# User talk:Astrophilia

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
 Welcome to RationalWiki, Astrophilia! Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards. If you are interested in contributing, please read what our articles are intended to be. Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

Greetings, Astrophilia, and welcome to the opaque baby-sitter! I thank you for joining us, and I hope you enjoy your time here. Radioactive Misanthrope 19:11, 1 March 2009 (EST)

Oh, I see, you're the IP we asked to sign up earlier. Thank you for signing up, and I look forward to seeing your contributions! Radioactive Misanthrope 19:16, 1 March 2009 (EST)

Hey--I'm pretty much sick of dealing with Listener, but I'm *really* enjoying your end of the discussion very much. Smart, concise, to the point. As much as it's possible for a fairly straight male to be one of "those" types of feminists, I'm with you all the way. TheoryOfPractice 21:16, 1 March 2009 (EST)
Aw, thanks! --Astrophilia 23:00, 1 March 2009 (EST)
Waves from the corner. I'm not one of "those type" of feminists, I guess. But I fit into way too many of the sterotypes. Fat, Ugly, comfortable shoe wearing, lack of fashion sense or interste, 1 minute spent on my morning grooming ritual (shower, brush hair, brush teeth, out the door) who thinks make up is part of the socialization of women to make them be an object... only reason i'm not one of "those" feminists is cause I think that rape fantasy, power play sexuality, porn, and prostitution can be part of the woman's sexuality and are not just about the objectification of women.--En attendant Godot"Such is life." 09:43, 2 March 2009 (EST)
I think the whole of sexual discourse is about fetishizing dominance and submission, from Twilight to BDSM. I think in a post-patriarchal world no one would think that was sexy. --Astrophilia 09:58, 2 March 2009 (EST)
This is where I disagree, and had to "unsubscribe" from my billing as "one of those". *grin*. I think power is an issue in any and every society and always will be. I would like to think otherwise, but until we change into a new species, power rules all. Hopefully, we can move away from gender being an instilled form of power differential, but there will always be skin color, hair type, money, city of birth, lisping, body shape, admission into some religion, brain power, and every other silly, petty reason one could have to be more powerful than someoen else. and with power comes sexuality. The old joke, Bill gates and Murdock (the Media Guy) would never get laid cept that they are two of the most powerful men in history... The fetish won't be about women as objects, but it might well be the "construction worker as object" fetish, or the reverse "boss woman as object". Cinderella will never cease to be, it's just that the "she" may be replaced by "lowly serfs" or "urban ghetto residents" or "african refugees" - who knows. but the sexualization of power will never go away. --En attendant Godot"Such is life." 10:16, 2 March 2009 (EST)
Power will rule all until all hierarchical power structures are torn down, including government, the nuclear family, and capitalism. It is these institutions (and all their incarnations) that create a power differential, and need a dehumanizing power structure to flourish. This is why submission and dominance is fetishized; if it were not perceived as sexy or necessary, power structures would fall apart. I find the idea that hierarchical power structures are somehow necessary and inevitable to be anathema to feminism and all equality, as well as the idea that you have to reduce someone to an object before you can find them sexy. --Astrophilia 10:21, 2 March 2009 (EST)

Hey Astrophilia...the above has me curious about what shapes a post-patriarchal/post-hierarchical sexuality--and *sexiness*--would take. I can only imagine that you do not fall under the rubric of "porn-positive" feminist (I said somewhere on the Dworkin page that I thought that sort of attitude could never have come about without AD's interventions, you might disagree...) so I'm curious to know what one might read to think with in terms of erotica/porn/hotness/sexiness within the type of feminist discourses that you subscribe to...hope all is well. TheoryOfPractice 18:36, 2 March 2009 (EST)

This is a topic that deserves an essay. Unfortunately for me, I don't think I have the time or the articulate-ness to accurately describe my position on these things. Luckily for me, one of my idols already has.--Astrophilia 20:10, 2 March 2009 (EST)
ROTFLMAO, how did I know you would have IBTP on your list of "must reads".  :-) She's too much for me, i want to slap her every time I read her lately.--En attendant Godot"Such is life." 10:15, 3 March 2009 (EST)
She's blunt, concise, and fantastic. I want to buy her a taco. --Astrophilia 12:23, 3 March 2009 (EST)

##  Endlessly saying the same circular things

When do you say "enough is enough". I'm stubborn enough to sit here and argue with (ehm, some particular) people, especially on topics I care about. But i want to slam heads all the time. Something so obvious to me (in this case, having "been there, done that") is so out side of the scope of immignation for others (usually, those who have never had to face this, and more importantly, cannot have ever had to face it.) How easy would it be to make laws if you personally could never be effected by them. "Let's make that one medical procedure illegal, cause it's icky and some docs said that women don't really *need* it, just cause it's "safer", they just don't want to take the risk of these other available procedures). ARRUGGHH....--En attendant Godot"Such is life." 12:45, 2 March 2009 (EST)

I tried to say enough is enough earlier but I got riled. When I get riled I get angry. When I get angry, I turn green and my mammoth fists smash the keyboard with the same argument repeatedly, in lieu of beating that person up. I agree with you 100% with the typical dude's take on abortion. Reminds me of a dude's usual response to tampon commercials: "Ugh, why are these on television? I don't want to know about this!" --Astrophilia 13:00, 2 March 2009 (EST)
abortion became a political issue, and women again got used (by both sides). Really, it's a private medical decision like deciding how many babies to have (if any), and no one would dare discuss that in public as a political agenda. "I'm moving to tell women to stop having babies", etc. Oh, I read a HORRIFIC account of rape and the military on daily Kos, by the way. Turns out that there have been at least 30 "suicides" which the families said "wow, that doesn't sound like my daughter". The autopsy of the one chronicled on dKos said she had lye poured in her vagina, her back was torn up with scratches and blows, and her face (nose and teeth) had been broken within 2 hours of her death. then she shot herself with the wrong hand, on the wrong side of the head. Yeah, that's a susicide. Growl. Anyhow, men treat these issues the same way that they talk about the morality of the lifeboat; and biology vs., religion on matters of "life"; and of course "god. vs. science". But how often do you see them ever ask "what does my decision due to the individual woman, and who has asked her about her opinion". --En attendant Godot"Such is life." 13:45, 2 March 2009 (EST)

##  Sysopship

My condolences on joining the ranks of janitors, Astrophilia. That's right—you are now a sysop!

You have been demoted because you meet the following criteria: (1) You have a pulse (2) You are not a vandal. (3) You are a vandal, but do not have a pulse.

(One of those is not like the other...)

Here is your bucket, mop, and instruction manual. Try not to let the awesome powerz drive you mad!  : ) Radioactive Misanthrope 14:01, 2 March 2009 (EST)

##  Women as real live actual honest to god equals...

"By the way, I still really like my original idea of charging the impregnator with murder if the woman decides to abort the resulting zygote. Getting a woman pregnant without her consent would be a punishable offense in a world where pregnancy and childbirth weren't the expected conditions of womanhood." -- are you kidding me? We have just barely gotten past the notion that rape isn't the woman's fault (or at least somewhat). We still have politicians in Colorado saying that he will not advocate for an HIV test for women (which i abhor, but that's a different argument) because HIV is a punishment for a woman having promiscuous sex, and we should not be rewarding this kind of behavior . lovely, huh? This just days after another repub spouting off that "being gay is a sin. we should not make sins legal. protecting HIV status makes sin legal". or something. --En attendant Godot"Such is life." 14:25, 2 March 2009 (EST)

