- 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|
|Hello||0||07:22, 7 December 2013|
|Hey Godot||1||22:04, 20 November 2013|
|Fitna||2||19:39, 14 November 2013|
|Isn't this your neck of the woods?||1||19:21, 5 September 2013|
|Signature, yours.||1||09:35, 2 September 2013|
|3||18:24, 28 August 2013|
|Good edit||0||02:04, 27 August 2013|
|Feminism/The Good Girls Revolt||5||02:34, 23 August 2013|
|Chomsky vs. Zizek||3||10:45, 16 August 2013|
|Film of interest to you?||1||23:35, 7 August 2013|
|Sexual Objectification||1||16:38, 6 August 2013|
|1||05:58, 1 August 2013|
|Aslan interview||5||21:27, 29 July 2013|
|Misogynistic women||22||22:47, 28 July 2013|
|Anti abortion misogynists getting attacked||12||22:32, 28 July 2013|
|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|
I've been reading the site for a while and I wanted to say hello. I originally came here to learn more about Creationism (one can only read their literature for so long without desiring at least a little intentional humor) Your contributions to the talk pages of various articles related to feminism moved me to make an account and participate. Keep up the good work!
Just liberality (teh 18th) got done with 3 months of elections. my typical 6-7 day a week, 10-18 hour days to ensure that elections are fair, equal, and work! :-)
now unemployed again, and sleeping. heh.
but the good news is this was one of the last hurdles to reallyl getting a good mgt job in elections if i want one around the state. I needed some experience with the electronic devices, and with generating a ballot on a particular software teh State uses. done and done. no more holes in resume! :-)
PS i'll be back in a week or so, annyoing you all!
From today's New York Times. Of course, we Brits tend to forget just how big the USA is so this might be as far from you as Paris is from me.
Thanks for the article. I'm watching with great.... um.... "disgust?" "fear?" "loathing?" "lasvega...oh, never mind. For the record, we consider ABQ to be quite close. We drive there 1 or 2 times a year. but it's actually 2x as far as london to paris. ;-)
Has a small typo - can you spot it now? For extra points Guess how many times I read this message to make sure I didn't make a typo.
hum... not getting any...did you send it here or to another account? they should all be on my phone... really!
You should read Lynn Povitch's book. Five years after the lawsuit, she became the first female senior editor in the mag's history. Today editorial offices in publishing and TV are teeming with women.
I shouldn't have written, however, that women were "absolutely" confined to secretarial positions. I forgot Grace Wyndham Goldie. Momentarily. May God strike me dead.
I mean, i have no idea what you are talking about. I just read, today's article from Salon about the lack of women journalists. That article references 3 otehr articles talking about the main players in jourlalism, and each and every one fails to list a single woman out of 20 or so men listed.
Yes, there are a few women who have succeeded. one women is not enough to make up for the extreme lack of writers in film, or tv, directors of the same, jorunalists, much less world renouned journalists. and while there are as far as i know, 10 or so major editors who are women, that is NOTHING in the pot compared to the number of major editorial positions held by men.
In case you care -
- http://www.salon.com/2013/08/22/why_theres_no_female_nate_silver/n(2013 - today, actually)
- http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2011/02/the_lack_of_female_bylines_in_magazines_is_old_news.html (2011)
- http://gawker.com/its-dude-itors-all-the-way-down-512595713 (2013)
- http://brenda-chapman.com/blog/infographic-highlights-lack-of-women-directors/ (don't know date)
- http://www.nashvillescene.com/nashville/women-account-for-less-than-5-percent-of-producers-and-engineers-andmdash-but-maybe-not-for-long/Content?oid=1597594 (2010 - so older)
I'm just not seeing Povitch's "teeming".
In fact, she herself denies your very position. http://jezebel.com/5941690/former-newsweek-revolutionary-lynn-povitch-says-that-workplace-gender-equality-still-has-a-long-way-to-go
Well, TVM for all the research. I think "denies" is a little strong as a descriptor of that Jezebel piece, but I take your point.
But anyway, we're not going to get anywhere with this. I can see, if I cared to take you on, stretching into my future an endless series of...
"I'll see your Leslie Moonves (Pres. CBS News) and raise you a Deborah Turness (Pres. NBC News)"
"I'll see your Tony Hall (BBC DG) and raise you a Helen Boaden (Dir BBC tv)"
"I'll see your Gary Barber (CEO MGM) and raise you an Amy Pascal (co-chairman Sony Pictures Entertainment)"
...and on and on. So I resign.
I understand you are bowing out, but what you just did was really cherry picking.
