- I suggest caution. I strongly suspect that this Mr "Godot" may be an imposter. We should question him closely to determine the truth. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 11:54, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
You wait. Usually, you'll find a Rhinosourus comes before you've finished your waiting. But that's another story all together.--WaitingforGodot 12:54, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
- You can't: no-one has ever met him. ContribsTalk 12:05, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
Liquid threats is awful and I won't use it
Could I please get demoted? –Inquisitor Sasha 18:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you! –Inquisitor Sasha 19:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
|Thread title||Replies||Last modified|
|Paleo diet||4||19:35, 5 April 2013|
|Another email thread||2||19:56, 21 March 2013|
|Women and the history of science||1||17:46, 21 March 2013|
|If you think PUAs are bad...||0||20:43, 10 March 2013|
|board e-mail||0||00:39, 8 March 2013|
|Chomsky vs. Foucault||9||00:03, 3 March 2013|
|Discouraging newcomers||2||16:46, 23 February 2013|
|This'll be fun||20||16:32, 13 February 2013|
|Since other users revered edits to your user page related to a discussion||20||01:16, 12 February 2013|
|Your rationalblog post||5||17:28, 10 February 2013|
|Friend||1||04:34, 9 February 2013|
|"Religion"...||6||00:17, 6 February 2013|
|Because you work with indigenous Americans||3||15:15, 5 February 2013|
|I see you're writing an article about "mansplaining"||5||17:44, 30 January 2013|
|Congratulations on being elected to the Board of Trustees!||1||03:24, 30 January 2013|
|Email again||7||19:03, 18 January 2013|
|Relevant to your interests||6||18:05, 7 January 2013|
|Mod||0||03:46, 7 January 2013|
|Happy Birthday||1||23:05, 5 January 2013|
|Cis||0||11:38, 23 December 2012|
I read the reviews for this book. "look, people, we weren't eating what you thought we were eating, even when we were apes!"
Yeah, i think Jeannie's blog or facebook was where i first read it. I giggled. I still giggle. I should up date the article, but... i'll just giggle for a while. :-)
And by the way, JUST TO WHINE - even if it WERE TRUE that ancient people ate like that, here's a quandry: why did we not have a problem with obestity until the 1970s or so????? We have been eating grains for 10,000 years. WE've been eating processed grains for about 300. sighs.....
ahhhh. :-) I admit i have never watched the entire thing. my mind literally explodes (i feel it, it goes "boom, squish", really!) when i hit about 45 mintues in. If i start there, the next time, i've forgotten parts of teh first 45, so have to rewatch, adn then it exploeds again. I watch the people in the audience, and just KNOW they are all working on their shopping list, and writing song lyrics in their heads, and wisely saying "I don't speak a word of french, but i can't let my girlfriend know, so i'll nod oh so convincingly.
Cause if they are actually actily listening, their heads would be exploded on the floor, too.
I have to listen and not watch because when Foucault starts cleaning his teeth with his pinky I get distracted and can't follow anymore.
LOL. I don't remember that. now i'll have to watch just for it.
Right here. Also, not his pinky.
You revert a great many edits from newcomers. I suspect many of these are good faith edits by inexperienced users. I fear many newcomers are getting discouraged before they find their feet and some could become good editors if treated more tactfully.
Proxima, your link points to one of the IP addresses used by the vandalism bot run by User:Brasov. It's recognizable by its edits - duplication of existing page content and a partial section title. Brasov's bot was the reason why RW blocks unregistered users from editing from open proxies and why it recently changed its captcha.
So, you just attacked WfG for reverting a known vandal. I'll leave it to yourself to find out how you should feel about it.
Heh. I'm not kidding when i say i really like this site, precisly because most of the male editors here don't take shit when MRAs come along and fuck with our articles or the few women we have.
We may not have many women, but you all make it fairly inclusive, even if you don't knwo it.
Damnit, I can't remember Ty's girlfriend's user name.
It's Dumpling! She is very cute and nice, too.
OH, i know! i have her as herself on G+, but forgot her name, here.
The articles on the subject need a really good polish, now they're attracting attention. Let's see if we can melt Nutty's server ...
I spent a long time last year, getting some of the more "feminst" related stuff improved. It's just as fast as we can write it, more happens. sighs. I'm sure that's true in every online-topic. Books were so much slower. you had to wait till some guy at oxford wrote something, before you could get pissy, then you had to wait till your reply was published, and by that time, you didn't care any more. ;-)
So post a link to Godot's blog post lots and lots. Get us some idjits to play with!
So post a link to Godot's blog post lots and lots. Get us some idjits to play with!
