the University prides itself on "being a diverse, accepting, caring community." Unless of course you say anything that offends anyone else, in which case the University doesn't want your diversity, doesn't accept you, and doesn't care for you.
Chanting about fucking a dead prostitute is more ludicrous and adolescent than offensive. Certainly less offensive than jokes about killing your wife on a ski trip. When these young women get older, they will realize which battles are worth fighting. Still, what is the university president supposed to do under the situation? Suspending the rugby team activities is a slap on the wrist and diffuses the situation. Seems like a good response.
The case of the frat boys over in Oklahoma is far more pernicious. Chanting about hanging n......s from a tree is hate speech and thoroughly repulsive. Two of the kids were expelled from school, which may be a first amendment violation, and I'm just fine with that.
I was at the Masters golf tournament when the Women's organization WOW was picketing Hootie (Masters Club Chairman - sometime in the 1990s) about having the club excluding female members. My friend was a crusty, opinionated, troublemaker and he took the WOW Mission Statement directly to the protesters. He rewrote the mission statement and substituted "Men" for every time it was scripted "women". He found several "butch" ladies to read his revisions to and they were all appalled at his chauvinism and how dare him to have such an attitude about women. We had to rescue him before he was stoned by the crowd. Come to think of it, he was damn near stoned before he attempted the stunt.
To me:
The first rite of Spring has always been the Master's Tournament.
Interestingly, The UMW Feminists United chapter women are all ones I would not look at twice in a club. Sort of backs up Rush's "Undeniable Truths" # 24 from back in 1988.
If you don't know these "Truths" or have not heard of them, look them up. I think they are impossible to refute. One might disagree, but that's as far as one could go.
What a lot of you guys seem to not understand is that there are all different types of feminists, from the ultra militant true man haters, to the feminists like me that are on the opposite end of the spectrum. To lump all feminists and their varied agendas together is unfair and naive.
And yes of course beautiful women can be feminists. But sadly the more extreme feminists have tainted the word so a lot of women are reluctant to identify themselves as such. Just as in politics and religion, all it takes is some very vocal extremists (the vocal minority) to ruin it for others who are aligned in the same camp, but don't share their extremist views.
Main articles: Sex industry, Feminist views on pornography, Feminist views on prostitution and Feminist sex wars
Opinions on the sex industry are diverse. Feminists are generally either critical of it (seeing it as exploitative, a result of patriarchal social structures and reinforcing sexual and cultural attitudes that are complicit in rape and sexual harassment) or supportive of at least parts of it (arguing that some forms of it can be a medium of feminist expression and a means of women taking control of their sexuality).
Feminist views of pornography range from condemnation of pornography as a form of violence against women, to an embracing of some forms of pornography as a medium of feminist expression.[106][107][108][109][110] Feminists' views on prostitution vary, but many of these perspectives can be loosely arranged into an overarching standpoint that is generally either critical or supportive of prostitution and sex work.[112]
@rockstar- I don't think that there is one answer, like asking "what is a democrat?", or " what is a christian?". There isn't one formula for all of the variables that people add and subtract. Yes, to me your definition describes how I describe my feminism- equality for all and equal opportunity for all. Obviously I am very sex friendly and support wholeheartedly the sex industry. But for every feminist like me there is a rabid anti-sex extremist who uses the term "feminist" to support their cause, just like religious zealots who use violence or discrimination in the name of their religion. Its complex, and its also a shame that the good folks get dragged down because its the fringe element that gets all of the news coverage, so they are the only version that the public sees.
There are indeed different schools of Feminism. Probably the most important school of modern Feminism starts with Simone de Beauvoir and her "Second Sex", and it is about women taking responsibility for their own lives and the choices they must make and about not letting themselves be cast into the standard categories, like Whores and Madonnas.
Now while yes, such Feminists would object to any forms of discrimination or persecution against women, this does not mean that they are against men, against sexual relations with men, or against women serving in sexualized roles. On the contrary, they defend the right of women to do this without being subject to negative judgment.
So when people like PUA's and MGTOW's criticize feminists, they are just completely off base.
ididthisonce & lowpaw: So you both said the same thing: there is not definition of the term. There's NO SUCH THING as a 'feminist'...they can be anything! So why would anyone call themselves something that has no meaning? I agree "Democrat" means nothing, but "liberal" and "conservative" have rather well defined meanings; I'm a liberal and other liberals will know where I stand..
