(no subject)

[novapsyche]

Why the lying, divisive, race-baiting Obama campaign must be stopped. . . -- a post in feminist

Comments

[eleri.livejournal.com]

Sounds like someone has her tampon in a little to snug. I've never liked the thought that I'm supposed to support someone just because they have boobs.

[bonerici.livejournal.com]

When you are a white male like myself, it's really impossible to get involved in the national debate on race and sex because any argument I make is easily defeated by playing the race card or the sex card. So I can't really comment that post from the feminist community.

Obama and Hillary find themselves in a unique position in the national debate on race and sex, because they can, if they want, address the issues in a way that members of the white male patriarchy never could.

[pstscrpt.livejournal.com]

A moderator at one point pointed out the community rules, and I'm afraid I find those at least as appalling as J. Random Lunatic's rant.

Racism can be institutional or individual.
Yes, this gets forgotten too often.

Reverse racism is not a valid concept. Those who do not wield institutional power cannot be racist
Um, no. There's no need for the "reverse" qualifier, but you can't point out that racism can be institutional or individual and then say it's only institutional a few lines later.

We do not recognize "reverse" sexism, ie the idea that women are capable of acting thinking in a sexist manner toward men. The reason for this is that women do not, as a group, hold privilege or institutional power over men.
Same objection as above (and I've personally been discriminated against by a female supervisor, but only once and in a job I would have quit in a few months, anyway). Beyond that, though, I think women's sexism against other women (including themselves, individually) is a much bigger problem than women's sexism against men, and maybe worse than men's sexism against women. The pay gap comes from women's own view of their place, which is apparent when you hear things like family leave and flextime being described as "women's issues".

Additionally, there *is* institutional sexism against men who want to stay home with their kids, adopt feminine styles, etc. I always thought one of the most important messages of feminism was that patriarchy is bad for everyone.


None of those are really the point, though. I disagree with them all, but what I really find offensive is the community rules that extensively detail what opinions are and are not permissible.

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

The community is billed as "safe space", meaning that folks who don't believe that feminism is a valid concept can go debate elsewhere, like debate.

[pstscrpt.livejournal.com]

I believe that feminism is valid -- at least some versions of it; that doesn't mean that I have to agree with all the details of what the forum maintainers believe.

And from the user info, it appears to be billed as discussion, which is at cross purposes with a safe-space view.

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

Is it a debate or a discussion? Because in a discussion, no "cards" should ever come up. They may in fact be valid points that are hard to examine, let alone unpack and chew.

If you're going for understanding, no one tries to strangle discussion or deflect, which is what "cards" do.

What Clarence Thomas did during the Senate hearings? He played a race card--he deflected the actual point of conversation and stifled discussion by bringing up his race. How Obama has done this, I'm waiting to see. In fact, I think what he has done is the difference between playing a card and showing a card.

You can always engage in discussion. "[A]ny argument I make is easily defeated"--what are you arguing about? It's about framing the discussion. Talking about race or gender does not mean it has to become a back and forth--it can be a coming together. Acknowledgement of another's view--conceding the point--is one way this is done. If you say that there is no point in talking to someone, you've already conceded that you have opinions that you are not willing to alter.

[bonerici.livejournal.com]

I think that some of the most interesting discussion happens at the very edge of what is socially acceptable, now I don't really have a certain opinion on this particular topic, sometimes I think clinton's camp is playing too dirty sometimes I think obama is being too hypocritical (and I always understand this very fight hurts the chance of winning in the fall). I'm willing to explore the issues, but I know myself well enough that if I were to entertain all the various possibilities and permutations, and even occasionally the devil's arguments like I enjoy, it would cross the line at some point.

So, I'm willing mostly on this issue to just sit and listen and let others argue. And there is plenty of the types of arguments I enjoy that others are making. It's probably a weakness on my part that I don't particularly enjoy the "coming together" as much as I enjoy an argumentative back and forth, where both players sharpen their arguments with each volley. I understand this non-consensus-building style of thinking is perhaps a result of competitive and patriarchal style of thought.

[metahara.livejournal.com]

Did you see the montage that aired on a comedy show of men in politics crying in public, for various reasons? Crying is not gender specific.

I'm voting for her partly because she has successfully mothered a child into healthy adulthood. For me, the mother of a teen who has raised a few children, I find that to be more impressive than anyones army/war record. Of course that is not the only reason. It is one of many.

Sorry to post this here if it offends you. I wont be back. I just thought that was a (crying) point worth speaking to.

[dionysus1999.livejournal.com]

I'm burying my head in the sand. Tell me when it's safe to emerge from the flurry of ugliness.