Eh, i didn't REALLY call them out, yet. I just said we were fairly nice to women. My goal this round is to get more women writers. but maybe we can write a really good one called "why in the world MRAs are fucking god damn stupid ass selfish brats who never gradutated past snapping the girl's bras! or somesuch. ;-)
Actually, if you want some idiots to come troll, I was thinking of making a SBS essay on "Men's Issues: A handy 'how to' guide" (though I have thought of making it inclusive of feminism too) which features Do and Don't columns. "How to broach the subject of male circumcision" Do: treat it as a separate subject and research relevant organisations campaigning for awareness of the subject matter. Don't: derail every conversation on female circumcisions/genital mutilation with shouts about how people don't care about male circumcision - the odds are they do care about it, but don't feel compelled to spend every waking hour banging on about it.
Depends on the tone. I think it could be fun. I think it could be serious. There are real issues men face, but they make a mockery of themselves and of women's issues/gay rights issues/ even minorities on skin issues when they try to suggest that they are "not privileged" or are somehow "discriminated against" in an "at large" sense.
Also, something Knight and Weasel corretly harp on, is that you will get far more done, if you just admit from the start that "men did this to women and to ourselves. Admitted, nwo let's work together to change it". our current troll is saying "men didn't do this, women did". which will never be a serious position.
This is the "do and don't" aspect.
Here's a primer. Valid men's rights complains usually have the word "men" in it; "men suffer a greater stigma for being the victim of domestic violence". Less valid is when they include the word "women" in it; "women are demanding more special privileges over men now, this is feminism going to far".
It's a piss-easy distinction to get your head around.
 just a humph
Clearly, i suck at writing, and/or suck at arguing and/or am just not as atubborn. A bully is more than a brat. More than a Jerk. even if he does not use fists. If he intimidates, threatens, or teases someone, we think of him as the problem. But i have in effect, just been told that girls who are - to borrow this set of words -- bullied into sex, are choosing it, adn it's their own damn fault. I don't get that. I get that some people are not strong. I get that the attraction of a chance to be in the spot light might carry the cost of sex - or else. In teh work place, we call this threat of not getting what the raise, or the good job, or the right office "sexual harrassment". But if a teen girl (OR BOY!) is pressured into sex they do not want, we just say "it's too bad, she should grow up", or "emotional pressure" is "not all bad". huh. I really really don't understand that distinction. other than, you know... girls want it. But i'm dropping it there, cause clearly i am either dealing with sommeone who doesn't care, or more likely, i'm not that good at getting my ideas across. but i'm putting it here. passive aggressive and all. (not really)Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 00:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- When I read this, not long after you posted it, I realized that I agree more with what you were arguing. No one should say that it's the girls fault or that they should just deal with it. At some point emotional pressure does become rape, but not at the "you need to have sex or I will break up" level. For your point about education, girls should be educated that they should break up with anyone who says that. The fact that Liberal never had any sort of sexual or romantic interaction with a girl strongly lowered his credibility on his POV and makes me less inclined to want to side with him. Plus it's also been my observation that people who go for a long time without ever having a girlfriend or having sex make up their own incorrect ideas about relationships. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 22:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
As a "women's rights" person, a "feminist" a "rape survivor" or whatever label you chose for yourself, there are always two battles you are fighting simultaneously. The first is that it **IS** our culture which sets girls up to be raped, and frankly, boys up to rape. we hide sex. we down play it, or even block it all while glorifying it and selling everythign with it. I've never agreed with hiding sex, but if you are going to do that, you at least need to create a puritanical world where we aren't being shown it 24/7. WE teach our girls to be a tease, by teaching them they NEED a boyfriend to be whole, and then giving them the double message of "STAY PURE OR YOU HAVE NO VALUE" and SEX SEX SEX. our girls don't know how to give clear signals cause they don't evne know what they want. we start sexualizing them at 7, 8, 9 now. and they don't have the maturity to know how to fight all of that.
Our boys are taught to TAKE WHAT THEY WANT. taught that men have to push women to get it, cause women don't know that they really want it. We tell our boys the same bs "sex is bad, m'kay" while we say "go go go have sex". The boys are confused because dad says "all girls want it, but they won't tell you that'. AND we hero worship our hot boys, and say "you should get AS MUCH SEX AS YOU CAN" so they do.
We create the reality of rape culture with every movie we make, book we write, and TV commercial we sell. Adn then we whine and say "wait, why is she claiming i raped her?"
The second reality is that women need to be empowered overall, not just about sex. STronger role models in our world. Stronger TV characters, less sterotyped figures in books. But those kind of women don't sell. women who don't need men, don't sell. women who can say "fuck you, this is not what i want OR need" isn't something you can easily teach.
I was not kidding when i said talk to the average 13 year old teen girl (maybe boy, too... dont' know, there) about what they want, and it's "a cute date". they probably don't want sex, but sex insures the date.
so they say yes. but yes is not really what they want.
100 years ago, Simone deBeauvoir said "if you pay me a diamond ring, I'll sleep with you forever" to try to get women to see that in some ways, our traditional view of marriage is just legalized prostitution. That's changing, and by the time most girls in today's world become women, they won't likely marry into that kind of a relatioship... but it's still not an equal, measured world for most women, even in teh states.
ramblingn now. bit drunk. been a bad day.