@rockstar - well, you can look at it as it either it has no definition, or it has dozens! Just like in your example - the Democratic party has both liberals and (ugh) conservatives, but they each still call themselves Democrats. Same with the Republican side. And within each faction, it is broken down even more, with some considering themselves fiscally conservative, yet socially liberal, and vice-versa. Simply put there is so much diversity, both good & bad, within all of these groups that there is really no one definition that captures all of the different views.
But lowpaw, most Democrats and most Republicans agree with one another more often than not. Feminists don't seem to have anything in common other than they're female, and even that is a sexist remark as men fall on both sides of women's issues as much as women do.
rockstar - I disagree about Dems & Reps agreeing more often than not about all of the many diverse issues that are out there, but you can use that same stance to say that most feminists also agree about base issues, like equal pay for equal work, non-discrimination, etc. that was the basis for the original feminism movement back in the 70's. It's the additional opinions and radical agendas that sort of hijacked the base movement and started giving feminism a black eye. What a lot of radical feminists did was try and make it appear like their opinions spoke for all feminists, just like the radical right wing conservatives or the extreme left wing liberals have slowly become the representative of their respective parties. Are all Democrats ultra left wing liberals? No. Are all republicans right wing ultra conservatives? Of course not. Again...often it's an example of the vocal minority overshadowing the silent majority. And feminists aren't solely female. many men consider themselves feminists in their support for the same basic things that more mainstream feminists of both genders want - equality in the workplace, non discrimination, etc.
Clubber,
Of course I think that it's ridiculous, and they deserve the backlash that is burying them right now. Where do you draw the line? If I am a Muslim who hates Jewish people, I can refuse service to them? If I'm a business owner and a KKK member, then I don't have to serve blacks? It is selective discrimination, pure and simple.If you have deep feelings against any group of people (that have done no harm to you) and if those people might want to use your services, then you have a choice - either serve everybody equally and graciously as a business owner, or STAY THE FUCK OUT OF BUSINESS. The line between church and state is constantly being challenged lately, I believe it is a last ditch effort of those continually seeking to eliminate the rights of others, especially in light of all of the gains that gay folks have made in the legal marriage department.
Understood. But, there is a flip side. Let's use a real case. The bakery that didn't wish to supply a wedding cake. The couple could have gotten a wedding cake any number of other places. There purpose was to force someone to go against their religious principals, and not just get a wedding cake. That is wrong.
Sort of like the first amendment, the freedom of speech part. Try using that if you yell "FIRE" in a crowed theater. Same principle. Rights can be wonderful OR they can be abused.
One-by-one the states are lifting their ban on gay marriage. At the same time, about 20 states (all red states) are enacting "religious freedom acts" to stand in the way. The wording of the Indiana law is probably the worst.
Clubber, you're way behind the curve on this one. What about the Muslim doctor that won't treat a dying woman? It's against his religion to treat women. What about the restaurant owner who fires a waitress because she uses birth control? These are the doors that the IN law opens.
The swastika example is a good one but ultimately falls apart. The jeweler isn't refusing service based on a religious belief, but rather as an artist is not compelled to make any particular design, especially if it's inflammatory. If someone wanted to pay me to write an anti gay song, I could refuse the commission.
It's a different case than the same sex marriage wedding cake....the baker has to provide service and if he wants the customer to but the images of a same sex couple on top, that's fine. But he can't refuse to bake the cake just because they're gay.
Clubber- your example of the "forced" wedding cake baker is the lamest excuse that you could have come up with. Cmon,man. So if, instead, he refused service because the couple was black, they should just accept it and go somewhere else? Oppressed people gotta speak up or else get steamrolled over by bigots. People like you are part of the problem.
Clubber discusses "Understood. But, there is a flip side. Let's use a real case. The bakery that didn't wish to supply a wedding cake. The couple could have gotten a wedding cake any number of other places. There purpose was to force someone to go against their religious principals, and not just get a wedding cake. That is wrong."
So if it is a small town with only one bakery, all gay weddings are off? In fact, all of a small town would become gay free if a business refuses to serve a gay person. One grocery store? One gas station? Perhaps a way for a "gay free" zone, eh?
Sorry Clubber, but I heartedly disagree with your logic. I guess that's no surprise on this particular topic. If you are blatantly discriminated against you're supposed to tuck your tail between your legs and slither away? Fuck no! I'm glad that a same sex couple pushed that bigoted baker. How do you think change happens? Certainly not by accepting the status quo. If you choose to open a retail business, then suck it up and do your damn job. Everybody's money is green.