Yeah man I heard about that HIV-lovin' guy in Colorado. Shameful stuff. I'm confused though; do you disagree that getting a woman pregnant without her consent should be a punishable offense, or are you just saying that such a sentiment couldn't be upheld in this society as such? If you're talking the latter I'm with you. --Astrophilia 15:50, 2 March 2009 (EST)
I'm reluctant to get drawn into this, but - I'm troubled by your comment about punishing men who get a woman pregnant without her consent. Rape is already regarded as a serious offence, if that's what you mean, but all other unintended pregnancies are accidents. Why is saying that it's the man's fault if he gets a woman preganant & he should be punished for it any better than those mysoginists who say that it's the woman's fault if she gets preganant & she should be punished for it? WëäŝëïöïďMethinks it is a Weasel 18:57, 2 March 2009 (EST)
The comment was originally in jest, but I think there's some merit to it. The burden of birth control is disproportionately placed upon the woman, as is the stigma attached to terminating a pregnancy. I do not think that anyone should be punished for an unwanted pregnancy; but right now, women are. I was just trying to turn the tables.
Plus I dispute the idea that rape is regarded as a serious offense in our society; the appalling rate of conviction, as well the overwhelming idea of rape being the victim's fault, simply compound the many conditions in our culture that enable rape. --Astrophilia 19:19, 2 March 2009 (EST)
Astro, sorry my tone was unclear. the "are you kidding me" was in the lines of "oh god, we can't even make them pay for rape kits, much less be held accountable for the baby inside the woman". Kinda one of those "oh, keep dreaming' statements. Weaseloid, i think one of the frustrations we get (especially if you've ever been in a hospital while some doctor does a rape kit, then sat with a cop who was doing the investigation) about the whole "what is the crime in rape", is that no matter how far it goes, it always seems as if there is not enough respect to how serious the crime is. "it's just really bad sex, it's not like he killed you". "your husband will FORGIVE you" (yes, this was told to me by a so-called loving nurse though she said boyfriend). Forgive ME?? "ok, did you try to push him away? Wait, you didn't scream? Didn't you realize there were people in the store who could have heard you?" "did you consider not fighting back (i thought you just told me TO fight back) cause then he might not have cut you". You hear so much, and experience such antipathy and apathy about dealing with rapes (much has changed in 20 years, by the way. police have experts who spend time learning how not to ask such self-loathing, self-blaming type questions; often the women and men on new taskforces have themselves been victims.) You feel such a non-entity twice over, and the courts did so very little. I think it's why you hear more complaints from women of my generation (i'm 40), than the younger generation, cause courts were really trying to change, but their attempts were clumsy at best. wanting to make a man guilty of murder would make the rape feel like someone, somewhere is taking it more seriously. Just a possibility of what underlined the original comments.--En attendant Godot"Such is life." 19:08, 2 March 2009 (EST)
(EC) I wasn't aware that this part of the discussion was actually about rape; maybe we're all misunderstanding each other. To clarify, I think that rape is a truly horrible crime to commit & a terrible thing to suffer, & I'm really sorry to here that it's something you've suffered, WfG. My response above was to Astrophilia's comment about "charging the impregnator with murder if the woman decides to abort the resulting zygote". As far as I can tell, this wasn't a comment about rape, but about consensual sex which results in a pregnancy which is later aborted. If that's the case, then Astrophilia's argument really doesn't make sense to me - the pregnancy is accidental (for both parties), but the woman has the power to make a decision which will make the man a criminal. How is that fair? It's no better than the old sexist argument that it's the woman's fault she got pregnant & she should suffer the consequences. True equality should recognise that (excepting cases of rape) an accidental pregnancy is accidental, & apportioning blame either way only results in pointless humiliation & resentment. The decision whether to abort or continue the pregnancy is the woman's, since it concerns her body, but punishing the man is not a reasonable response. WëäŝëïöïďMethinks it is a Weasel 19:33, 2 March 2009 (EST)

At the same time, it is far too easy for a man to impregnate a woman and then bugger off and never meet his obligations to the woman or the kid. Where I come from, the gov't instituted fairly strict regimes so that men would have to meet their financial obligations--but cutting a cheque is only one part of the deal; men need to be held accountable when they get a woman pregnant in a way they often are not. TheoryOfPractice 19:39, 2 March 2009 (EST)

I don't have a problem with those kind of policies; just with the suggestion that men should be punished if women choose to abort. I realise it wasn't entirely serious, but it still bothered me. WëäŝëïöïďMethinks it is a Weasel 19:51, 2 March 2009 (EST)
well, remembering that she herself said this was a statement in gest, i'm guessing it's more along the lines of what TOP says here, but to an extreme. that is "you are 1/2 of what got me here, but all you get is a requirement for money if I keep the kid. If I don't keep it, you are never punished, but I'm punished daily (at least according to Justices Roberts and Kennedy -heh.) An exaggeration to make a point that there are two parties making a baby, but only one gets saddled with the daily costs, inc physical and emotional.--En attendant Godot"Such is life." 20:02, 2 March 2009 (EST)
(EC)Maybe "punished" --as in a crime--doesn't make sense. But If I get a woman pregnant and she aborts, I should be liable for a hefty portion of the expenses for the procedure/her salary while she's recuperating/any therapy she might need afterwards, assuming the lack of a health care system that won't take care of this things in a reasonable manner. Don't like it, boys? Too bad. TheoryOfPractice 20:04, 2 March 2009 (EST)
Thanks you two for picking up the slack on my not-well-thought-out point! I was trying to say to ListenerX that if he wants to consider abortion murder, then the one who should be charged would be the one who attached the fetus to the woman in the first place. As in, the dude who spooged in her fanny. The woman can't be blamed for the predicament someone else put her in. It was mostly in response to his "if someone else attached a guest to you without that guest's permission or knowledge would you still 'abort'" or something. --Astrophilia 20:08, 2 March 2009 (EST)
OK then, objections duly retracted. ListenerX's problem is that he likes to debate abstract concepts, apply ill-fitting analogies, & play with language, regardless of whether what he is talking about is real people & their lives & feelings & beliefs. His "atheism is a religion" piece ruffled a few feathers here, & I think his comments about abortion are within the same vein. Best not to take them too seriously. WëäŝëïöïďMethinks it is a Weasel 20:23, 2 March 2009 (EST)
He wrote that atheism is a religion? Bless him. I'm going to end the discussion soon enough. Thanks for your support! --Astrophilia 20:27, 2 March 2009 (EST)

"fanny"---careful, dear. Your Britishness is showing. No US-American would use that word to refer to anything but the rear end. (on that note, see: Saddlebacking) TheoryOfPractice 20:15, 2 March 2009 (EST)

I've lived here too long. One of my friends said that when we were discussing abortion, and she said it with such feeling that it impressed upon my mind as one of those rare, fabulous phrases you don't hear often enough. But no fanny in America, sadly. Muff? Twat? Ladygarden? This is turning into The Vagina Monologues. --Astrophilia 20:27, 2 March 2009 (EST)
(EC):Weasle, that's why i appreciated your gentle and nhumerous reminder. Sometimes, as I said in an earlier post here on Astro's page, we get ourselves into circles we can't get out of... wanting to bang heads cause we hate what someone is saying, or how they say it. we all have our touch stones, and clearly Astro and I have this one. So it's good to be reminded by teh still sane, that some people don't hear the argument, and argue only for hte sake of the argument itself. It's why i tried (and failed, clearly) to remind him that women's real daily lives are lived in his world of "rights" and "definitions". And real politicians make the very arguments he does, and effect the 22 year old girl from Walla Walla who just wants to live her life by her own best insight.--En attendant Godot"Such is life." 20:30, 2 March 2009 (EST)
I can't believe he tried to compare a wife-beater to a woman who seeks an abortion. --Astrophilia 07:04, 3 March 2009 (EST)
To be fair, I think it was a botched counterargument rather than any real comparison; wasn't he countering your statement that the intention wasn't murder, which meant it wasn't murder? Wisest wisest Phantom Hoover! 12:49, 3 March 2009 (EST)
My point that it wasn't murder "in cold blood", which requires premeditation and malicious intent. It's not even murder if you actually consider fetuses to be persons, more like manslaughter at most. Even if it isn't any real comparison, he is neglecting that women are people with feelings and rights and this issue strikes a nerve for all women everywhere. --Astrophilia 14:05, 3 March 2009 (EST)
I was under the impression that the argument was being held under the assumption that fetuses were human and sapient. Wisest wisest Phantom Hoover! 14:09, 3 March 2009 (EST)
Sapient? maybe I don't speak the same english as you, but since when were babies sapient? And while they are human, they are not yet (thankfully) persons. uh-oh, I'm starting again. --En attendant Godot"Such is life." 15:23, 3 March 2009 (EST)
I thought the debate was a thought experiment by both parties as to the ethical implications of fetuses being people. Wisest wisest Phantom Hoover! 15:26, 3 March 2009 (EST)
I see. ok. I stand corrected. I still say if you or any other person resides *inside* my body, i have a right to tell you to get the hell out. If you don't get out, I have the right to remove you. I can do this in my home, in my car, even from my family (though I have to go to court to do that, but it can be done), no less than from my body. I don't like things growing inside me, especially parasites that require taking my nutrition from me, for their sake. I'm just saying...--En attendant Godot"Such is life." 16:01, 3 March 2009 (EST)
I don't want to get back into this, and we will just have to agree to have different ethical policies. Wisest wisest Phantom Hoover! 16:07, 3 March 2009 (EST)

##  Wingnuttery

• Far to the right = "Wingnut"
• Far to the left = "Wingnut".