The overall message, in short, is "put out, but don't be a slut about it". No wonder we're all fucked up.
It probably has something to do with all the religiousness and wanting to hide sex.
General squeamishness is the issue. It may not necessarily be religious in origin. If you've ever red any Cosmocking, you'll know that the one thing that these sex tips in magazines never advocate is talking. Nope, it's all got to be hints, and nudges, and just doing, and euphemisms. So communication between people is set up to be piss-poor.
that's cause women are teases. don't cha know. and we are SUPPOSED to be that way.
If we say what we want, then we are Eve. we cannot be a virgin, cause virgins don't KNOW what they want.
and even if we aren't a virgin, i **guess** that' sok, cause i'll be the macho guy and teach you stuff the loser guy didn't do for you. Oh? you already know how to orgasm? you do it on your own all the time? well fuck, what kind of a slut are you?
(this is not most men. it is many men. it's many men i've slept with, in fact. who all need to prove you are somehow "innocent" and "virginal" even if you aren't.) and then the books say, "see, he wants a virgin so stay one.
It's an interesting space, from an academic standpoint, of how we got/got to "religion", vs. spirituality or whatnameyou, that infiltrates every aspect of our life. I'm sure rational thought "oh praise rationality" pushed it along. The idea that belief or "super natural" or "non scientific" or whatever is somehow WORSE than being uber science (along with sexist things in parallel, like "emotion" is not a good way to make decisions, and "the brain" ALWAYS is what makes decisions, rather than just what JUSTIFIES emotional decisions that you've already made, yadda yadda).
but that very spark, thousands of years ago, where someone says "this is sacred" and therefor, this is profane intrigues me.
More books to read! yeah.
The sacred/profane dichotomy has been thoroughly refuted though.
yes and no. the idea that some things are so called "sacred" and others "profane" and that sacred space is only used for sacred things, etc. but the idea that there is and always has been sacred to every modern human culture, is real.
and by the way, my point is that someone, (some many ones) do make a distinction and you get "religion". hinduism, monthotheastic religions are the main ones that come to mind, but they create distinct worlds for their sacred things. so what changes between "the world itself is sacred" and "i have realigion", "I have priests who are distinct" "I have songs, chants and other sacred things".
(i'm not convinced i buy the "wholly debunked", by the way, as much as linguistically tabled till we have better descriptors).
They're all secret Israelis! Comments are some of the best I've seen.
"How can they be ASIANs if the chinese, koreans or japanese don't claim them?" I mean... how "not even wrong" can you get?
That's swell! Let me tell you a little bit about what would make that article really effective. first of all, you'll need to.....
- -) I didn't knwo the term, till you used it. I'd read many of the articles written about "men who have to explain things", but not the actual term. now i love it.
Cause it's so... "what they do".
"you don't worry your pretty little head now, i'm here to take over".
my husband and i do this all teh time. he is in IT and over explains everything about computers. he claims it's just cause of the idiots at work, but i have a feelign there's some boobage issues in there. ;-)
I would like to think I don't mansplain on account of being a condescending twat to everyone.
I have no idea what a trustee does, but I have every confidence & faith that you will be an excellent trustee, having already been impressed by your level head and demeanor here. Congrats, hope it's fun and/or fulfilling! (Do I get a prize if I voted for you?) lol. :-D
Or not? I don't know what your stance is on porn, but there are parts of this article that resonate with a few ongoing discussions...
FWIW, my stance on porn is that unless children or those who do not actually get consent ("real" porn of rape, if you will; porn taken while one party did not know, etc) is involved, it's all good to me. Not "good" as in quality, of course. ;-) Thanks, I'll read.
looks like you forgot the article, or i'm too oblivious for my own good on a tired monday. either way, i can't find it.
Wow. That's just .... I had no idea she had been raped on set... and that it was filmed as part of the show.
I am not fully buying that sexual revolution or porn are necessarily villins in of rape culture. If the adults acting the roles are acting, it's what it is. it contributes to and is informed by our culture which is a "pro soft rape" if you will, culture. But so are most romance novels directed at women (and the teen versions), disney cartoons, and film and television. We are warped into the idea that sex is wrong, so you should not want it. that men have to "convince" women who will say no, cause they are good nice gilrs, but you being the one true stud hot and loving man in the world will convince them to "give it up" to you, and you will never regrete it. or something.
powerful story. i want to read her autobiography now.
On your userpage you refer a couple times to people who are "cis", e.g. "others are being asked to leave schools cause they are cis". Do you mean cisgender? I'm not aware of any widespread or systematic discrimination against cisgender people (and it would be fairly odd given that something like 98% of people are cisgender), but I don't know what else "cis" can mean.