Girl power can save the world

[mzteris]

Buying a girl is cheaper than buying a cow in many places. --Eve Ensler


TED TALK TUESDAYS: http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/02/02/ensler.TED.talk.girl.power/index.html?hpt=Mid


"The future is "girl." Imagine girl is a cell that each of us -- boys and girls -- are born with. Imagine this girl cell is central to the evolution of our species and an assurance of the continuation of the human race.

Now imagine that a few powerful people, invested in owning this world, understood that the oppression of this cell was key to retaining their power, so they reinterpreted this cell, undermining its value and making us believe that it is weak. They initiated a process to crush, eradicate, annihilate, humiliate, belittle, censor, reduce and kill off the girl cell.

This was called patriarchy.

Imagine girl is a chip in the huge microcosm of our collective consciousness, which is essential to the balance, wisdom and future of humanity.

Imagine that girl is the part of each of us that feels compassion, empathy, passion, intensity, association, relationship, emotion, play, resistance, vulnerability, intuitive intelligence, vision.

Imagine that compassion informs wisdom. That vulnerability is our greatest strength. That emotions have inherent logic and lead to radical saving action.

Now remember that those in power essentially taught us and conditioned us to believe the opposite:

-MORE- http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/02/02/ensler.TED.talk.girl.power/index.html?hpt=Mid

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. lol, wut?

[CTyankee]

3. Are you comatose? What is your problem? nt

[omega minimo]

100. How its it always in first on these threads?

:evilfrown:

[Matariki]

4. Keep drinking the pron syrup

and don't worry your pretty little head over it :evilgrin:

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CTyankee]

2. Amazing, and correct. The more woman centric we are the better.

Our brave, intrepid girls are a wonder and a great resource. We are the poorer when we discount them as sadly we do and by the time they are in their first year of high school, they have lost that "glow."

I wish I had an antidote...

[timeforpeace]

5. If this is about the treatment of women in the Muslim world, patriarchy is an understatement.

[mzteris]

6. Muslim world?????

Try the "Christian world" as well.

Hell, it's the WORLD, period.

[Orsino]

107. +15. n/t

[Matariki]

7. It's about the treatment of boys as well

if you read the article...

[CTyankee]

8. Of course, that is about boys who have the girls attributes being put down.

And that is a sin and a crime. It is all a smear to keep girls down and to of course make boys feel small for having an ounce of feeling for others.

This is a crime against humanity.

[seabeyond]

11. actually... attributes of human. not simply of girls. it is all of us... but assigned only to

girls...

but

i agree with ALL you are saying

[Echo In Light]

19. +1 - yes. Perceptions of "traditionally" feminine traits are actually human, not gender specific

[defendandprotect]

65. You can't send males to war unless you first "break their bond with females and children" . .!!

And think of the behavior of our troops now!!!

Rape is a tool of war --

Women and children killed on the spot -- they may be terrorists!!

[Echo In Light]

9. Jung

“Every man carries within him the eternal image of woman. This image is fundamentally unconscious, an hereditary factor of primordial origin … an imprint or ‘archetype’ of all the ancestral experiences of the female, a deposit, as it were, of all the impressions ever made by woman” ~ Carl Jung, Collected Works 17:338

[defendandprotect]

12. "All life begins as female" .....

And females are the majority of those on this planet -- and there would

be many more if millions weren't murdered --

Nature prefers females -- nature trusts females --

Patriarchy is a "bird with one wing" -- and suicidal --!!

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[seabeyond]

18. Nature prefers females -- nature trusts females --... nope. need the yin with the yang

i much prefer empowering boys with their innate behaviors instead of limiting and eliminating behaviors and dismissing males.

[Blue-Jay]

26. I'd like to see some scientific evidence that nature prefers one gender over another.

Hey, I'm not trying to start an argument... I prefer females over males personally, but your statement makes no sense.

How precisely does "nature trust females"?

This ought to be good.

[seabeyond]

28. it wasnt my statement. i took from the poster i was responding to. telling them

i disagreed with there statement.

so we are in agreement. it is not a correct statement. as my comments after the copied statement explains

[Blue-Jay]

30. Oh. I see.

Sorry about that.