'Nuff said. ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ thinking of what to say next 00:12, 4 March 2009 (EST)

The most important feature of a wingnut is it has a hole where its centre should be. - User $\scriptstyle4\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}(-1)^{n}(2n+1)^{-1}$ 00:14, 4 March 2009 (EST)
*Chiming in rather randomly* "Moonbat" covers those who can't be shoved into the conventionally shallow one-dimensional model of politics (i.e. "left" versus "right"). Radioactive Misanthrope 00:59, 4 March 2009 (EST)
She isn't either. She is at odds with both the right and the left and their approach towards women. Read her work! --Astrophilia 09:15, 4 March 2009 (EST)

##  Another discussion

You said You also don't understand the oppressive power dynamic that defines the patriarchy, which routinely takes away a woman's agency. But that's another discussion. I am interested by this line of reasoning. For the record I am male, but I have been around strong women all my life and have not seen women limited in such a fashion unless they let themselves be. My mother-in-law, for instance, completely controls her family. She takes her husbands paycheck, then decides how the family will spend the money (she doesn't work herself). She makes every decision. How is she being held down by the patriarchy? And while I understand this is but one example, there are many examples where women can achieve anything they want. I'm not saying men and women are totally equal, but I don't think things are as dire as you say. Your response? Z3rotalk 13:29, 4 March 2009 (EST)

It's simple. Women truly believe they're entitled to all that. They only see what they don't have. Your example is perfectly normal. Fall down
There are tons and tons of subtle things that make up a woman's oppression. To list them all would be to list most things, and would take years. To list them all from a woman's perspective in order to make a man understand would take many more years. This is not something that I can articulate or list by myself. I suggest looking at blogs such as I Blame The Patriarchy , radical feminist writers such as Dworkin, Firestone, et al., and hopefully you will come to some understanding of the multitude of ways the patriarchy subtly limits women and pushes them towards certain roles. I am going to guess that you are white and middle-class. In the sliding scale of oppression, white middle-class women usually have it best (for women within the patriarchy). But still; your stepmother doesn't work. She has no public voice. She is not financially independent. Control over the home is a small piece of power which is balanced on the earner's power. Essentially what I'm saying is "go out, familiarize yourself with the deeper concepts of feminism, empathize with women in a greater way, and hopefully you'll 'get it'". --Astrophilia 13:44, 4 March 2009 (EST)
In other words, you have no real answer. Thanks for confirming exactly what I said! Fall down
Perhaps by listing one example, I limited myself, so allow me to expand the idea. You suggest that the inherent system of society is itself limiting women. I didnot disagree that women are not treated equally, but then neither are black, arabs, or immigrants. The difference is that in each case, it is up to the individual to decide how to overcome the obstacles set before them. Barack Obama is the president, despite coming from nothing with everything stacked against him. He was able to overcome obstacles to achieve what he wanted. Why are women a special case?
To go back, briefly, to my mother-in-law: you suggest she is still beholden, as she has no real power and no public voice. She firstly does have a "public" voice, as she is allowed to vote (if you mean something else, I misunderstood). She at one point did work, but decided (again, by herself) that she no longer wanted to. And that's my point; no one forced her into her role, she decided herself. How is she oppresed if she decided her place, and is happy with it? Z3rotalk 13:50, 4 March 2009 (EST)
I never said that women are a special case. Women are an oppressed class among many, yes, but women are the largest oppressed class. Furthermore, did Obama ascending into the presidency end racism?
Under patriarchy, a woman's choices become nearly meaningless. Those choices are conditioned from birth to be in-line with what the patriarchy expects of women, and with what the patriarchy expects of the relationships between men and women. These "choices" must be thoroughly examined to see the limiting reasons at work. One of the major issues of feminism is that the personal is political. A housewife has no public voice because no one cares about housewives; they are not involved in any meaningful force and their station relies entirely on someone else. --Astrophilia 13:58, 4 March 2009 (EST)
So if a woman becomes a radical feminist under the patriarchy, then that is a meaningless choice because she has been fully conditioned and is just doing what the patriarchy wants her to do? ListenerXTalkerX 14:00, 4 March 2009 (EST)
Considering how much rage comes from the patriarchy against Radical Feminism (see Rush Limbaugh), I think I'm doing just fine. I'm definitely falling into a category defined by the patriarchy, and Radical Feminists are often held up in a way that supports the patriarchy (almost anything can be co-opted into the structure) but the subversion is still there. --Astrophilia 14:04, 4 March 2009 (EST)
Obama winning did not end racism; it is an example of overcoming it, showing it could be done.
What are you talking about with women's choices being limited? A women can do anything she wants; isn't Hilary Clinton Secratary of State? If you mean stereotypes and what is expected, such as women are supposed to be houswives and teachers, then men are a victim too, as they are supposed to be construction workers and bread winners.
As far as no one caring about housewives, wasn't there an election (1992, 1996?) where soccer moms decided the vote? Weren't women on of the most important voting blocks in this past election? How does that kind of power rely on someone else? Z3rotalk 14:05, 4 March 2009 (EST)
Again, familiarize yourself with radical feminist theory. I am not your teacher. And please don't bore me with your "what about the men!" spiel. Men are not an oppressed class. Being expected to go into public sphere and make money is not victimization. I've said I do not have the time to delve into deeper feminist theory, and I do not. --Astrophilia 14:15, 4 March 2009 (EST)
(EC) What about your choice to adopt your beliefs themselves, as distinct from the label "radical feminist"? Is that choice meaningless? ListenerXTalkerX 14:09, 4 March 2009 (EST)
You are the last person I am discussing this with. My adoption of my beliefs was barely a choice; it was either become a tool in the perpetuation of oppression and degradation or not. --Astrophilia 14:15, 4 March 2009 (EST)
How is that not a choice? By your own admission many women choose take the former path (according to your definitions). ListenerXTalkerX 14:27, 4 March 2009 (EST)
Socialization. Continued disparagement of anything anti-patriarchy. The fitting of women into the patriarchy-defined woman role from birth. Etc., etc., etc. --Astrophilia 14:36, 4 March 2009 (EST)
But some women become such "tools," and you did not. What is the dividing line? What caused you to go one way, and they the other? ListenerXTalkerX 14:39, 4 March 2009 (EST)
Oh no, I'm still a tool of the patriarchy. All women and all other oppressed classes are. I'm just a slightly rustier tool. Hopefully I'll cause all the other tools to rust and the entire machine will fall down. --Astrophilia 14:41, 4 March 2009 (EST)
So adopting the beliefs that have been "defined by the patriarchy" as "radical feminism" was a path foisted on you by the patriarchy. Therefore, I submit that you have no standing to condemn housewifery on the grounds of it being a path foisted on women by the patriarchy. ListenerXTalkerX 14:55, 4 March 2009 (EST)
No one has the ability to opt out of the patriarchy. My beliefs were shaped by the patriarchy, and how society reacts to me is also shaped by the patriarchy. But I'm preaching anti-patriarchy. I condemn housewifery precisely because it is a path foisted upon women and it is a shitty path presented as the only option in many cases. --Astrophilia 15:01, 4 March 2009 (EST)
Aside from the idea of the path being "s***ty," you have just put forth your own characterization of radical feminism ("shaped by the patriarchy," "barely a choice"). So your condemnation of housewifery is based on weaker premises — not on it being invented by the patriarchy or on the idea that women do not actually choose housewifery, but because you disapprove of it for other reasons. (And your argument that it is "slavery" is somewhat undercut if the woman chooses to be a housewife and you have eliminated from consideration the idea that this is not actually a choice.) ListenerXTalkerX 15:16, 4 March 2009 (EST)
You misunderstand and mischaracterize me. Radical Feminism is shaped by the patriarchy in that it is anti-patriarchy and anti-domination. To me, it wasn't a choice to be a radical feminist, because it was the only way to have a semblance of agency. Housewifery was entirely invented by the patriarchy as a way to keep women away from the means to better their lives, and to continually disenfranchise them. A woman supposedly choosing this is merely falling into that on her own. --Astrophilia 15:27, 4 March 2009 (EST)
So agreeing with you on that is a good non-choice and not agreeing with you on that is a bad non-choice. Got it. ListenerXTalkerX 15:57, 4 March 2009 (EST)
One fights oppression and the other makes it dinner. Keep in mind that I'm not condemning housewives; what a woman must do to survive in the patriarchy is not her fault. --Astrophilia 16:09, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Fine, if you have no wish to discuss things, you are by no means required to respond to posts here. I enjoy debating for debatings sake, sue me. I may not know much about feminist theory, that's why I asked you! If you don't want to discuss, fine, don't respond. But don't get upset when I respond to your response, then cry about it.

