Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » What women here ... (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: What women here ...
Omega M.
Member
Member # 1392

 - posted      Profile for Omega M.     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
... think the world would be better off with no men? (You can have some way to artifically "sexually" reproduce, perhaps by blending the DNA of two egg cells.)

I've been reading some radical feminist tracts from the '60s and '70s and I wonder who still subscribes to their ideas.

Posts: 1966 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Can you give an example of a feminist thinker who thought that the world would be better off without men entirely? Sounds straw-manish (straw-womanish?)

Adam

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cperry
Member
Member # 1938

 - posted      Profile for cperry   Email cperry   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not I.
Posts: 2782 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Would ther world be better off without 49.5% of its population?
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's pretty easy, Adam:

S.C.U.M. Manifesto

Need more? There IS more.

One more (with lots o' content!)

[ October 03, 2006, 11:46 AM: Message edited by: javelin ]

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Omega M.
Member
Member # 1392

 - posted      Profile for Omega M.     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, the S.C.U.M. Manifesto was what I was thinking of.

If you want, you can assume that no men would have to be killed to get the world to a manless state, and that quality of life wouldn't go down solely because of there being fewer people around. I think we should keep women biologically the same, and keep the "natural" distribution of heterosexuality/homosexuality (since a lot of these feminists say it's not hard for any woman to transfer her sexual desire to other women or to condition it away entirely).

Posts: 1966 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have the feeling there were not very many women even in the 60's and 70's who subscribed to the idea. It's pretty radical and far-off, for a variety of reasons. It was probably kicked around for a while, but I doubt there was any sizeable support for the idea.

Of course, it is arguable that the world would be better off with 49.5% fewer people, but that's another story. [Smile]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cperry
Member
Member # 1938

 - posted      Profile for cperry   Email cperry   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If one looks at the recent research on the brain and the differences between male and female brains (yes, this is new stuff; yes, it's still rather broad and vague, but we can still glean some info from it), it's increasingly clear that we've evolved to meet different demands to survive.

If there were no men, then some women would have evolved with similar brain-based behaviors to take over those jobs. If not, then with no one to kill the mean and nasty tigers while the women were at home taking care of the children, the women and children wouldn't survive.

Posts: 2782 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
0Megabyte
Member
Member # 1217

 - posted      Profile for 0Megabyte   Email 0Megabyte       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Even if there was such a movement, how exactly would they pull it off? Sorry, ladies, I'm a guy and nothing I did caused that, so screw you.

Anyway, I've read about a few proponents of such ideas, and I find them loathesome people. Hatred to such a degree, even if caused by legitimate, understandable reasons which I can empathize with, is still unacceptable. I don't hate them or anything. It just makes me sad that such hatred exists within the human heart.

Besides, in other forms, such hatred tends to be the source of much of the evil within the world. Much of the misery. It's sad to see people, even a small number, embrace such a view.

Then again, it could be cold logical reasoning. But then again, without some magic thing to allow reproduction without men, it seems more like a logic which had been screwed up by hatred and personal bias. Again, how sad.

Oh, sure, the world would be better off with 49.5% fewer people. But in a couple generations we'd just double in population again.

Posts: 2668 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
I have the feeling there were not very many women even in the 60's and 70's who subscribed to the idea. It's pretty radical and far-off, for a variety of reasons. It was probably kicked around for a while, but I doubt there was any sizeable support for the idea.

Of course, it is arguable that the world would be better off with 49.5% fewer people, but that's another story. [Smile]

I suppose it's all relative, so you can define "not very many" any way you want, but under my definition (you know, more than a few dozen), this point of view was certainly not rare:

Some MORE names

If you look at the other links I posted, you'll see a good thirty or forty authors ALONE - who knows how many supporters they had - keep in mind that this stuff is what got PUBLISHED.

[ October 03, 2006, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: javelin ]

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
0Megabyte
Member
Member # 1217

 - posted      Profile for 0Megabyte   Email 0Megabyte       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
(after travelling through the wikisphere, came up with some hilarious quotes from the SCUM manifesto. Here is my response.)

::laughs:: the y chromosome is an incomplete x chromosome? ergo, men are incomplete females, walking abortions, deficient, emotionally limited (wow, what an ignoramus this girl is). Claiming men are emotional cripples? Okay. Humor. Wow, this is great. Oh, wait. She's serious? Even funnier!

"Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and destroy the male sex."

Okay, so back in the day women were second class citizens (and are still not equal, yes, I know this.) Still, I wonder how exactly she connects destroying the male sex with communist/anarchism? A responsible person would actually try to help build society, not try to not just tear down a flawed one but pretty much destroy civilization entirely. (no, not saying men are civilization. More the anarchic bits.) Oh, and destroying the human race, too. It'd be nice to see them in a few generations! Wait, you mean they wouldn't be there?