Presidents of the 3 national US news brands: NBC Deborah Turness, ABC: Ben Sherwood, President CBS: LEslie Moonves Presdient of hte major US Cable news: Fox - Roger Eugene Ailes, CNN news: Jim Walton, MSNBC: Phil Griphin.
One woman, five men.
How bout major Movie Studios? These are from the 6 major studies defined by wiki, with the "key people" also defined by wiki.
- Disney: Alan Horn (chairman), Alan Bergman (president), Sean Bailey (president, motion picture production), Robert A. Chapek (president, distribution)
- MGM: Gary Barber (CEO), Jonathan Glickman, President of Film Division, Ken Schapiro, COO
- Sony Pictures: Michael Lynton (Chairman & CEO), Amy Pascal (Co-Chairwoman), Jeff Blake (Vice Chairman)
- Time Warner Studios: Jeff Bewkes, Chairman and CEO,
::Richard Plepler, Chairman and CEO of Home Box Office ::Laura Lang, Chairman and CEO of Time Inc. ::Philip I. Kent, Chairman and CEO of Turner Broadcasting System ::Kevin Tsujihara, CEO of Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.
- 21 century fox (studio, not news) Rupert Murdoch, Chairman, Daniel Tayne, President
- Paramount: Brad Grey (Chairman and CEO), Rob Moore (Vice Chairman), Frederick D. Huntsberry(COO), Adam Goodmad, President of Paramount Film Group
22 men, 2 women.
Are there women in the entertaiment and news industry? yes. Do they make up even a 3rd of the important players? hell no.
Oh, I can't wait! just from the blurby into, it sounds like Chomsky said exactly what I've always wanted to say - but not been educated enough to say. "when you decode all the words, there is nothing there". I read Plato, Descartes, Kant, and while it was hard for me, when i really thought it through, it made sense.
I read Baudrillard, Derrida and Lacan (among others, including some 3rd wave feminists that I don't get), and think "ok, either there is nothing here, or i'm really missing something!. it's just gobbledy goop to my head. but i'm always told "you just don't get it", "you have to really work with it.".
glad someone else with a bigger brain than I, thinks it is bunk, too. I'm not saying it *is* bunk, i'm saying i feel a little less "tiny brained" when someone like chomsky says "i don't get it (cause i suspect there is nothing to get)"
I suffered the same problem when trying to make sense of queer theory. Even abandoning trying to make sense of it in terms of the scientific theory definition we all know and love (because I think you might be in straw-man territory if you don't do this) I couldn't really find what it was trying to say that was particularly profound, and was still left with the impression of "people actually get paid to write this stuff!?!". However, a number of discourses concerning not theory, but subtheory exist. But the premise of the textual paradigm of narrative states that the task of the observer is social comment, given that culture is equal to consciousness. In a sense, Sontag suggests the use of the textual paradigm of narrative to modify sexual identity. The subject is contextualised into a textual paradigm of reality that includes sexuality as a whole.
You are far more qualified than I am to try to make sense of this article. Good luck.
Thanks for catching it in the first place. you know your shit, by the way. and write so much better than I do. I'll add stuff, but would, as always, love anyone's help to make my writing sound, well... decent. ;-) Ok, my writing is "decent'. i'd love help making it sound better than decent.
Thought you might "enjoy" this. Faux News fails to understand how academic research works. No surprise there.
All ready been all overit. He holds 2 PhDs (one in theology, one in religious sociology, i think) and 2 masters. all in/around the area of ancient "new" religions (the churches popping up all over the place from 200BCE to 200 CE.)
but he's a MUSLIM. and they cannot be scholars about anything.
I wonder how many Christians have written about Islam?
I mentioned in the Bar that I was interested in this book... now I definitely want to read it.
Paradoxically, given the kerfuffle at Fox News, there is a brief extract from the book on the Fox News website http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/07/25/read-excerpt-from-zealot-life-and-times-jesus-nazareth/
He's a really intersting guy as a person. he was a fundamentalism christian, then wandered (somehow, i don't know the details) into his family's muslim faith. He was a scholar of theology (xian) then went on to be a scholar of religion in a sociological sense. He's also a historian, linguist, etc.
He doesn't have a lot of truck for "new atheists" either, which for me, a person who *also* finds some of the louder rhetoric on the atheists camp to be extreme, uneducated, and yes, abusive (so, you know "fundamentalist like"). Which is now pissing off atheists as they remember who Aslan is. Kinda funny caues the people he calls out are people who says things like "Religion is child abuse", and "all religion is harmful" and "Islam is the worst of the religions, if we have to have any religions". those lines are fully visable in the new atheist camp, so it's kinda hard to disagree with him. but it's a funny dynamic to watch. "this guy is so cool - no wait, he hates atheists (he doesn't) so he's not cool!"