One last note; being forced to go out and earn money is a form of victimization I am very familiar with. Its called "wage slavery" and is terrible in its own right. Hey, you want to complain, I can complain too. Z3rotalk 14:19, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Upset? Cry? I don't know what you're talking about. And I didn't say "forced". I said "expected". Everyone should be expected to go into society and do something. That is not victimization. Wage slavery, however, is something entirely different. --Astrophilia 14:22, 4 March 2009 (EST)
This doesn't make any fucking sense, you know, but you're just verbally masturbating. Oh, and what do you do, besides whine? Fall down
"Again, familiarize yourself with radical feminist theory. I am not your teacher. And please don't bore me with your "what about the men!" spiel. Men are not an oppressed class." This sounds upset to me.
I apologize, you did say expected. My point still stands. How is being expected to go out and earn a living any less terrible than being expected (but, as you note for both cases, not forced) to stay home and raise kids? Too many people fall into the trap of making themselves victims, when in reality their own choices are what oppresses them. Z3rotalk 14:31, 4 March 2009 (EST)
Women are not responsible for their own oppression because women are an oppressed class. Men run society; they have no excuse (unless they're poor, black, homosexual, a child, or a part of any other oppressed class.)
Staying home solely to raise a child is degrading, alienating, and powerless (as is the institution of the nuclear family). Getting a job or otherwise entering the public sphere gives power, recognition, and associates. Being expected to be powerless is kind of the end-all for womanhood, and fits into a much larger context of oppression. --Astrophilia 14:36, 4 March 2009 (EST)
Who are these "men" who run society? Are they like a secret club? Because I'll tell you, I'm a man, and I've never been to a "run society" meeting. You are overgeneralizing what comes down to specific situations. My mother was a stay at home mother, and she was not powerless. She raised four children who now contribute to society, and largely hold her views rather than her husbands. She also organizes political events in her community and helps officials get elected. How is that powerless, or being without a voice? How is that oppression? Z3rotalk 14:40, 4 March 2009 (EST)
Let me quote TheoryOfPractice on this. What else would help is if you knew anything about feminist theory, but here's the quote:

"Tell you what (and keeping it in the American context)--let's count Cabinet members, Senators, Representatives, Governors, State Senators and Representatives. Then presidents, CEOs and other top executives at Fortune 500 companies. Now let's add in the 100 richest people in America. Now Supreme Court Justices. And judges. And members of the Bar. And the AMA. And tenured professors--don't forget the hard sciences and engineering departments, okay? And people who have had opinion columns/news analyses published in any of the top-100 circulating newpapers, or on television or radio--and pretty newsreaders don't count. Now because that data set is probably evenly divded between men and women...oh, wait. It's not. TheoryOfPractice 14:50, 3 March 2009 (EST)"

There's your "secret club". If "hand that rocks the cradle" worked at all, women's liberation would have happened thousands of years ago. The only reason your mother had power was because she did all those things on top of being an unpaid domestic slave. It was phrased to me thusly: "If you are a mother, you have an unpaid, full-time job. If you are a working mother, you have two full-time jobs, and the worst one is unpaid." --Astrophilia 14:45, 4 March 2009 (EST)
Sorry about Fall Down (or up). don't use him as an example. He's just a young kid.DSFARGEG 14:48, 4 March 2009 (EST)
I'm older than she, I'd bet. Besides I know more than a woman of any age. Fall down
I never suggested things were equal; just that they are not systemically unequal. In every category listed, there are women representatives. Maybe not a lot, but it is possible for women to obtain those positions. The real question is are women not allowed into those positions (which would be bad) or are they allowed, but many chose not to? I think it is the latter. Also, some categories, such as doctors and lawyers, are steadily gaining in gender equality. Z3rotalk 14:49, 4 March 2009 (EST)

And that choice must be thoroughly examined, considering how women and men are socialized from birth. The paltry number of women representatives in these categories usually had to work fifteen times harder or worked in a way that was non-threatening to men's power (such as Sarah Palin as a VP pick). There are many feminist blogs and published articles/journals/books that explain this branch of patriarchy far better than I. --Astrophilia 14:55, 4 March 2009 (EST)

I am assuming that you do not deny the evolutionary pragmatism of patriarchy (if this is not the case, please say so). I would like to know at what point in our civilization you think feminine liberation was practical. Neveruse513 15:04, 4 March 2009 (EST)
Of course she denies it, feminists can't stand ANYTHING that questions their beliefs. Fall down
I'm not sure what you mean. --Astrophilia 15:06, 4 March 2009 (EST)
Wait, I thought about it for a minute and I think I understand. The evolutionary pragmatism of patriarchy is plain, so I agree with that. I think women's liberation became practical for the patriarchy when it was twisted into a way to get into women's pants, such as misconstruing burlesque for feminist subversion and the like. Also, holding up Dworkin, Solanas, and Firestone as examples and so on. Also when feminism became misconstrued as a means to sell stupid shit to women, like Sex & The City or tampons or even cigarettes. --Astrophilia 15:19, 4 March 2009 (EST)

I shall leave this discussion now, as we seem to be getting nowhere. I had hoped to learn more, but it appears this subject is too large for me to tackle right now. Thanks for the discussion. Z3rotalk 15:41, 4 March 2009 (EST)

##  Fall down

Please don't block Fall down's IPs. He uses proxies anyway, and he's just doing it to provoke you. Ignore the troll. --  Nx/talk   15:01, 4 March 2009 (EST)