Okay, I can't do it any more, I'm laughing so hard. Forgive my disrespect and utter dismissiveness towards this, because I know that there are plenty of actual arguements here, and (at least SOME) interesting debate to be had, and some actual reasons for someone to feel this way, but still, I will show my sheer, rawly emotional loathing for this concept through dismissiveness.

Posts: 2668 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
0Megabyte
Member
Member # 1217

 - posted      Profile for 0Megabyte   Email 0Megabyte       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
On the other hand ,here's a statement by a... Naomi Weisstein which makes some interesting sense about trying to figure out the differences between men and women.


"Except for their genitals, I don't know what immutable differences exist between men and women. Perhaps there are some other unchangeable differences; probably there are a number of irrelevant differences. But it is clear that until social expectations for men and women are equal, until we provide equal respect for both sexes, answers to this question will simply reflect our prejudices."

While of course I don't think that studying the differences (which is important in plenty of things, like, say, medicine, to know whether and what differences exist) should not be done in an imperfect society like ours, it is still something to be careful about, and something that should be in the minds of everyone who looks at the differences.

Posts: 2668 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I just watched that Outerlimits with David Keith and it totally proved the world would be better off without men.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
ON a similar note, I've heard more than a few women utter the nonsensical statement "If women were in charge of the world, there would be no war."

Ha!!!!

Ever seen a group of women at a party when a stunningly attractive women they don't know enters the room and commands the attention of the men?

War would still occur with all women in charge...it would just be waged for different reasons.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cperry
Member
Member # 1938

 - posted      Profile for cperry   Email cperry   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
... and in different ways.
Posts: 2782 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Sorry, ladies, I'm a guy and nothing I did caused that, so screw you. "

You wish, omega. It's not that easy [Wink] (but actually not much harder. [Pun intended])


If women ruled the world, they would rulue congress too. Can you imagine secrets like the Foley thing surviving in an all female congress? It would be gossiped all across the country in like 2 hours.

...at least judging from the girls I know at school

[ October 03, 2006, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: TommySama ]

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Please, let that have been a typo, Tommy...
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[Frown]

[ October 03, 2006, 05:55 PM: Message edited by: TommySama ]

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
0Megabyte
Member
Member # 1217

 - posted      Profile for 0Megabyte   Email 0Megabyte       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Darn, I didn't see the typo. What a pity.

A ha ha ha ha, Tommy. A ha ha ha ha.

Posts: 2668 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That was almost worthy of an entry in Orbonics...
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
lol

After you posted I was afraid I'd piss everyone off to much so I fixed it. I thought it was funny, though [Frown]

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Noun: Technical spelling used to refer to any 'country' ruled by women.
Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
winkey151
Member
Member # 2910

 - posted      Profile for winkey151   Email winkey151   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The world would be boring with just women in it.
Posts: 865 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Adam:

quote:
Can you give an example of a feminist thinker who thought that the world would be better off without men entirely? Sounds straw-manish (straw-womanish?)
Javelin:

quote:
That's pretty easy, Adam:

S.C.U.M. Manifesto

Need more? There IS more.

One more (with lots o' content!)

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
I have the feeling there were not very many women even in the 60's and 70's who subscribed to the idea. It's pretty radical and far-off, for a variety of reasons. It was probably kicked around for a while, but I doubt there was any sizeable support for the idea.

Of course, it is arguable that the world would be better off with 49.5% fewer people, but that's another story.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I suppose it's all relative, so you can define "not very many" any way you want, but under my definition (you know, more than a few dozen), this point of view was certainly not rare:

Some MORE names

If you look at the other links I posted, you'll see a good thirty or forty authors ALONE - who knows how many supporters they had - keep in mind that this stuff is what got PUBLISHED.

Javelin, for somebody who makes a big thing about being carefull with sources, your contributions to this thread have been apalling. You were specifically responding to Adam's question about how many woman thought the world would be better of without men, and yet your "more names" link is a link to an article on misandri in general. It is as ridiculous to think that all woman who are misandrists desire a world without men as it is to think that all men who are misogynists desire a world without woman. In fact, of all the names listed on that article, only one comes even close to suggesting we would be better of without men, Maureen Dowd, and she has publicly denied that she was making that imputation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misandrist#Misandry_in_feminist_literature

Again, responding to Waywardson you ignore the thread title, and obvious tenor of his comments and link to a wiki article on "Sisterhood is Powerfull" to suggest that a "good thirty to forty authors ALONE" have pursued the radical idea that the world would be better of without men. But again, the contributers to "Sisterhood is Powerfull" were not typically of that view. Indeed, only one that I can trace, Mary Daly, had views that may be construed in that way. She advocated research into Parthogenesis as a means of liberation, but some disagree that she was actually advocating for a male free society.

