rather, I think folks she was describing (the men "explaining" her the true meaning of the novel) or, those now "explaining" the true meaning of her article--and, apparently, feminism itself--are engaging in that same process yet again. And seemingly without any sense of the irony of that position, which makes sense given the general cluelessness she was describing.

[Gary]

Cemre wrote: "Feminism is an ideology like any other. I agree with it most of the time, but like other ideologies, it can fall victim to a black and white mentality."

I'd accept that as an axiom. There's no perfection in any ideology, of course, and certainly not in something as broad as a social movement meant to address half the world's population. And where one side of a socio-political movement may see no problems (based largely on their own perspective) the other side might cast things as sexism, racism, ageism, religious persecution, etc. when they are not.

However, I'd suggest that the criticisms of Feminism are much more often motivated by a shallow, self-righteous egoism, and that characteristic can be illustrated in a range of ways, but most clearly by the ultimate argument that is presented: that Feminism can itself simply be ignored.

There are very legitimate criticisms that I might make about, say, the activities of the National Organization for Women. That's a group that's going to fall victim to the broadness of their efforts, which makes it, effectively, a bureaucracy, and a bureaucracy is always frustrating to deal with. That's particularly because a bureaucracy always addresses the concerns of its budget first, and the money for a group like the N.O.W. comes largely from white, upper middle class American women. The concerns of women of color, women of lower social class, or women in the Third World get a disproportionate (given their numbers) amount of attention given that supposed Feminist agenda.

But a thinking person's response to such a thing is not to look at the negative aspects of that kind of thinking, argue that they are characteristics of that particular movement rather than the nature of organization itself, and then conclude that the merits of the movement as a whole can be ignored or discounted.

Personally, I'm a gun owner. I really like shooting. I think both hunting and defending one's person and family with a firearm is a Natural Right. Ultimately, I think gun ownership (or, at least, familiarity) is not simply a right, but a duty of the able-bodied citizenry. I don't have children, but if I did, I'd teach them to shoot just as readily as I'd teach them to swim, throw a ball or how to appreciate a piece of art.

The N.R.A. does not represent me. Maybe they did for a while in the 70's and before, but since about 1980 that group has been taken over by corporate interests in a way that has left the membership behind and uses the language of freedom and responsibility as nothing more than a marketing strategy for a social vision that is as unAmerican as Chairman Mao, who said, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

The same can't be said of the N.O.W. Yet, that's how the argument is presented. We must throw the baby out with the bathwater, and not only is that not the way to deal with babies or bathwater, it's not how social change works--either positive or negative social change. We must weigh the options, and be content to move forward with imperfect knowledge using imperfect methods to achieve imperfect results. But better results for all their imperfections.

I would further suggest that that is precisely what the other side does. They use an intentionally flawed method, push forward an intentionally flawed vision, and achieve inherently flawed results. They do so out of a perception of self-interest, and accept the generalized promotion of that self-interest, despite the comparatively minor setbacks. That perception of self-interest may be erroneous or not (certainly the NRA leadership earns a substantial living from their efforts, while rank-in-file members are supported to a degree that much less represents their individual issues) but if one is going to make an argument that Feminism itself is to blame for the failings that all organizations of any size must necessarily fall prey to, then that's not just a weak argument but a hypocritical one, and deeply rooted in denial.

[Karen]

Cemre
Good luck with your discussion on this topic. I will now refrain from commenting further because I do no think an opposing view will be tolerated here, and this has nothing to do with you. It is the history of this particular thread and the person who started it, whom I have blocked. Since you want to have a peaceful discussion I'll leave it up to you.

[Duane]

Cemre wrote: "I'm not against people teaching art... ."

You didn't SAY you were against people teaching Art - You said you were against people EXPLAINING Art, and *I* saw a chance to conduct a Mass Layoff of "Art Appreciation" Perfessers!! (Make them go get a REAL job!!)

You have to realize I was FORCED to write an analysis of the Pan-Anathemaic Frieze on the Parthenon (Or something), and THEN they threw me out of Ceramics for making a ceramic hand grenade. So I've basically got a LOW opinion of these "Art Appreciation" nitwits. (And they OWE me... .)

Karen wrote: "(like the thing she said about tampons being oppressive)

LOL!!! Duane would you like to comment on this one?

And banning porn is not something I agree with, one of my many problems with feminis..."

ROTFL!! **DWORKIN** calling something "Oppressive"?? Talk about the (Very large) Pot calling the Kettle "Black"!!

Or as they say in the South "That's like being called "Ugly" by a Frog!".

And she better be REAL careful about banning Porn - I mean, *somebody* could interpret a photo of HER as Porn - WITH her clothes on.

However... That said... I'm gonna post a couple of links here and DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER (I shoot back...) - I'm just HOPING it's a Joke, but with Dworkins out there running around loose without a Minder, WHO friggin KNOWS

http://modernwomandigest.com/disturbi...

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/08/fr...

[Gary]

Cemre wrote: "So Gary, have fun with your discussion, but I chicken out."