I'll try. I forget how much fun "bait the feminist" can be for some people. --Astrophilia 15:03, 4 March 2009 (EST)
And removing talk page comments is also against the guidelines --  Nx/talk   15:06, 4 March 2009 (EST)
I didn't know that. I thought since it was my userpage I could do that? Oh well. No loss will be felt by anyone. --Astrophilia 15:08, 4 March 2009 (EST)
The user page is, but the talk page is not your property. We try to be as opposite to Conservapedia as possible. --  Nx/talk   15:11, 4 March 2009 (EST)
No. Fall Down, you are trolling. And doing a very good job. I admire that. Still, you've had your fun. Give it a rest for a moment. Let Astrophilia continue unabated. DSFARGEG 15:30, 4 March 2009 (EST)
I am not trolling, I am serious. While I know I have no hope of changing her mind, I do believe some decent men might realise that there's something terribly wrong with feminism. Fall down
Keep up the good work for feminism. By being that misogynist no one wants to be, you've furthered the cause just that much. Much like how much Fred Phelps has done for homosexuals. --Astrophilia 15:28, 4 March 2009 (EST)
While I always Plead for Tolerance, I should like to say on Behalf of all the less mission-centric editors (If I may be so Bold) that Fall Down does rather Push the Envelope.--Tolerance 16:20, 4 March 2009 (EST)
Astrophilia is the lesser of two evil here.DSFARGEG 17:23, 4 March 2009 (EST)
I think that by his example, Fall down serves to separate misogyny from opposition to radical feminism — two positions that radical feminists have a tendency to conflate. ListenerXTalkerX 19:20, 4 March 2009 (EST)
There is no difference. Mine is the only logically consistent position, for anyone that opposes feminism without being misogynist is dishonest or irrational. Fall down
Agreed. --Astrophilia 05:15, 5 March 2009 (EST)
Even if radical feminism rubs people the wrong way, I still maintain that outright anti-feminism is always thinly-veiled misogyny. --Astrophilia 19:54, 4 March 2009 (EST)
Now, now, ListenerX is right to point out the difference, even if it's very fine. Like the difference between, say, global warming deniers and GW "skeptics". --Kels 19:58, 4 March 2009 (EST)
Sure, I can understand a person's opposition to radical feminism. It challenges many dearly-held beliefs and traditions. But an opposition to feminism as a whole is always misogyny. --Astrophilia 20:07, 4 March 2009 (EST)
Agreed. Just struck by the similarities. Like the "difference" between people against a woman's right to choose, and those who are "just looking out for the fetus". Or more relevant to this place, between creationists and those who just want fairness in education. --Kels 20:29, 4 March 2009 (EST)
Oh, Snap. You go girls!--En attendant Godot"Such is life." 21:50, 4 March 2009 (EST)
Radical feminism demonizes men, and heterosexuality, and attacks women who do not fall into the category of a radical feminist. I'm all for equality, but radical feminism is a sexist ideal. DSFARGEG 12:59, 5 March 2009 (EST)
(EC) You can convince one of them of this with as much ease as you can get a Red to give a straight answer to Bakunin's question, "Over whom will the proletariat rule?" ListenerXTalkerX 13:14, 5 March 2009 (EST)
To answer Bakunin: no one, because power will not be the basis of society on account of there being no class differential. --Astrophilia 13:22, 5 March 2009 (EST)
Everybody see what I mean? ListenerXTalkerX 13:39, 5 March 2009 (EST)
No, no, and no. Try again, next time with an actual understanding of radical feminist theory. I also maintain that it is impossible to be sexist against men since sexism is institutionalized gender prejudice. --Astrophilia 13:11, 5 March 2009 (EST)
Wrong, wrong, and wrong. I've seen it happen. Radical femonist theory teaches women that all men are potentially dangerous, it teaches women to seperate themselves from men out of fear and distrust, and that marriage is a form of bondage, among many, many other hilarious things. I suppose you'll call me a liar next?DSFARGEG 13:36, 5 March 2009 (EST)
Actually, statistics teach women that all men are potentially dangerous. Again, at least 25% of women over age 65 worldwide have been beaten and/or raped by their intimate partners in their lifetime. This statistic can't go down, either. --Astrophilia 13:40, 5 March 2009 (EST)
Do you have a source for that statement? Particularly the last sentence? ListenerXTalkerX 13:43, 5 March 2009 (EST)
Here's one. You can probably find that same statistic on the World Health Organization's domestic violence report. It can't go down for several reasons: one, because these are just women who reported their abuse; two, because it sampled only women over a certain age; and three, because we don't know at what level of violence these women were used to before it became too much and they reported it. --Astrophilia 13:50, 5 March 2009 (EST)
I am stunned by the your understanding of statistics. Of course the figures can't go down, because you have some statements about how that studies were flawed. Wisest wisest Phantom Hoover! 14:11, 5 March 2009 (EST)
So you are saying I'm a potential rapist? And the other male population on RW?DSFARGEG 13:56, 5 March 2009 (EST)
No. I would never call anyone a rapist unless they raped someone. However, the problem is that we don't know. There is no way to tell if a man is capable of rape or not until he is raping you. Most rapists don't even see what they did as rape. That is fear that comes with being a woman in this world. --Astrophilia 13:59, 5 March 2009 (EST)
Now, now, statistics say I'm at least 25% percent likely to rape someone. Statistics CAN'T GO DOWN. Also, it's funny how you make no mention that women who are abusers exist as well. Can I have a statistic on the part you edited in?DSFARGEG 14:03, 5 March 2009 (EST)
Considering that most rapists rape several women, I believe it's less than 25%. I don't know why you are taking this personally. It's a statistic. Why is bringing up a statistic about violence by men against women threatening to you? I made no mention of women who are abusers because it's not pertinent to our discussion, which is about male abusers. I am not ignoring that women abuse men; however the rate at which this occurs is very small. I believe the statistic is that 90% of rape and domestic violence is perpetrated by men against women. What part I edited in? --Astrophilia 14:08, 5 March 2009 (EST)

### EZ edit button

If you think I am going to trust Women's ("No Men Allowed In Our Shelters") Aid as a credible source on this matter, you have another think coming. (And even according to them, 15% of domestic-violence incidents have a man as the victim, so it is not as "very small" as you might hope.) That "Multi-Country Study" indicated that 25% was closer to the maximum proportion of victims — not "at least" 25% like you said. (And that study was not so "multi" that it managed to dip more than a toe outside the Third World.) ListenerXTalkerX 14:13, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Please tell me why a shelter full of women that were beaten by their husbands, and who probably mistrust men, should allow men in? Men's shelters do exist. And tell me why a women's shelter would misrepresent the number of women who experience domestic violence, when they're the ones who routinely come into contact with its victims. I hope the statistics are small for men because I don't want anyone to be beaten by their partners. --Astrophilia 14:16, 5 March 2009 (EST)
(1) If they believe that mistrust of men in general is something to be gotten over, since not all of them are abusive; (2) To get bigger handouts from the State; (3) I submit that you hope the statistics are small for men because you dislike the idea that women can be abusive as well. ListenerXTalkerX 14:22, 5 March 2009 (EST)
(1) Women who are victims of abuse may be uncomfortable or feel unsafe around men, and anything that delays the process of healing is bad for these victims. (2) I'm sorry you think that the government funding domestic violence shelters is bad. (3) You are wrong. --Astrophilia 14:28, 5 March 2009 (EST)
(1) Is this not assuming that those women share your highly gender-based view of society? (2) I'm sorry you think that the government existing, let alone funding anything, is bad. (3) My apologies. ListenerXTalkerX 14:52, 5 March 2009 (EST)
You do realize that people do tend to fear people similar to past abusers, right? It's well documented and so on? So aside from general anti-feminism (and some projection of your own, I'd guess), how on earth would you be able to justify introducing men into a shelter full of women who had suffered abuse by men and not expect them to have trauma as a result? --Kels 14:57, 5 March 2009 (EST)
I do not believe that all men are so similar that women would immediately see all men as similar to the few who had abused them. ListenerXTalkerX 14:59, 5 March 2009 (EST)
What part of "well-documented" don't you understand? --Astrophilia 15:10, 5 March 2009 (EST)
The part that says, "All men are similar enough to all other men to evoke this fear." ListenerXTalkerX 15:15, 5 March 2009 (EST)
I just don't believe [well-documented fact] is true! -- ListenerX" --Astrophilia 15:20, 5 March 2009 (EST)
I am not disputing the "well-documented fact" in Kels's first sentence. I am disputing the unstated premise that all men are so similar that this well-documented fact applies in this case. ListenerXTalkerX 15:31, 5 March 2009 (EST)
We are saying that exacerbating a woman's justified fear of men could cause her added trauma. We are not saying that every man is an abuser. But abused women have had their trust betrayed by a man close to them, and would most likely be unwilling to trust men again for a long time. The point of a shelter is for an abused woman to feel safe. If placing men in that shelter makes it feel even the tiniest bit unsafe for an abused woman, then the men shouldn't be there. --Astrophilia 15:41, 5 March 2009 (EST)
As we all know women can't have their precious feelings hurt! Fall down
How many times have I told you about timestamping your damned posts? Wisest wisest Phantom Hoover! 15:48, 5 March 2009 (EST)
To clarify, I am not criticizing Women's Aid for not allowing men to stay in the shelters; I am criticizing them for not allowing men to work there. ListenerXTalkerX 01:22, 6 March 2009 (EST)
So? My point still stands. If a woman's trust of men is destroyed by virtue of being beaten by one she trusted, and even one woman is dissuaded from going to a shelter because it employs men, then that shelter shouldn't have employed men. End of story. --Astrophilia 07:06, 6 March 2009 (EST)
What is your opinion on their racially segregated shelters, set up (presumably) on the same idea? ListenerXTalkerX 13:02, 6 March 2009 (EST)
Fair enough. Wherever a woman feels most comfortable. If she feels like she should be around people whom she feels she shares a common experience, then that's what she should be allowed to do. --Astrophilia 17:22, 6 March 2009 (EST)
If allowing men into a shelter full of abused women contributed to the continued terror of one woman, it wouldn't be worth it. Need I remind you again that you cannot speak for women? Furthermore, no one is saying that all men are abusers. What we are saying is that a woman may be fearful of men after being abused by one, and that having a mixed-sex shelter may dissuade abused women from going to it --Astrophilia 15:03, 5 March 2009 (EST)
Neither can you. ListenerXTalkerX 15:06, 5 March 2009 (EST)
I forgot I'm not a woman. Sorry. --Astrophilia 15:09, 5 March 2009 (EST)
You forgot that you are an individual and are not having all thoughts of all other women beamed into your head at all times. ListenerXTalkerX 15:15, 5 March 2009 (EST)
True, women do not share one unified experience. However, society treats us similarly, and whereas I have my experience as a woman to draw from, you do not. --Astrophilia 15:20, 5 March 2009 (EST)
You cannot speak for women by virtue of being one any more than Phyllis Schlafly can, or than I can speak for men by virtue of being one. I cannot tell at all what other men might be afraid of. ListenerXTalkerX 01:22, 6 March 2009 (EST)
I still would be more willing to listen to what Phyllis Schlafly has to say about being a woman than what you have to say. A woman's experience is not the subject of most of our culture. --Astrophilia 07:06, 6 March 2009 (EST)
Are you sure about that? Given that she is a supporter of marital rape and I am not? And, again, I cannot tell what other men might be afraid of, or speak for any of them, and the same applies for you and women. ListenerXTalkerX 13:02, 6 March 2009 (EST)
Phyllis Schlafly? Whoa, let's not go nuts. Phyllis Schlafly is a robot. Or an alien. "She" is not human. DSFARGEG 13:11, 6 March 2009 (EST)
Again, I have my experience of being a woman to draw from and understand what other women might think. You do not. You cannot speak for women, and you cannot represent a woman's experience. I can at least do one of those things. This is, again, diverting from the real point; if allowing men to work with women abused by men results in the continued terror of even one woman (whether she be afraid of the people she is meant to trust in the shelter or she be afraid to go to the shelter) means that men should not be there. It doesn't matter if men or women are all the same or whatever you think my position is. What matters is that women feel safe and welcome in these spaces. --Astrophilia 17:22, 6 March 2009 (EST)
I think an exception could be made for Phyllis Schlafly. With respect, from what I've read she's done far too much damage to women's rights. She grew up rich and pampered and can't be expected to empathize with other women. She's part of the problem when it comes to those privliges of men. DSFARGEG 05:49, 7 March 2009 (EST)
Dworkin and Schlafly actually do share similar views; they both see marriage as an institution in which the man owns the woman and everything she does must cater to him or her children. The only difference is that Dworkin sees this as a bad thing. --Astrophilia 07:15, 7 March 2009 (EST)
Just to verify this: Do you see all mariage as a way of owning women? Because I seriously disagree that that applies to all marriages today. I mean, don't get me wrong, I've heard of women stuck in a mariage they no longer want to be a part of, but if any of the women I know wanted out of a marriage, they could do it quite easily, in fact some have.?
Not necessarily all marriage, but I think a good deal of marriage ends up with unhappy people staying together out of legal or social obligation rather than love. Even if they could do so legally, most women have few options outside of continued marriage (especially if they are financially dependent on their husband). --Astrophilia 19:14, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
OK, thanks. I was just wondering.DSFARGEG 17:11, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