[seabeyond]

32. not a problem. nt

[defendandprotect]

54. Oh, wow . . . how come so few know this . . . let me guess . . . !!!

OK . . . back in a few minutes with some material --

[defendandprotect]

55. Nature is pro-choice, for one . . . nature supplied plants/drugs which

always provided females with reproductive "options" --

to interrupt conception -- to prevent pregnancy -- to abort --

Much of that knowledge and material was destroyed by patriarchy --

However, RU486 is based on one of those plant substances - it prevents

the fertilized egg from adhering to the womb lining.

Evidently in some South Sea Islands it is still used -- I think papaya is one

source of it --

Back with more info soon -- however, obviously we need at least one thread on this subject!!!

But amazing that so few people know this??!!

[Blue-Jay]

56. Stand back! I'm doing Science!

Oh brother...

[defendandprotect]

61. Are you saying that you're not aware ...

of that history?

[Blue-Jay]

69. No. How did you come to that conclusion?

Let's take a look at it, shall we?

During the course of human history, it's a fact that girl babies are born slightly more frequently than boy babies. That's an occurrence with most mammalian species.

Now, if I were a woo-woo, I'd come to the conclusion that some magical, mystical Mother Nature "prefers" females to males. Thankfully, I'm not a crazy woo-woo.

The most likely explanation is that male mammals can offer up some DNA via reproduction on a daily basis. (Animals that reproduce successfully and frequently tend to thrive, right?) Female mammals require quite a lot of time to produce offspring, therefore it makes sense that more females are born in order to ensure the continued success of a particular species. That doesn't mean that "Mother Nature" prefers one gender over another. It's just that evolution requires frequent reproduction, otherwise the species fails. I'm no evolutionary biologist, but that seems to make sense to me.

Frequent reproduction = success
More females than males = more frequent reproduction

Certainly, the planet would be better off if humans would reproduce less frequently, but it is what it is. More female animals will result in more reproduction, because the males (all too often) only are required to inject a little bit of DNA.

I'm not trying to be combative, mind you. I just think that science always trumps crazy woo-woo shit.

(oops. spelling edit)

[defendandprotect]

84. I was speaking specifically about the information re plants -- our drugs . . .

However . . .

Girls are not born "slightly more frequently" -- they are the majority at 54% and more

despite the millions murdered. Estimates are that females would be nearer 60%.

And, you're also in denial of "Mother Nature" . . . why?

Does that concept so offend you that you have to try to deny a term so long used?

Humanity "thrives" when it cooperates with Nature --
and dies when it exploits and abuses it -- i.e., as our system of capitalism does.
That is the meaning of "survival of the fittest" -- not the most violent, but those
species which cooperate best with nature.

And you're saying here that the purpose of life is procreation?

The most likely explanation is that male mammals can offer up some DNA via reproduction on a daily basis. (Animals that reproduce successfully and frequently tend to thrive, right?) Female mammals require quite a lot of time to produce offspring, therefore it makes sense that more females are born in order to ensure the continued success of a particular species. That doesn't mean that "Mother Nature" prefers one gender over another. It's just that evolution requires frequent reproduction, otherwise the species fails. I'm no evolutionary biologist, but that seems to make sense to me.

Nor does "evolution require frequent reproduction" -- evolution is based on need, use, change in

environment.

Rather, over reproduction of any species -- as has happened with exploitation of the female under

patriarchy -- guarantees our demise.

What you're saying actually makes no sense.

Frequent reproduction = success
More females than males = more frequent reproduction

It also belies the reality that females are choosing to have no children and less children given

the horrendous numbers destroying the planet -- near 7 billion!!

Certainly, the planet would be better off if humans would reproduce less frequently, but it is what it is. More female animals will result in more reproduction, because the males (all too often) only are required to inject a little bit of DNA.

It is NOT 'what it is' . . . rather it is what patriarchy has made it.

I'm not trying to be combative, mind you. I just think that science always trumps crazy woo-woo shit.

Neither am I trying to be combative -- just honest.

And if there is "woo-woo" here -- you're writing it!

[Blue-Jay]

92. Nothing about my post addressed or suggested "patriarchy".

That's a human construct, as is the idea of "Mother Nature".

[defendandprotect]

95. Then, let me bring to your attention that I introduced "patriarchy" . . .

it's allowed you know --

Respond to the post and stop game-playing --

Mother Nature -- Mother Earth -- are terms long used --

which obviously irritate you!