32 comments
Latest
Who found a dead whore in a cave.
Even though she stunk,
Look at the hunk
Of money that he saved.
The case of the frat boys over in Oklahoma is far more pernicious. Chanting about hanging n......s from a tree is hate speech and thoroughly repulsive. Two of the kids were expelled from school, which may be a first amendment violation, and I'm just fine with that.
I was at the Masters golf tournament when the Women's organization WOW was picketing Hootie (Masters Club Chairman - sometime in the 1990s) about having the club excluding female members. My friend was a crusty, opinionated, troublemaker and he took the WOW Mission Statement directly to the protesters. He rewrote the mission statement and substituted "Men" for every time it was scripted "women". He found several "butch" ladies to read his revisions to and they were all appalled at his chauvinism and how dare him to have such an attitude about women. We had to rescue him before he was stoned by the crowd. Come to think of it, he was damn near stoned before he attempted the stunt.
To me:
The first rite of Spring has always been the Master's Tournament.
If you don't know these "Truths" or have not heard of them, look them up. I think they are impossible to refute. One might disagree, but that's as far as one could go.
And yes of course beautiful women can be feminists. But sadly the more extreme feminists have tainted the word so a lot of women are reluctant to identify themselves as such. Just as in politics and religion, all it takes is some very vocal extremists (the vocal minority) to ruin it for others who are aligned in the same camp, but don't share their extremist views.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia;
Sex industry
Main articles: Sex industry, Feminist views on pornography, Feminist views on prostitution and Feminist sex wars
Opinions on the sex industry are diverse. Feminists are generally either critical of it (seeing it as exploitative, a result of patriarchal social structures and reinforcing sexual and cultural attitudes that are complicit in rape and sexual harassment) or supportive of at least parts of it (arguing that some forms of it can be a medium of feminist expression and a means of women taking control of their sexuality).
Feminist views of pornography range from condemnation of pornography as a form of violence against women, to an embracing of some forms of pornography as a medium of feminist expression.[106][107][108][109][110] Feminists' views on prostitution vary, but many of these perspectives can be loosely arranged into an overarching standpoint that is generally either critical or supportive of prostitution and sex work.[112]
Now while yes, such Feminists would object to any forms of discrimination or persecution against women, this does not mean that they are against men, against sexual relations with men, or against women serving in sexualized roles. On the contrary, they defend the right of women to do this without being subject to negative judgment.
So when people like PUA's and MGTOW's criticize feminists, they are just completely off base.
SJG
Where would I fit in? I am hard right on many issues, but not so much on others, mostly social.
Bottom line, problem is, to pigeon hole a person is damn near impossible.
lopaw,
Your opinion on Indiana, since it is in the news? I would think we might agree.
Of course I think that it's ridiculous, and they deserve the backlash that is burying them right now. Where do you draw the line? If I am a Muslim who hates Jewish people, I can refuse service to them? If I'm a business owner and a KKK member, then I don't have to serve blacks? It is selective discrimination, pure and simple.If you have deep feelings against any group of people (that have done no harm to you) and if those people might want to use your services, then you have a choice - either serve everybody equally and graciously as a business owner, or STAY THE FUCK OUT OF BUSINESS. The line between church and state is constantly being challenged lately, I believe it is a last ditch effort of those continually seeking to eliminate the rights of others, especially in light of all of the gains that gay folks have made in the legal marriage department.
Understood. But, there is a flip side. Let's use a real case. The bakery that didn't wish to supply a wedding cake. The couple could have gotten a wedding cake any number of other places. There purpose was to force someone to go against their religious principals, and not just get a wedding cake. That is wrong.
Sort of like the first amendment, the freedom of speech part. Try using that if you yell "FIRE" in a crowed theater. Same principle. Rights can be wonderful OR they can be abused.
Off soap box. :)
There's still a long way to go...
tolerance when it favors the left is fine but extending the same to others seems beyond the pale
"First They ignore you, Then they laugh at you, Then they fight you, Then you win." (Ghandi)
It's a different case than the same sex marriage wedding cake....the baker has to provide service and if he wants the customer to but the images of a same sex couple on top, that's fine. But he can't refuse to bake the cake just because they're gay.
So if it is a small town with only one bakery, all gay weddings are off? In fact, all of a small town would become gay free if a business refuses to serve a gay person. One grocery store? One gas station? Perhaps a way for a "gay free" zone, eh?
Don't ask, don't tell?