### EZ edit button 3

(continuing thread from above) I disapprove of using State funds to coddle the sensitivities of racists (or, if we must be politically-correct, "persons with racial prejudice"). ListenerXTalkerX 19:02, 6 March 2009 (EST)

I don't like the implication that a woman who may be racist deserves to be abused. I highly doubt women who choose to go to racially segregated shelters are racist; a woman may want to receive help from someone with the same ethnic, cultural, or religious background as she. Again, to create trust. There's nothing wrong with that. There are dozens of reasons why a woman would want to go to a racially segregated shelter. Denying women options only furthers their trauma. --Astrophilia 21:00, 6 March 2009 (EST)
What the hell are you talking about? Race is more of a social construct than gender is. I think you have a single issue you view the whole world through to the point where you are willing to excuse racism because of it. - User $\scriptstyle4\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}(-1)^{n}(2n+1)^{-1}$ 21:18, 6 March 2009 (EST)
Pi, read up on radical feminism. It is sort of like extreme utopian (PS, fuck you firefox, why does that have to be capitalized?) Marxism, or any other extreme form of analysis. In that all other forms of analysis are ignored and the one form is all that matters. In the case of RF, it's "power" (in Marxism, it's "class"). Of course, most RFs ignore that most "men" are "under the thumb" of other people who hold power over them. Anyway... Just saying. ħuman 23:32, 6 March 2009 (EST)
How on earth am I excusing racism? --Astrophilia 21:19, 6 March 2009 (EST)
Racially segregated shelters sounds like racism to me. I can see straight away the problems with that, for instance funding my be lower to shelters of a particular racial group. Besides as I said before race is a social construct used by white people to oppress other ethnic groups, you just can't see it because you are part of it. - User $\scriptstyle4\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}(-1)^{n}(2n+1)^{-1}$ 21:24, 6 March 2009 (EST)
If they were funded unequally then yes, it would be racist. However, recognizing the needs and concerns of different ethic, cultural, or religious groups is not racism. Again, there are dozens of reasons why a woman would choose to go to an all-black or all-Muslim shelter, all valid. Racism does not enter into it. --Astrophilia 21:28, 6 March 2009 (EST)
So shelters, in your view, should also coddle the beliefs of racist white women who would not otherwise make a break for the shelter? ListenerXTalkerX 23:01, 6 March 2009 (EST)
"all-black" is a racist phrase that disguises "all-white" by default. ħuman 23:35, 6 March 2009 (EST)
Not really, unless you think white is the default skin color/cultural background. I was saying "all black" as opposed to "everybody." --Astrophilia 07:19, 7 March 2009 (EST)
Oh! Oh! Is this the spectre of reverse racism I see before me? (not you, Human) --Kels 23:40, 6 March 2009 (EST)
Where is the "reverse" in coddling the beliefs of racist white women by having shelters that they do not have to share with people of other races? ListenerXTalkerX 23:46, 6 March 2009 (EST)
Where exactly does it say that these shelters that specialize in dealing with victims from black, Asian, Muslim, etc. communities would turn away a white victim? And again, there is nothing racist in a woman who feels most comfortable and safest amongst people of her own ethnic, religious, or cultural background. Did you even read that site I posted earlier? --Astrophilia 07:13, 7 March 2009 (EST)
I read that page before you linked to it. I read that page quite a while ago, when I was doing some research on the exclusion of men from Women's Aid shelters. My opinion of it is that it is even better nativist propaganda than most of the BNP's twaddle.
You stated that you would excuse or support the idea of racially segregated shelters ("There are dozens of reasons why a woman would want to go to a racially segregated shelter") so it is irrelevant whether or not Women's Aid turns white women away from minority shelters. Furthermore, you stated that if racism on a woman's part should not be coddled when setting shelter policy, it implies that the said woman deserves to be abused ("I don't like the implication that...") It also does not matter what proportion of women seeking shelter are racist, since you said that if one woman is dissuaded from going to the shelter by a certain policy, that justifies a change in policy.
So, I will repeat the question: Do you believe that shelters should coddle the beliefs of a racist white woman by housing her "amongst people of her own ethnic, religious, or cultural background"? ListenerXTalkerX 22:38, 7 March 2009 (EST)
Wow, you... Really don't get it. "Racially segregated" was a misnomer from the start. No shelters are racially segregated. Some, however, are specialized in supporting the needs of women from minority backgrounds. This doesn't necessarily make them "racially segregated", though it will probably make it more homogeneous, as a white woman wouldn't necessarily benefit from going to a shelter that specializes in dealing with black, Asian, or Muslim women. There are most likely shelters that deal specifically with Christian women, or give spiritual support. That is what I support. There is no "segregation".
I honestly don't know what you're talking about with the BNP, considering that Women's Aid wants to help minority women by offering them special services and the BNP wants to make them leave the country. If a white woman doesn't want to be housed amongst minorities purely because she is racist, then Women's Aid should try to accommodate her by putting her in a shelter in a predominantly white neighborhood. That is probably 'coddling racists' as you like to put it, but that's not the point of Women's Aid. --Astrophilia 08:28, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

### EZ edit button 4

Even though Women's Aid did not intend any slight, that article iterated through some scary things of which the nativists speak when they are trying to boot the minorities (forced marriage, genital mutilation) and also other things that are hardly specific to minority communities (excusing criminality in the name of "family honor," abuse from parents, blame of the woman if a marriage fails, family pressure to stay with the abuser), and implies that these things are (in the latter case) specific to minority communities, or (in the former case) common enough within them to merit special mention. This annoys me because, just like BNP propaganda, it upholds this idea of ethnic minorities as "outsiders," which is not helping matters at all.