In contrast many of the contributors to "Sisterhood is Powerfull" went on to become Red Stockings, and hence to reject even lesbianism as a feminist act. Ergo, they certainly would have rejected an all female society as utopia.

So, if we actually follow your links, instead of thirty of forty authors, we have three, two of them dubious for various reasons.

The only clear cut case Valerie Solanas whose "Society for Cutting Up Men manifesto" (there was, of course, no such society) was written in the same year as she was found incompetent to stand trial for the attempted murder of Andy Warhol. She sounds like the very definition of a lunatic fringe.

Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
0Megabyte
Member
Member # 1217

 - posted      Profile for 0Megabyte   Email 0Megabyte       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A choice quote:

"The penis must embody the violence of the male in order for him to be male. Violence is male; the male is the penis; violence is the penis..."

Somebody's logic is in a tizzy. For anyone to believe that violence is a solely male trait is utterly foolish, if you'll allow me the broad statement.


"I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He's just incapable of it."

Circular logic, anyone?

"MALE:...represents a variant of or deviation from the category of female. The first males were mutants...the male sex represents a degeneration and deformity of the female."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Great. I'd love to know how this pre-mutation group of female humans propagated, or survived in general. Even the Amazons needed men for procreation.

Okay, the person may be talking about the time before higher animals. Well, there are good advantages to having two sexes. It's good way to gain genetic diversity. That's one reason.

Oh, man. This stuff is hilarious.

The best one:

"Men's sexuality is mean and violent, and men so powerful that they can 'reach WITHIN women to ****/construct us from the inside out.' Satan-like, men possess women, making their wicked fantasies and desires women's own. A woman who has sex with a man, therefore, does so against her will, 'even if she does not feel forced.'"

Okaaaaay... I know plenty of women. Unless they're all systematically lying to me, their sexual desires ARE real, and they are not exactly forced. I've seen too many women who initiate sexual contact for this to be in any way valid. After all, it allows no chance for exceptions.

Somebody there's got something against sex... ::shakes head::

[ October 03, 2006, 07:54 PM: Message edited by: 0Megabyte ]

Posts: 2668 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Javelin, for somebody who makes a big thing about being carefull with sources, your contributions to this thread have been apalling.
Do you honestly find this comment worth posting? Interesting break down, but I'd encourage everyone to actually follow the links I provided, since the analysis Tom C. gives here doesn't seem to actually have much to do with them. Keep in mind that those links should all be read, and that I didn't intend to "source" the way that Tom seems to think I did (I thought it was clear in context).

If anyone else feels that these women, and the Wiki articles I link to, have nothing to do with the topic at hand, I'll be glad to respond, but this? Not worth my time, Tom.

[ October 03, 2006, 08:04 PM: Message edited by: javelin ]

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Javelin, FYI, "advocate of female only utopia" isn't the same as "radical feminist". Representing one as the other is deceptive. But, given the thread topic and the comments you have responded to, that is exactly what you have done. I don't know why you are trying to hide that fact with bluster.
Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Curtis:
Javelin, FYI, "advocate of female only utopia" isn't the same as "radical feminist". Representing one as the other is deceptive. But, given the thread topic and the comments you have responded to, that is exactly what you have done. I don't know why you are trying to hide that fact with bluster.

As I already said, you clearly aren't understanding what I'm saying, and what my intent is. I don't know if it's on purpose, or not. Doesn't matter. If you'd like to actually ask me what my intent is, instead of asserting it, I'll be happy to talk to you about it. Until then, I'll ignore you as you deserve. Enjoy.
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Javelin, by all means explain what your intent was in pointing to a list of radical feminists when asked how common was the view that the world would be better without men. The way I see it, you either cannot distinguish between obviously different opinions in people you don't like, or you were deliberately trying to obfusticate. Now, it could be that you just misunderstood Adam's and then Wayward Son's questions, but in that case why don't you just admit it?

Failing that, however, kindly explain why Naomi Weisstein (one of your list of "More Names") should have her opinion that:

"Except for their genitals, I don't know what immutable differences exist between men and women. Perhaps there are some other unchangeable differences; probably there are a number of irrelevant differences. But it is clear that until social expectations for men and women are equal, until we provide equal respect for both sexes, answers to this question will simply reflect our prejudices."

should be treated as advocating that society would be better of without men completely?

Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"MALE:...represents a variant of or deviation from the category of female. The first males were mutants...the male sex represents a degeneration and deformity of the female."

The obvious retort to this is that evolution steps up, not down. Woman may have been first, but nature obviously decided to better it's origional creation with man.