Probably a good plan. Discretion being the better part of valor and all that.

[Laura]

Cemre wrote: "She uses a liberal rhetoric, which automically alienates people of the opposite political affilation, so her point escapes them."

Oh, you hit it! I believe this is also very "U.S. centered", but I hadn't fingered it out before. As an outsider, certain words don't mean the same thing to us, or rather, they don't trigger the same responses. What you mention is very interesting because I was recently discussing with a friend (from the U.S.), and I said that I had the impression that over there, most people just "picked a side" and went automatically with everything that side had to say. After your comment, I now wonder if it's the ideas they agree with, or the wording of them that "identifies" them with the "opposite" side.

Cemre wrote: "Feminism is an ideology like any other. I agree with it most of the time, but like other ideologies, it can fall victim to a black and white mentality."

Very much so! And closely related to the previous comment I quoted from you... People who generalize what feminists think or believe (man haters, or whatever) forget that feminists, much like any group of human beings, do not have one mind. What one feminist may find cool, another may find preposterous, and the "general tendency" of feminism in the eyes of the public will always be bent by whoever screams louder, or whoever wants to take away your toys.

Again, many people who are already polarized in their two-side only ideology lack the objectivity to filter what they read, when something kind of smells like coming from the other side. I had similar feelings for Dworkin's work as you mentioned, and in fact, I have similar feelings for pretty much anyone: I agree with some of what they say, and disagree with other stuff (ok, in Dworkin's case, there's a lot that I found too "out there"). But the point could be... I saw someone reject everything that came from her just because it came from her, even though they actually agreed on part of it, when these particular issues were discussed without mentioning her name.

As I said a couple of pages ago, sometimes just identifying as feminist makes people make an immediate connection to something they have strong feelings for... but it depends on the pre-conception people may or may not have about feminism in general, and what that means to ME may not be what it means to someone else. Yet, when I say feminism, or when I use words that have been widely used by "liberals", I'm automatically labeled and classified, and much of what I may say/think or not is just assumed -and fought!- even if I don't.

It was great reading you, Cemre, have fun!

@Duane: a question:
Would you put the people who fell for the free-bleeding hoax in the same sac as the women who went free-bleeding in Europe to protest against the tax on tampons and other feminine hygiene products? Just curious...

[Duane]

Laura wrote: "@Duane: a question:
Would you put the people who fell for the free-bleeding hoax in the same sac as the women who went free-bleeding in Europe to protest against the tax on tampons and other feminine hygiene products? Just curious... "

No, of Curse not (pun intended). I mean, really... there are Contextual Considerations no matter what. The "Gwar Woman" , Slymenstra Hymen, left a big puddle of blood (probably fake, knowing Gwar) in the chair she was sitting in at a record company office when the band went in there to interview for a contract. Now, that's even totally divorced from politics - (a) it's a point of honor with Gwar to gross everybody out (and Slymenstra sure as hell wasn't about to be outdone by "the guys"), (b) if the record company didn't like THAT they would HATE what came *next* and Gwar wouldn't even WANT their contract (I mean, if you've ever been to a Gwar show... yeah right). So that puts Gwar in a category by themselves as far as leaving puddles of menstrual blood goes (But we knew that...).

But, the real question with the tampon tax protester is... now she's got a problem with anyone ELSE "getting it". I mean, with the "hoax" going on (and I STILL can't finger out if it WAS one... Or maybe if it was, whether it *no longer is* one?) she'd have to wear a frigging sign explaining why she was doing it, or she'd probably just get written off by everyone as being "one of those free-bleeding nutjobs". which means that the "Hoaxers" undid HER political protest... which is a classic case of "Steal Their Symbols" (although in *this* case I can't figure out WHO stole WHOSE "symbol"...)

(And, I'M just curious... is this some sort of *special* tax on Tampons, or just the usual boring unimaginative leftist "If It's Sitting Still, Tax It" sort of tax, and the woman is just torqued because men don't have to buy "feminine" products, Or, ... ??)

OH - AND - If whoever created the (possible?) "Hoax", actually PLANNED to create ambivalence about whether it was or WASN'T a hoax, NOW we're speaking MY language: Disruption and anarchy for the sheer hell of it... . (Didn't THINK of THAT category, DID you??!)

[Laura]

Of course, the hoax was sheer trolling, and it was successful because many people believe everything they see in Internet without bothering to even google it first. Considering who started it, the purpose was to ridicule feminists, and some radical feminists fell for it heads first, helping them in their goal. Once you get to that point where you got your "target" to support something ridiculous, you are free to spit any sexist/bigoted/whateverist remark you want, because you can easily put anyone who disagrees with you in the same bag with the silly radicals who fell for it.

But you see, it all comes close to the point that Cemre was mentioning. You have your side picked, and now anything that remotely sounds like the other side needs to be diminished, ridiculed, or invalid, just because. Your first and most likely guess (according to your comment) was that this one woman got "torqued" because she had to buy tampons and men don't...