It is generally recognized that segregation has two forms: de jure and de facto. The Women's Aid example is, as you point out ("probably make it more homogeneous"), the de facto sort. And remember that you approved of, not merely a shelter that offers special services to minority women, but an "all-black or all-Muslim shelter." ListenerXTalkerX 15:22, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

So, recognizing that genital mutilation, forced marriages, honor killings, etc. is more prevalent in minority communities is racist? Setting up shelters that deal specifically with these issues is racist? These issues most likely merited special mention and that's why these specific shelters were created, not the other way around. These things do happen. And again, if a woman feels more comfortable being counseled and helped by people of her own race, culture, or religious background then fair enough.
Not all "segregation" is inherently racist. For the millionth time, recognizing the different needs and concerns of minority groups is not racist. And I approve of both, considering that shelters that offer special services to minority women will most likely be homogeneous. --Astrophilia 19:11, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
Recognizing these issues is not racist, but making segregated shelters to deal with them is definitely going down that road, in the sense that it builds an institution on the concept of treating people differently based on their ethnicity.
"For the millionth time, recognizing the different needs and concerns of minority groups is not racist." Question: Who first raised the concern about female genital mutilation — the minority groups who practice it, or the British Empire? ListenerXTalkerX 22:52, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
These women are already being treated differently based on their ethnicity due to institutionalized racism and differences in culture. Creating a women's shelter that specializes in helping these women is not "going down that road". Unless you consider all organizations that specifically help minority groups to be racist.
I don't know who first raised that question. Hopefully it's the women who go to the doctor because they can't urinate or menstruate anymore. Are you actually trying to pull up moral relativism on an issue of genital mutilation? --Astrophilia 07:13, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
So, the fact that people are already being treated differently due to their ethnicity is an excuse to do it some more? I disagree. John Roberts said, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." Every single institution that does it, no matter what their rationale, is still contributing to this idea of minority groups being "different" or "outsiders."
The reason I consider the shelter business to be heading toward racism is that when the people of these groups assimilate culturally, and these things are no longer issues, suddenly we are stuck with institutions that now have no justification for discriminating on ethnic grounds, which due to inertia might be a bother to dismantle.
With regard to genital mutilation, I am talking facts, not morals. Answer: The British Empire, which attempted to ban genital mutilation in East Africa, apparently lending some impetus to the movement that ultimately gave them the boot. Regardless of what moral position you take on the practice, it is a fact that the practice has been raised as an issue much more by Westerners than by the ethnic groups who practice it; it is one thing to condemn genital mutilation and help women who are suffering from its effects, and quite another to try and justify racial discrimination with the claim the people of Women's Aid, in addressing this issue, are informed less by their own political or moral beliefs than by concerns raised by the minorities themselves. ListenerXTalkerX 12:14, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
So the way to end discrimination on the basis of race is to assume we have a level playing field and ignore all differences in culture and concerns? Right. Don't quote John Roberts when talking about problems faced by minorities. Insitutionalized racism isn't going to be solved by getting rid of programs specifically to aid minorities. These programs don't Other these groups; they address their needs and concerns with the same attention as Whitey's concerns. Because, surprise surprise, once you assume everyone has the same concerns, problems, and issues, then you are being racist by overpowering minority voices.
You're waiting for these minorities to assimilate culturally? Now who's being racist; "these people need to start acting like white people! Stop coddling them!"
So it makes no difference that these shelters were set up by and for minorities? That these shelters are created by and staffed by these minorities? There is no "racial discrimination"; Women's Aid is wholly attempting to "condemn genital mutilation and help women suffering from its effects". I honestly don't know why you have this inane vendetta against a group that has done so much good for so many. --Astrophilia 12:45, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
I am not impugning the good done by Women's Aid. But a right and a wrong together do not make two rights; I have explained why I think they are going wrong, and there I must leave it.
Since you hated the John Roberts quote, have a speech from Barack Obama instead. I disagree with Obama on a great number of matters, particularly economics, but as he makes clear in that speech, he understands the idea that different ethnic groups can make common cause, that their interests and concerns are not all that different. Starting from this point, as Obama pointed out, does not overpower "minority voices," but racist voices.
My apologies; I thought you were for cultural assimilation, being against the practice of genital mutilation among immigrant populations and all that. Or are you opposed to people of minority ethnicities being compelled to "act like white people" only insofar as their not doing so does not conflict with your political views? ListenerXTalkerX 01:31, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
Ethnic groups do have common ground, which is why they are not compelled to go to these specialized shelters. However, institutionalized racism does exist, and minority groups have a whole host of reasons to distrust white people, and typical shelters would not know how to counsel or give medical aid to women who have undergone genital mutilation.
I'm against the practical of genital mutilation among all populations, since it does happen in white communities as well. There was a case over it a few years ago. The (white, insane) mother who did it was acquitted. Being against genital mutilation is not a political view. It is a human decency view. --Astrophilia 05:25, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

### EZ edit button 2

Because you completely forgot what I was saying. I'm not argueing the statistic. What I am arguing is the the fact that rad feminism places a lot of focus in distrusting men instead of just fighting for equality. People get gunned down in the city everyday. It doesn't mean I'm going to lock my door and never leave my house. Also, to quote a great man (but not with the connotations that I'm quoting him because he's a man): "The eyes of fear want you to put bigger locks on your door, the eyes of love see all of us as one"DSFARGEG 14:18, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Except it doesn't place focus on distrusting men; it places focus on a radical upheaval of society in order to destroy male privilege and equalize power. That is the basis of radical feminism. Pointing out instances of violence against women, especially when women are disproportionately the victims and men are disproportionately the perpetrators, is part of fighting for equaliy. We need to recognize and understand what aspect of society allows this to occur. --Astrophilia 14:22, 5 March 2009 (EST)
I should point out that I don't mean any offence to you. It's refreshing talking with a rad fem with a cool head. And for what it's worth, I do understand what you mean by it's not always possible to tell that a man's a rapist until he's done the act. DSFARGEG 14:26, 5 March 2009 (EST)
Alright, point taken. But when you say things like "radical feminism does this, that, and the other" when neither I nor any other radical feminist I know do these things (or at least this is not what the intent of what we do is), I do take it very personally. We are rad fems because we are rad.
Also as to the bit I said about most rapists not considering their crime rape, it's in the book Understanding Sexual Violence by Diana Sculley. Here's a really good blog about it, and about rape in general. --Astrophilia 14:31, 5 March 2009 (EST)
All of the women I know would describe themselves as feminists in some form or another, and all are strong independent people and suffer no fools, and I think more of them for it. I won't go into the one exception, because, quite frankly, she was a rather unpleasant person. The only other examples of rad fems that I can't stand are online nutters like Allecto (accused Joss Whedon of being a rapist), and BitingBeaver (hated her own children for having natural sexual urges and linking them to rape).