[Blue-Jay]

96. Those terms don't actually "irritate" me.

It's just that, as an atheist, I understand that there are people (good people who I love and have tons of respect for) who like to put a mystical face on what is essentially a scientific issue.

I think I responded to your post, but I'll be more specific, if you prefer.

"Girls are not born "slightly more frequently" -- they are the majority at 54% and more "

No argument from me, but "slightly" was probably a poor choice of words. 4% is not "overwhelming", but perhaps I should have called it "significant". That's a matter of semantics, so there's no reason to bash one another about the head.

despite the millions murdered. Estimates are that females would be nearer 60%.

I haven't seen the actual statistics (from a trusted source), so that's pure conjecture until proven otherwise. I wouldn't be surprised if that statement were true, however.

And, you're also in denial of "Mother Nature" . . . why?

I believe I addressed that.

Does that concept so offend you that you have to try to deny a term so long used?

I believe I addressed that as well. I would add that I'm not denying a term, I'm the mysticism related to that term. You can't really deny a term.

And you're saying here that the purpose of life is procreation?

Not precisely, but in a larger sense yes. The success of a species requires procreation. I'm not saying that in order to have "purpose" you must procreate. That's more of a philosophical idea than a scientific one. (I'd disagree with the idea that an individual's "purpose" requires procreation.)

Nor does "evolution require frequent reproduction" -- evolution is based on need, use, change in environment.

OK. I was imprecise in that statement. I should have said that evolutionary progress requires successful and frequent reproduction. Again, I'm talking in large terms related to science. I'm not saying that I approve of having as many kids as possible. Philosophy is a science, but science is not a philosophy.

It also belies the reality that females are choosing to have no children and less children given the horrendous numbers destroying the planet -- near 7 billion!!

I implied no such thing. I have no problem with your assertation.


I hope I've been more clear than I was last night.

[defendandprotect]

99. True spirituality has nothing to do with organized patriarchal religion . . .

I also consider myself an atheist -- but I certainly don't consider myself

spiritless!

And, unless you're subconsciously ignoring it, I'm sure you're aware that your

"squirrel" has in the mystical style the head of an animal and human hands/body?


"Girls are not born "slightly more frequently" -- they are the majority at 54% and more "

No argument from me, but "slightly" was probably a poor choice of words. 4% is not "overwhelming", but perhaps I should have called it "significant". That's a matter of semantics, so there's no reason to bash one another about the head.

The population figures are a majority for females -- depite the millions and millions of

murders of women all over the world -- and those figures reduce males to 46% at the highest.

Except where the killings of females now are so extreme as to cause international concern

about the fate of the male populations left with no opportunity whatsoever for mating.



despite the millions murdered. Estimates are that females would be nearer 60%.

I haven't seen the actual statistics (from a trusted source), so that's pure conjecture until proven otherwise. I wouldn't be surprised if that statement were true, however.

"Mother Nature" is not really a term - - it's a concept.

And it's a concept at odds with patriarchy and it's values -- worship of the dollar bill --

and measuring everything by the yardstick of a dollar bill.

As for the killings/murders they are historical fact in every nation --

and continue on today. C-span recently interviewed the author of a new book on this

subject -- the estimated figure was 50 million, if I recall correctly.

And you're saying here that the purpose of life is procreation?

Not precisely, but in a larger sense yes. The success of a species requires procreation. I'm not saying that in order to have "purpose" you must procreate. That's more of a philosophical idea than a scientific one. (I'd disagree with the idea that an individual's "purpose" requires procreation.)

The animal kingdom remains in bounds -- except for unusual circumstances and, then, usually

due to some human interference. And, sadly, as we put more and more species on the "endangered

lists" and destroy enviromments specific to other species --

This is "Manifest Destiny" and "Man's Dominion Over Nature" at its deadly and suicidal play.

The purpose of life -- if there is one -- is pleasure.

The human species in unrestrained procreation for purposes of patriarchal exploitation has

broken those bounds --


Nor does "evolution require frequent reproduction" -- evolution is based on need, use, change in environment.