The protesters against tampons tax were several, and in several countries simultaneously. Of COURSE they had signs, and very explicit ones, according to language and country. Some free-bled (I believe in UK, but not sure), some wore panties with red paint on their heads, etc. The issue was tampons being issued to a special tax as a luxury product (sic.).

Furthermore, even though I told you this was going on in some European countries, you still went for "just the usual boring unimaginative leftist", like there is nothing under the sun that doesn't come down to U.S. politics (because, as far as I know you, you didn't mean the UK left, or the French left). This further proves the point.

[Duane]

oh, YUMMY... WhERe do I even START

Cemre wrote: ""(Very large) Pot" Haha. This was unnecessary."
Yeah, but Fun!! Wassamadda, You got something against puerile, banal gratuitous insults Or Something??
Also Dworkin has been dead for 11 years. She has lost the fight, she couldn't ban anything. She doesn't even have that profound an effect on today's ..."
OK, ok... I didn't know that the original Dworkin, after whom the Species was named (And no *I* didn't name it and I *wish* I could find that article), has "Shuffled Off This Mortal Coil". But while as you imply, "Dit Mortuus Nil, Ni Si Bonum" might apply to the
"Original Skankster", the REST of the Global Army of Dworkins, all marching in lockstep in identical flannel shirts, are FAIR GAME, and haven't changed a bit (Other than to , um, "Expand", if not actually grow in numbers).
I normally refrain from posting in Lolita discussions as they get really toxic, as I've experienced last year. But this time, topic was quite tempting.
Yeah, I think even that old goat Nabokov would be rolling over in his grave at all the endless wanking over his creation, were it not for the fact that he was buried with a certain portion of his anatomy protruding in such a manner that it prevents him from rolling... (No problem for Dworkin to roll though, her being essentially spherical).

lesseee... who's next, here... ¡¡OH!! ( << Rubs hands together, cackling with glee... >>)

Laura wrote: "Considering who started it, the purpose was to ridicule feminists, and some radical feminists fell for it heads first,..."
I'm all for ridiculing feminists. In fact, I'm all for ridiculing ALL "[]ists" and all "[]isms" (yes, including nihilis[m,ts]!). And, as always, fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.
And,
...you can easily put anyone who disagrees with you in the same bag with the silly radicals...
US rednecks here in The US, have a *Priceless* saying that dates back to the Old West: "You ride with 'em, you die with 'em". I.e. You show up riding with a gang of horse thieves you're gonna suffer the same fate as they do And don't try and tell us you just sort of fell in with 'em on the trail because "Injuns!". (Not that I would EVER insult a horse thief by comparing him with a Dworkin, mind you, BUT... .)

And!!!

Calling Tampons a "Luxury" product is a REAL joke. Which pitiful excuse for a sniveling bureaucrat came up with THAT?? (I bet they have a university degree.) They're a friggin MEDICAL product, like Band-Aids or something. Anybody who's been to war and got shot and had a buddy stick a tampon in the bullet hole knows that. In fact, all those "Feminine Products" like that are BANDAGES, generically. And only a tax-crazed Leftist *wherever*, Europe OR the U.S., would be SO stupid they couldn't finger THAT out! And, if they're taxing medical products *at all*... Get a rope!

([wo]man... I thought WE were dumb over HERE...)

[Laura]

Well, to a point, several of the wanks in this long thread can be somewhat interconnected, including personal interpretations of Lolita. When you think about it from a broader point of view, the post started with a strong consideration of whether a "manly" interpretation of Lolita was "prevailing".

We're all used to sexist portrayals in art and media, and in some cases it's so ingrained in us, that we don't even notice it anymore, and I'm sure some artists/authors don't even do it on purpose. We just are used to things working like that, and we're also used to interpreting art and media in the same way. I don't think it's fair to assume that a man's interpretation of Lolita (or any other) is sexist because he's a man. It's also unfair to claim that a woman's interpretation cannot be sexist because she's a woman.

I would say, going on a long stretch, that it's a remarkably sexist interpretation of life considering tampons a luxury product, regardless if a woman participated in the decision or not. Remember those silly doodles about equality versus equity? Well, this is what that's about. It may not be equality in the technical sense to have men tax payers fill in for a product they don't commonly use, but it's fair that a woman shouldn't need to pay extra for a product that is a necessity, rather than a luxury.

But why all these free-bleeding hoax creeps succeeded so hard in creating a mayhem you would have loved to watch? Because of the good old habit of people to keep trying to impose their own views on everyone, without being able to see past their own nose. One thing is to say "this is good for me", and another is to say "it's good for me, so anyone who disagrees is a bigot/mindless leftist". Same goes with any other issue, be it gender, politics, sex, food, art, and of course Lolita interpretations. There will always be people who think they have THE One And Only Truth, and all other opinions are bullshit. And that's bullshit.

[E.D.]

Once you've eliminated the possibility of civil discussion, all that's left is uncivil discussion on the path to civil destruction.

Bullshit walks...whiskey costs money...ass, grass, or gas...how many Libertarians does it take to change a lightbulb?

Answer: None.

Invisible Hand. Free Market. Yaga yaga.

:}