As to the whole rape thing, I once had a friend who I thought was one of the nicest guys around. Sadly, he wasn't. Thankfully he was stopped before the actual "act" happened, but it turned into a fucked up situation and the girl didn't press charges. So I do understand. Where you are coming from. I am sorry to have offended you. DSFARGEG 14:47, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Thanks for your apology. Whenever I say I am a radical feminist-- and I wear that badge proudly-- people assume the worst things about me. That I make feminists look bad. That I hate men. That I hate sex. That I hate heterosexuals. That I'm ugly and hairy (well, this is true). Liberal feminists get this to some degree, but the patriarchy's media-machine has come down harder on radical feminists for their opposition to institutions like marriage (I share this opposition. If marriage was merely a party about love I'd be down with it, but it usually isn't.)
I think I read something about the BitingBever situation. It was over porn, wasn't it? I understand why she reacted that way, but I think she did it a bit wrong. Porn is all around us; you can't exactly shield your children from it. The important part is to instill empathy and respect for women.
I'm glad your friend's near-rape was stopped before it could occur. Along with its physical and mental brutality, rape is a betrayal of trust. --Astrophilia 15:05, 5 March 2009 (EST)
So am I. I only wish the guy was in jail, and you may or may not be interested to know it was a man who stopped him. The BB situation was a bit strange. Anons stumpled acrosss her blog about hating (and wishing she had aborted him) her son because she found him looking at porn. Once this was discovered, it came to light that she was essentially teaching them that they could easily become rapists. In fairness, she could hardly be called an ideal woman for rad fems any way (she married a man she knew to be into BDSM - not a smart move in my opinion). You are absolutely right. As long as women are respected in real life, I don't mind. As for marriage, my own mother rules my family, and has always worked as well.DSFARGEG 15:21, 5 March 2009 (EST)
Well you are contemptible. First you apologise to her (for what?) and treat her as if she were a rational arguer, when she's proven many times over that she isn't. More importantly, you'd betray your friend for what he allegedly did with a woman? What kind of feminised creep are you? There's only two things I couldn't forgive - murder and betrayal. Anything else, wouldn't talk to the cops or anyone else, no matter what I thought, because I'm an honorable man and not a goddamn rat. Fall down 15:35, 5 March 2009 (EST)
Your troll-fu is strong, Fall Down. I hope I can be as dedicated a troll as you, someday. However, I won't joke about my (ex) friend. It is a well known fact in my circle what he did, especially since I called him out on it. There's a lot of things I can forgive, and rape isn't one of them.DSFARGEG 18:02, 5 March 2009 (EST)
Your accusing me of trolling while I am trying to have a serious discussion is very irritating. This is not a joke. Your ratting out of your friend shows that you are untrustworthy. It's not a matter of what you think of rape. Fall down 18:43, 5 March 2009 (EST)
You are just saying the same thing over and over. You're losing your touch and becoming a fail troll. Fail troll is fail troll.DSFARGEG 06:49, 6 March 2009 (EST)
Looks like I got you where it hurts. If that's trolling, it's successful trolling. Fall down 09:54, 6 March 2009 (EST)
Fail troll is mad.DSFARGEG 11:36, 6 March 2009 (EST)
Yes, well you have no argument when I point out the truth, so you call me 'mad'. Galileo was mad too, right. Fall down 01:07, 7 March 2009 (EST)
Fall Down hard at work.
Galileo fallacy. Wisest wisest Phantom Hoover! 02:29, 7 March 2009 (EST)
This Fall down is a bit thick, huh? User:Mei 21:18, 6 March 2009 (EST)
My talk page tends to attract thick people. --Astrophilia 21:21, 6 March 2009 (EST)
Like whom? Wisest wisest Phantom Hoover! 02:30, 7 March 2009 (EST)
Well to start with it is her talk page... - User $\scriptstyle4\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}(-1)^{n}(2n+1)^{-1}$ 02:47, 7 March 2009 (EST)
Even so this is pretty far up the scale. Hate-filled misogynists are so much fun. User:Mei 21:24, 6 March 2009 (EST)
I encounter this a lot. It's the same kind of guy who shouts out of his window towards Reclaim The Night marchers that rape is great. --Astrophilia 21:30, 6 March 2009 (EST)
I never said or meant 'rape is great'. Nonetheless I think that rape, like torturing animals, is wrong more because of what it says about us than what it might mean to the victim. Still, while I will never endorse laws against animal cruelty, laws against rape are OK because, after all, women are a bit above animals. Fall down 01:07, 7 March 2009 (EST)
Well, the idea is that if women are wholly empathized with and respected in real life, porn will dissipate. Porn does give a very skewed view of sex, and if this is a boy's only view of sex it could have consequences for the women he encounters. The BDSM bit is a big no-no, though.
There was a website called "Men Ending Rape", which is a program for men to recognize rape and sexual coercions and stop it amongst their peers. I think that sort of program is very helpful.
I consider marriage to be a bad thing, on the whole. It can shield rapists (martial rape only became a serious crime relatively recently) and child abusers. Lately it's been used as a tool to fuck over gays, too. Not a fan. --Astrophilia 15:31, 5 March 2009 (EST)
I disagree with that line of thinking. Blame the people banning it. Not the idea of marriage itself. There's absoltely nothing wrong with marriage between to people who actually love eachother.DSFARGEG 18:05, 5 March 2009 (EST)
I'm blaming the degree of privilege lauded on marriage. I say deprivilege all marriage. Leave it to the religious people and the Republicans, and don't force it on two people who love each other. --Astrophilia 19:51, 5 March 2009 (EST)
Absolutely marriage should be abolished - it oppresses men. Fall down 01:07, 7 March 2009 (EST)
Blah blah blah what about men blah blah blah opressive women blah blah blah reverse sexism blah blah my wang blah blah oh my precious wang. --Astrophilia 19:04, 7 March 2009 (EST)
That's profound. Fall down 20:57, 7 March 2009 (EST)
You still claim you're not a fascist? Of course, I'm smarter than any robot. Fa11 down 19:18, 7 March 2009 (EST)
Anarchism is the opposite of fascism. So no, I'm not a fascist. --Astrophilia 20:10, 7 March 2009 (EST)
I am a lion among men. Fa11 down 20:16, 7 March 2009 (EST)
Talking to yourself, Astrophilia aka Mei aka stupid fembot? Fall down 20:57, 7 March 2009 (EST)
Do you drink bovril? I am smarter than you. Fa11 down 20:59, 7 March 2009 (EST)
They're not me. Unlike some people I don't make socks. --Astrophilia 21:32, 7 March 2009 (EST)

Falldown makes the front page againWarning: NSFW Image!

## Peer Pressure

Everyone's on your talk page and I just want to be popular. EddyP 15:54, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Bless you, EddyP. We all needed a little injection of humor in this cesspit. --Astrophilia 16:10, 4 March 2009 (EST)
I missed so much of this fun... ħuman 02:00, 5 March 2009 (EST)

##  Hey--

I just wanted to drop a line and tell you I'm taking a bit of a wiki-break. Real life concerns and all. I've enjoyed what short interactions we've had and I think your POV is important here; it shakes things up a bit. And I'm really, really sorry you've had to deal with FD and his sexist crap. He is a stain on masculinity and humanity, and you deserve better than to have to read his nonsense. TheoryOfPractice 21:39, 6 March 2009 (EST)

Thanks so much. FD is just amusing to me, and serves as a great foil. Enjoy your break! --Astrophilia 21:41, 6 March 2009 (EST)
FD is kind of like our mentally unstable pet troll. Sometimes he gets loose and pees all over the upholstery. Just take a rolled up newspaper to him! Hmm...now that I'm here, I suppose I should start a debate...Karl Marx: great facial hair, or greatest facial hair in communism? Discuss! --YossarianThe Man from the USSR 22:42, 6 March 2009 (EST)
Personally I prefer the well-defined and sharpened facial hair of comrade Lenin. Marx's facial hair is like the teeming, wild masses of the proletariat, however. So it is a toss-up. --Astrophilia 22:44, 6 March 2009 (EST)
Lumpen ≠ teeming/wild. Minus 1 point. Must try harder. User:Mei 22:46, 6 March 2009 (EST)
Bah! Ruminating on Marx's facial hair reminds me of how the author of Persepolis always thought of him when, as a child, she imagined what God must look like. --Astrophilia 22:48, 6 March 2009 (EST)
"God" or "god"? ħuman 00:51, 7 March 2009 (EST)
Lenin has a pretty snazzy look. Stalin's moustache might also be a contender, but I think he was just hiding the "bakunin 4evar" tattoo he got on a dare at some drunken Tbilisi party. --YossarianThe Man from the USSR 00:54, 7 March 2009 (EST)
God. Wisest wisest Phantom Hoover! 02:31, 7 March 2009 (EST)

##  Identity theft

Just to let you know, a user account with the name "AstrophiIia" was just created (it's AstrophiIia but looks the same in this font). It's obviously Fall down creating mischief (he's pulled this trick a few times before) so I've renamed the account to "Not AstrophiIia" & then reregistered "AstrophiIia" myself (which I won't use) to avoid further identity theft. WëäŝëïöïďMethinks it is a Weasel 20:20, 7 March 2009 (EST)

That is awesome. Thanks for taking care of it. --Astrophilia 20:46, 7 March 2009 (EST)
No problem. WëäŝëïöïďMethinks it is a Weasel 20:48, 7 March 2009 (EST)

## You might be interested in...

| or already know about this. This is something I could get behind. . ROW ROW FIGHT DA POWAHDSFARGEG 17:35, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

Yeah, I've heard about them. They're fantastic. From what I've read they only chose pink because it was the only color not affiliated with another political organization. --Astrophilia 20:10, 14 March 2009 (EDT)