OK. I was imprecise in that statement. I should have said that evolutionary progress requires successful and frequent reproduction. Again, I'm talking in large terms related to science. I'm not saying that I approve of having as many kids as possible. Philosophy is a science, but science is not a philosophy.

Again, the human has not only "successfully and frequently reproduced" but has overproduced --

yet there is little "progress" we might point to. In fact, just the opposite. We have

polluted all of nature - and have probably come close to destroying the planet.

It is patriarchy which continues -- even in these most dangerous times -- to call for more

procreation for capitalism . . . as labor. ***

Science is merely and only observation of nature.







***
Pope to Italians: Have more babies
Thursday, November 14, 2002 Posted: 12:07 PM EST (1707 GMT)


Healing the divide: The pope is entering new territory


VATICAN CITY -- Pope John Paul II delivered a historic speech before the Italian parliament, urging Italians to have more children to reverse the nation's declining birth rate.
The pontiff also called on Italian authorities to show prisoners "a gesture of clemency" by reducing their sentences and repeated his call for the new European Union constitution to recognise Christianity's tradition on the continent.
Politicians, he said on Thursday, should adopt initiatives that "can make the task of having children and bringing them up less burdensome both socially and economically," The Associated Press reported.
The Polish-born pope called Italy's declining birth rate, one of the lowest in the world, "another grave threat that bears upon the future of this country, one which is already conditioning its life and its capacity for development."
It was the first time a pope has addressed the Italian parliament, bringing together church and state.
Regarding the turbulent history between the Roman Catholic Church and Italy, John Paul remarked: "We all know that this association has gone through widely different phases and circumstances, subject to the vicissitudes and contradictions of history," AP reported.
He added that Italy's very identity "would be most difficult to understand without reference to Christianity, its life-blood."
The Communications Ministry issued a commemorative postcard bearing images of the pope against the backdrop of the Senate and Chamber of Deputies, and the Vatican was handing out special medals to lawmakers to mark the occasion.
Clemency request
The pontiff also referred to a topic widely debated in the Italian media -- whether he would ask for clemency for prisoners.
"A gesture of clemency toward prisoners through a reduction of their sentences would be clear evidence of a sensitivity which would encourage them in their own personal rehabilitation for the sake of a constructive reinsertion into society," the pope told parliament.
John Paul appealed to European leaders, who are drafting a new EU constitution, to recognise the role Christianity has played on the continent.
"There is a need to guard against a vision of the continent which would only take into account its economic and political aspects," and not its religious ones, the pope said.

The Rome daily La Repubblica said in an editorial this week that the visit "represents the symbolic surmounting of the breach of Porta Pia," a reference to the 1870 capture of Rome by the Italian army that ended the pope's rule over the city, AP reported.
Italian forces seized a vast swathe of church-owned land, called the Papal States, in the mid-19th century and declared Rome -- home of the Vatican -- the capital of the unified country in 1870.
The new government guaranteed the pope independence within what is now Vatican City and offered to compensate the Church for the lost lands. But Pope Pius IX refused to recognise the government and called himself a "prisoner" of the Vatican.
The so-called "Roman Question" was resolved in 1929 when the Vatican and Italy signed a treaty that recognised both as sovereign entities and proclaimed Roman Catholicism Italy's state religion.



http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/11/14/pope.speech/

[defendandprotect]

62. How does nature "trust" females . . . ?

Nature creates more females than males --

Females are the majority at usually around 54% but many millions of women have been

murdered under patriarchal cultures. It is thought that the numbers would be as high

as 57% or more, save for these murders.

Women contribute 57% genetically to a pregnancy -- males 43% --

when Mitochondria is considered --

Women carry a pregnancy for 10 months within their bodies --

they breastfeed -- and most women have more to do with childrearing --

i.e., NATURE trusts women --



PS: I have other info on this -- and I think there should be a separate thread --

but I just moved the info last week and can't find it.

I might have to recreate it from notes --

HOWEVER, it is scientifically proven that all life begins as female -- in fact males

have long been searching for the "trigger" which signals such a change from female to male.

In fact, they were able to "trigger" males to be born, but they couldn't reproduce.

Essentially, the female genitals drop and become the penis and testicles.

When I find the info, I'll start a thread on it --

And, I know you can't wait -- !!





:evilgrin:

[Blue-Jay]

71. "Nature" is not an entity.