Oh well, what else do i espect on facebook. heheheheh
They almost make me lose my ****. I'm considering doing a whole series on documenting and making fun of them at Bigotry Wiki, if you're interested. They are really bad considering the psychology of persuasion. You get a woman arguing for the oppression of women, and you get all the men saying "it's not sexist if a woman agrees with it!" Consequently, fighting them is extremely important.
It's a serious thing, yeah. Women who work to displace, or hinder other women as a class, disgust me. See: any pro life female politician. And yeah, it's always fun to see the excuse of "I don't think you know what you are saying, cause this woman disagrees, and she's a woman, and she says there's no sexism" (also "this guy is black and he says there is no racism". In fact one of the single most successful use of the "this guy is X and he says.." was in the gay marriage issues. The right found gay men who didn't think gay men should be married, cause gay men were - i dn't know, "different" "above that", "beyond traditional lables' etc. and so they could not only say "gays are bad" but also "and even gays don't want gay marriage, so why are we doing it".
Black police officers tend to be far more racist towards Blacks then White officers, at least in places that aren't overtly racist. It has to do with people not being aware of self prejudice. It's even worse with misogynistic women who are even aware of the fact that they can be self prejudicial and yet they're ****ing arrogant about it. I really hate the misogynistic women who come up with examples of brainwashed women giving birth after violent rape and use it as an excuse to force that on all women.
"Denying women the vote isn't sexist, because some women said so!" (True story.)
Or pointing to people like Malcom X who wanted Blacks to separate as evidence for segregation because "Blacks don't really want to integrate."
I doubt the cop thing is self prejudice as much as needing to fight the prejudice in the line, so they work double hard to "fit in". "Yes, of ocurse i can do my job and arrest black people even if i'm black" etc.
And the use of "she is an X, and if she said it, it must be true" is part of the world of privlidge. using other people to make your point.
I wonder how many of the misogynistic *****s who hold the "I regret having an abortion sign" actually had an abortion. Anyone can hold a ****ing sign. I'm going to find a dude to hold one of those signs to prove the point. Of those misogynistic *****s, I wonder how many of them only feel that way because of being indoctrinated by misogynists.
I am definitely having an abortion. That will require that I get laid. ****
It would also require that you are a woman. This looks to be going the same way as the whole rape thing. You seem to have picked a couple of issues that aren't likely to affect you directly, and are addressing them in very simplistic and somewhat insensitive terms.
I'm curious what five-letter expletive you might be obliterating in "misogynistic *****s"?
First, I may be a woman. I have not specified my sex. Second, I didn't mention that subject here, that was entirely you. If you think it's weird, then obviously you are being weird because I didn't mention it but you did.
Also, why do you have a problem with me being insensitive to misogynists?
You've made it pretty clear that you're male, & you're not only being insensitive to misogynists. When you trivilalise abortion & vulgarise the debate, you're being insensitive to people who take the issue seriously & have good reason to. That's people on both sides of the debate, not just misogynists.
"You've made it pretty clear that you're male"
I see your point and it's important not to trivialize things. I still fail to see not pretending that people trying to restrict the right of women are not misogynists.
I've honest to god, seen men holding up signs "Do not regret abortion like I do", specifically in Kansas maybe 10 years ago.
At first that doesn't seem to make sense, but those men could of had a woman in their life they pressured or agreed with in having an abortion, and they could regret it now.
That's possible, but I don't think it's quite the same thing. And certainly they're playing too fast and loose with how such statements are going to be interpreted.
My point is that the misogynistic *****s holding signs claiming to regret abortion a just misogynistic ****ing liars.
ADK - I think you know my view on this very specific point. I appreciate every person's voice in support of women's rights, but there is something odd about listening to men on either side, talking about the hardships of abortion, the importance of pregnancy, etc. In most cases, it's done in good faith, and appreciated- but it still feels like being talked about, instead of talked *to*.
I suspect that's similar to feelings felt during the post Martin/zimmerman trial - a lot of people talking about racism. A lot of people getting that something is very wrong, but the articulation of the problem by people like me, safe in our white middle class world, feels stilted.
But that's the way it is. better stilted than not at all :-)
I just remembered how that video started. removed.
well ok then! :-)
Sorry about that. Could I get a redemotion? I got banhammered because someone thought I was edit warring.
Oh yes. To remove intention defamation by certain people.
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.....