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The obvious retort to this is that evolution steps up, not down. Woman may have been first, but nature obviously decided to better it's origional creation with man.
The obvious retort is that as a matter of shere biology, she is right - but so what?

Most males are XY with the functional genes on the Y chromosome almost exclusively limited to those directly related to making males male. The result is that any genetic defect in the X chromosome of a male will be expressed, while in most cases in females it well be recessive and not expressed. This results in higher disease rates amongst males, earlier deaths, and higher frequencies of colour blindness (amongst other things). Biologically, a Y chromosome is a defective X chromosome with a dominant gene for male morphology.

But so what? Males are stronger than females, and more robust with better ability for sustained effort. This does not make them superior in moral terms. A greater male propensity for genetic disease does not make females superior in moral terms either. It is a matter of irrelevance.

Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
All menz is made by wimminz. We're THEIR fault, dammit!
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Shh guys, Omega asked the women to comment.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
BTW, has anyone mentioned the fact that the woman who wrote the creepy and hilarious "SCUM manifesto" is the same one who later shot Andy Warhol?
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
BTW, has anyone mentioned the fact that the woman who wrote the creepy and hilarious "SCUM manifesto" is the same one who later shot Andy Warhol?

Nah, I thought I'd leave THAT gem for those who read the links I posted. I dunno how accurate the wiki stuff is, but following it's links around was quite an education.

[ October 04, 2006, 09:57 AM: Message edited by: javelin ]

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rightleft22
Member
Member # 2832

 - posted      Profile for rightleft22   Email rightleft22   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My girlfriend just told me she would be better off without me.

Because her life is so busy and chaotic she resents the time that she wants to spend with me –She wasn't getting the things done she felt she needed to do because she went to a show or what have you with me and this left her feeling stressed.
In the next sentence she tells me she feels rejected because I’m not making any demands for her time. [DOH]
Next she is projecting into the future of what might happen, who I might end up being... How do you defend yourself about things you haven’t yet done and have no intention of doing? [Exploding]

I don’t understand women.

Posts: 935 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Don't defend yourself at all. This has nothing to do with women. en do the same thing. THis has to do wiith projection: pasting your confusion and motives and whatevers on someone else.

My oldest son is going through the same thing with his girlfriend right now. He doesn't yet see that it takes two and that he is doing something similar to her.

If he would just set a few simple boundaries -- on her AND himself -- and stick with them fpor one month, the relationship would either soar or crash. But that's problem: who wants real consequences? It's easier just to tug-of-war the days away...

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rightleft22
Member
Member # 2832

 - posted      Profile for rightleft22   Email rightleft22   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
“We often deuce intentions of others from our fears – assuming that whatever we fear, the other side intends to do.”

I try to avoid becoming defensive but it’s hard to control my own stories/ghosts when the ‘stuff’ starts hitting the fan. Noting like a good story, especially if it’s based on old pain, to take you for a good ride.
I ask for specifics but it’s not rational and it’s not about specifics it’s about perceptions, emotions, fear it's running from change. It's skeleton woman looking you in the eye and telling you that to continue you will be changed…. and you can run but she’s not going to let go, she has you, continue or runaway, you will be changed.

This I think brings us back to the topic – Do woman think the world would be a better place without men – by eliminating the complexities of relationship, of dealing with those who do not think the same why your group does, do things become better?
IMO the answer is no and in pursuing such thinking it’s more likely we just end up creating what we fear.

“We mistakenly seek security from our world, surrounding ourselves with the familiar and predictable, struggling to eliminate anything questionable and threatening… ultimately we become panicky when the enterprise proves useless; we simply cannot avoid death or life’s disappointments and in our panic we struggle more, becoming increasingly resentful of our lives and imprisoned by our circumstances.
“It is in trying to rescue ourselves form life’s difficulties that we actually end up imprisoning ourselves in them. The more we try to protect ourselves, the more we become confused.” - Michael Carroll

[ October 04, 2006, 12:47 PM: Message edited by: rightleft22 ]

Posts: 935 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The overwhelming majority of women I know -- including lesbians -- like men and want to keep us around. After all, we're their biggest fans.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Funean
Member
Member # 2345

 - posted      Profile for Funean   Email Funean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
<waves, merrily>

I like men fine. [Smile]

The SCUM Manifesto is a bit of silliness from an era known for it. Mary Daly, on the other hand, was quite serious. I actually met her once, back in my college days. She was, as TomC infers, not necessarily advocating for the elimination of men, but instead posited a female-only society (along with some strategies for getting there, albeit slowly, such as parthenogenesis) more as a thought exercise in antithesis to the dominant, er, paradigm. Hardly a wild-eyed radical, she was a stodgy academic to the bone.

Posts: 5277 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1