Ask Gaea. She'll certainly agree with me.

:crazy:

[defendandprotect]

73. Gaea -- She's great with me ... !!

[Blue-Jay]

75. !

:rofl:

That was funny!

[Blue-Jay]

34. "Nature prefers females".

How so? Do you have any evidence of this ridiculous claim?

EDIT: I don't think that "nature" prefers one gender over another.

[anonymous171]

42. I think this may be what they were talking about:

http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15125173

[defendandprotect]

66. Why do you think patriarchy has so long been at war with Mother Nature????

:evilgrin:

[anonymous171]

41. Nature "prefers" females because they survive through infancy more often

[defendandprotect]

59. True -- more males are lost to spontaneous miscarriage -- and more die before age of two --

[Beacho]

81. Nature 'prefers'?

Trusts?

Nature doesn't do shit except follow the laws of nature. It does it blindly, sometimes elegantly, sometimes cruelly.

[Canuckistanian]

83. That's why men have nipples

Look it up.

[apocalypsehow]

13. I already gave at the airport. Terminal #7. n/t.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

15. Pff

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qse_wf57tZM

[apocalypsehow]

17. Can I get an 'Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna'?

[phasma ex machina]

16. Cosmic order requires the violent suppression of the feminine, and is mirrored in the social order

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/cpt/article_060823wink.shtml">Facing the Myth of Redemptive Violence

... The Bible portrays a good God who creates a good creation. Chaos does not resist order. Good is prior to evil. Neither evil nor violence is part of the creation, but enter later, as a result of the first couple’s sin and the connivance of the serpent (Genesis 3). A basically good reality is thus corrupted by free decisions reached by creatures. In this far more complex and subtle explanation of the origins of things, violence emerges for the first time as a problem requiring solution.

In the Babylonian myth, however, violence is no problem. It is simply a primordial fact. The simplicity of this story commended it widely, and its basic mythic structure spread as far as Syria, Phoenicia, Egypt, Greece, Rome, Germany, Ireland, India, and China. Typically, a male war god residing in the sky fights a decisive battle with a female divine being, usually depicted as a monster or dragon, residing in the sea or abyss (the feminine element). Having vanquished the original enemy by war and murder, the victor fashions a cosmos from the monster’s corpse. Cosmic order requires the violent suppression of the feminine, and is mirrored in the social order by the subjection of women to men and people to ruler. ...

[GreenTea]

20. I don't think I want the Schlafly, Palin, Bachmann, Cheney, part of me to surface.

As a man, I prefer the Jane Fonda, Rachel Maddow, Elizabeth Warren, Barbara Boxer part of me to rise.

[defendandprotect]

67. In other words, your Democratic feminine side?

GOP . . . sexist, racist, homophobic --

[seabeyond]

21. i listened to this author on npr read a 4 minute monologue from her book, with 14 yr old son

in car.

how to be a girl in 2010.

so powerful. put me in tears.

my son thought it was outstanding. and talking he really appreciated that the woman brought in boys too have these character. not just a girl thing and that they dont have to repress it. not good to repress

anyway, with the monologue, just an excellent critique today for what our girls live. but son concluded that it she was speaking for all of his generation. very powerful

[omega minimo]

108. great post. Misguided malecentric misogynists who try to shut down discussion like this

miss the point entirely. So poisoned by Limbaugh's lies, the don't understand that feminism is inclusive of families and males. Your son got it!!

[ddeclue]

22. UNREC for MALE BASHING. nt

[seabeyond]

23. there is nothing in there about male bashing. it is about empowering males

but knee jerk reaction seems to work so well for you

[ddeclue]

25. It inherently does so by implying that men CAN NOT save the world.

Sez WHO?

[defendandprotect]

58. We have proven, however, that men can destroy the world . ..

and in suicidal fashion are taking us all with them --!!

[ddeclue]

88. and men can save the world too - FDR, JFK, Ghandi and MLK come immediately to mind.

:P

[CTyankee]

97. Well, Gandhi wasn't exactly Arnold Schwartzenegger, was he?

And besides, he got assassinated, remember?

[Darth_Kitten]

104. Actually, it's not about males, it's about females, and that's OK?

Honestly, just read it through. :eyes:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

27. It's implied by the misogyny of the article.

The article is promoting the old stereotype about girls being compassionate and sensitive and emotional and vulnerable. Implying that men aren't in the process.

[seabeyond]

31. you are wrong. in your misguided interpretation of what it says, you misread. it is saying the

opposite. it is saying what the world gives as female traits are a human trait. knocked out of guys and scorned in girls.

hence.... you are wrong.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

36. I read it fine. It's just a stupid, shitty article.

It's "saying the opposite" in that it's trying to have it both ways with a kind of pidgin woo woo newspeak: "vulnerabliity is strength, black is white, hot snow falls up," while at the same time still promoting those same dumb sexist stereotypes.

[Darth_Kitten]

106. You wouldn't think so if it was about ANY other marginalized group in society....

but somehow if it's about females, well.....

[Darth_Kitten]

105. Actually, no......

but, what does it matter if you have the mindset to take so much offence to an article that takes on the cruelty of patriarchy? :eyes:

[Lorien]

45. Saying something positive about women does not equal "male bashing"

come on now; seriously; your ego CAN'T be that fragile!

[Book Lover]

53. It can't? (nm)

[defendandprotect]

60. What's the Bible except "female bashing" . . . !!???

[ddeclue]

89. so two wrongs make a right then?

:crazy:

That's called equivocation.

[defendandprotect]

94. This OP tals about the attributes of women - it "bashes" no one . ..

HOWEVER, the Bibble is still out there with all its violent and vile attacks

on women.

And, so too does organized patriarchal religion still stand -- a male-supremicist

system which seems to be invisible to many?

The entire Vatican is based on male-domination -- a city of males!

That's called dictatorship!

[omega minimo]

102. Thank you.

[omega minimo]

101. UNREC for MAL INTENT

AND STUPID SELFISH ARROGANCE on a thread of interest to women, automatically and IGNORANTLY attacked for no reason.

[MellowDem]

24. What a load...

Why are all the "good" qualities described as girl qualities?

[seabeyond]

33. that is what society gives to females and then scorn and deride them. it is a human

quality yet boys are conditioned to believe that isnt in them. it is of course.

[MellowDem]

43. Well let's not define it by what society says then... nt

[seabeyond]

44. hey.... you want to battle societal conditioning, i am right there with you. nt

[Cali_Democrat]

29. Totally lame

Unrec'd :thumbsdown:

[seabeyond]

35. do any of you guys actually READ what it is saying? nt

[Cali_Democrat]

38. It's an article rooted in misandry

It assumes that qualities such as compassion are "girl".

I beg to differ. They can be boy or girl, man or woman.

The article also refers to the "tyranny of masculinity."

Gimme a break.

[seabeyond]

39. well golly gee.... that is exactly what it is saying

that they are human traits, not girl. that it is scorned as girl and knocked out and condemned in boy

[defendandprotect]

63. And what's patriarchy rooted in?

Gimme a break -- !!

[RedCloud]

37. Sperm dictates gender. Female mitochondria denotes ancestry. I call it a draw!

[dbt]

40. (Inhales deeply, savoring the air)

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. The replies in this thread are the Very Essence Of DU.

:loveya:

[Lorien]

47. Most of these posters seem to agree with Rush:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4255206

They would be much more comfortable on that thread.

[Lorien]

46. Wow, this thread really brought out the foaming at the mouth misogynists!

Imagine if they slammed blacks or Asians or Jews this way; they would be banned from DU. Yet anything that criticizes patriarchy brings out the closet conservatives-the kind that DU seems to think are A-OK. We're all Liberals here...until gender or weight comes up.

[Cali_Democrat]

48. I beg to differ....I think this article brought out the foaming at the mouth misandrists. n/t

[omega minimo]

103. This ass backwards attitude is proof that misogyny rules and misandry doesn't exist.

To deny others the right to discuss their own concerns is proof you have NO FUCKING CLUE


:evilfrown:

[Starry Messenger]

49. They're demonstrating their "gentle side"

:crazy:

[Kitty Herder]

51. Any thread about women will do that here.

I don't know why the mods don't take misogyny seriously. I have seen the most appalling, hateful vitriol aimed at women on this site and nobody sees anything wrong with it.

[defendandprotect]

64. Right -- it's amazing that male DU'ers expect to have justice in the world under partriarchy!!

and they live it and breathe it without even thinking about what it is!!

And it's as thought organized male-suprmacist religion was invisible to them!!!

Amazing!!

:eyes:

[Political Heretic]

72. It's always possible that the OP is just lame?

I don't find the message of Eve Ensler to be particularly helpful in the way it is presented.

As I said below, cultural gender stereotypes are a problem, and nothing about talking about the "girl cell" or implying x, y, and z, traits are "girl" traits is particularly helpful to either women or men or anyone trying seriously to break through layer after layer of stereotypical gender generalizations.

[Kitty Herder]

78. Have you questioned why you think it's lame?

Why is anything associated with the female "lame?" Yes, we need to eliminate gender steretypes. We'll not be able to do that until all things seen as female or feminine are valued as highly as those seen as male.

[Political Heretic]

90. Hoh boy. First of all, you don't know anything about me.

Like the fact that I've spent much of my life both personally and academically immersed in feminism and feminist theory.

Second, if you did know me, you'd understand why right now the people around me reading this over my shoulder are giggling so hard - the last thing I think is that anything "female" is "lame."

What I think is lame is cultural association of certain traits with a gender assignment. All we have here is a semantic disagreement. I don't think the way to eliminating cultural gender stereotyping is by first working to see one set of cultural stereotypes "valued" as highly as another set of cultural stereotypes.

To me, its better to say that there's nothing inherently "strong" in male but "weak" in female, and there's nothing inherently "kind" in female but "cold" in male, etc. etc. - nothing that isn't constructed by our culture.

We don't need to find the "girl cell" or the "boy cell." The entire way of talking about these issues taken by the lecturer is unhelpful and convoluted in my opinion. We need to get over categorizing people by an artificial divider like "social gender role."

[seabeyond]

91. i agree with your post. yet.... what you are missing in the post, society is assigning these

traits. they assign the traits to female and then the diss those traits as unworthy. it is in the males too, and then as a society we stiffle, repress or beat out of our boys.

you dont like the wording fine. but it is a way to have a conversation of the conditioning of today, that we can not seem to have on this board.

[anonymous171]

50. The use of the word "girl" is stupid.

The concepts they are talking about are "feminine" and refer to the social construct of femininity.

[seabeyond]

52. from the momologue i heard from author on npr, they are really talking about girls. nt

[Scout]

57. stop saying good things about women and girls, you are bashing the menz! n/t

[defendandprotect]

74. kick --

[phasma ex machina]

76. ROFL

:rofl:

(My girl cell intuition tells me that this very thread may soon get locked under the auspices of Skinner's newest rules of engagement.)

[CTyankee]

98. Funny, I was just posting on that very subject! I was told to Alert.

So I will! Awareness is good! Look for it!

I notice a LOT of deleted messages on this thread, which is a good thing. They are cracking down on the misogynists, even those that are "good Dems" on other issues...good for the mods!

[Kitty Herder]

77. LOL

[niyad]

68. can't rec, will kick--

[Political Heretic]

70. I think this is a ridiculously unhelpful and polarizing way to frame some real truths.

Seems to me like you could make the same points the speaker is trying to make without leaving so many people going:

:wtf:

"The Girl Cell?" O for fuck's sake.

What we need is the deconstruction of gender stereotypes and cultural "norms," not the exchange of patriarchy for matriarchy.

[Marr]

79. I agree with everything you said. n/t

[Beacho]

80. Girls are made of sugar and spice

and everything nice!

woo woo New Age sexist bullshit

:eyes:

[kbuster]

82. Manarchy 4 Lyfe

Phallic preoccupation to save the nation

[phasma ex machina]

85. .

[Beacho]

86. Sexism is sexism

Nice logical phallacy. 'phallacy'! get it! huh? huh? Oh man I crack me up! The fallacy being that there are only two choices in this 'debate'. I choose none of the above and prefer to judge individuals on their actions and character, not what plumbing they have between their legs. It's time for both 'sides' to grow up.


The real irony here is that the image of the feminine/female as nurturing force is actually rooted in Victorian Era gender attitudes. I also notice how you ignore the negative feminine attributes present in every culture throughout history. Go visit a woman's prison sometime and tell me all about the innate nurturing aspect of females.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[redqueen]

93. deleted