I’ve been quietly reading your blog for several months. This last exchange was one of the best and most interesting I’ve come across in my limited reading of blogs-all while bracketed with buttocks, breasts, and frolicsome beauties in the throes of orgasm. The best of both worlds.

Your observation of the “foul rhetorical trick to justify political power over others” really cuts to the nub of the matter. I had an experience somewhat similar to this in College when everyone who was White was told, by an individual who invited himself onto the campus, that they were inherently racist because they were White. During the meetings that followed between “white students” and minorities, all overseen by this man, white students were not allowed to speak or deny their racism because the mere fact of doing so affirmed their racism and their role of oppressor. At one of the most astonishing moments during this bonfire of political correctness, a sizable portion of the “white” student body, in a gym, bowed down before this man, literally, and, repeating after him, confessed and affirmed their own racism. I have never seen political power wielded so quickly, so effectively, over so many in so short a time.

I felt it was time to move forward from that point, not at all that women should “sit down and shut up”, but that you (meaning those who make statements like or think like Twisty) are spinning your wheels unnecessarily (”casting your pearls before swine”), and would do better to proceed as if the question of women being human, was now decided.

Wallowing in the muck with the unsophisticated remnants (i.e., men who see women as sub-human), I see as unproductive activity, or at least a waste of energy, that could be more efficiently directed towards what I call the “finer points” (such as working for equal pay…). Wrestling with the human vs. sub-human question, I see as a “grosser point”.

‘Is that genuinely what you read my words as saying?’ Yes, when you defend Twisty’s comment against my “attack”, I see you as agreeing with her, and not me. Twisty’s comment was indeed, in my opinion, putting the equality of women in doubt, and I would argue that to agree with her, you WOULD have to see yourself as “inferior”. SHE said you are sub-human.

And finally, the reason it matters what gender the oppression is coming from, is that Twisty blamed it on patriarchy, thereby condemning a whole gender, not just a political party bent on controlling others and maintaining the status quo. Attacking males only, and not all oppressors is… well… frankly… sexist.

‘I also can’t figure out where I gave the idea that women need to “stewâ€? in (their situation?). If you can show me where I said these things, I’ll be happy to clarify my expression’
I got the ’sit down and shut up’ vibe from this bit: ‘Sometimes I hear women subtly asking or demanding that men GIVE them equality, and I tend to think they’d gain more ground in assuming or realizing (â€?…we hold these truths to be SELF-EVIDENT…â€?) that they have now it.‘

In your next comment you clarified that you meant that by equality you mean intrinsic equality as a human being. But good grief, no one in this forum would dare to doubt that, and I think it’s ridiculous to expect a pat on the back for that assertion. Absolutely no one here is arguing about whether women are actually intrinsically as worthy as men. When we say ‘equality’, we mean the kind of things Kali was mentioned, like equal respect and pay. And if you think we currently have that, you’re very much mistaken. So saying that we should just realise we ‘now have it’ is going to get people’s hackles up.

‘If you want to argue that women are NOT in fact created equal to men, and are somehow “sub-humanâ€?, I’ll be glad to listen to your argument, but I doubt that you’ll be able to convince me.’
Okay, that actually made me laugh out loud. Is that genuinely what you read my words as saying? See above about what it is that we mean by ‘equality’, which is the way women are treated, not whether they are genuinely ‘equal to men’ as you put it. That is simply not in doubt in forums like this, kind though it is of you to defend it. (I hope it is readily apparent that this explanation applies to your reply to Kali too).

‘I’m saying quit seeing yourselves as inferior, and “seize the powerâ€? that now (more than ever before) is “self-evidentlyâ€? yours.’
That’s okay, I don’t see myself as inferior :)

I’m not sure what you mean by ’seizing the power that is self evidently yours’? I genuinely don’t understand that sentence.

And does it matter what gender the oppression is coming from? It’s also not news that women can be intolerant and unfeminist, but that doesn’t somehow invalidate the need for tolerance and feminism. So going ‘hey, but you women do it too!’ often looks like trying to shift the blame back to the wimmin’s court. Not that I think you’re responsible for The Patriarchy or anything like that, just explaining why it’s often an unwise point to bring to a debate.

I also can’t figure out where I gave the idea that women need to “stew” in (their situation?). If you can show me where I said these things, I’ll be happy to clarify my expression, because its certainly NOT what I meant to convey. Though I may make an occasional politically incorrect joke, I am a frequent proponent of women’s liberation, rights, and equality on this very blog site.

And I might add, I also tried to state (”…if any segment of society is oppressed, then NONE of us are truly free.”)that DO I expect “activism” from men as well.

I marvel at the sheer genius and wisdom of our highly articulate founding fathers who didn’t say “We believe men should be treated equally, and wish you would!” They instead stated that “All men (and I happen to believe they meant that to include women, as in “mankind”…) ARE created equal”, as though it were a natural fact. If you want to argue that women are NOT in fact created equal to men, and are somehow “sub-human”, I’ll be glad to listen to your argument, but I doubt that you’ll be able to convince me.

No where did I mean to say that women should as you say “sit down” or “shut up” or “stop making a fuss” nor did I mean to convey that this behavior would be “unseemly”. Quite the contrary I believe it is the duty of all men and women to alter or abolish any system of despotism. So to answer my own question, yes… apparently I AM being misunderstood.

One thing that I DID mean to convey, is that men are not the sole source of oppression, and women are not the sole recipient of oppression.

I’m saying quit seeing yourselves as inferior, and “seize the power” that now (more than ever before) is “self-evidently” yours.

Note to Kali:
As I tried to state above, I didn’t mean to imply that women’s equality had been accomplished through any “achievement” but rather that it should be seen as a natural FACT. That natural law entitles you to equal station. Just as our American forefathers avowed in the Declaration of Independence, this is “unalienable” right. In other words, it is a fundamental right which could not possibly be taken away. The fact that women are created equal to men, cannot be changed or repudiated. When I said that they have it (equality) now, I meant by that that they have it already (…endowed by their Creator…), they had it in the past, they have it in the present, and will have it in the future.

No where did I mean to state that the struggle for equal treatment from each other was over. My argument is against Twisty’s statement saying that women are not fully human.

Bacchus, “S”, and Kali, I think we are all on the same side here… No?

Women have not achieved a self-evident equality, because it’s not something that needs to be achieved. That form of equality comes from being born. We are people, therefor we are created equal. Women have never had to achieve the equality they were created with.

The equality feminism has fought for, and that women still struggle to earn today, is equal value, acceptance, and status in this society. We’d like society to recognize that we are people who were born equal. What all of us intent of a lack of oppression (not just feminists, but egalitarians of all stripes) want is simple: people should be treated as equals in worth and potential. A woman like me should be considered equally capable of being a great leader, a financial whiz, a sexual being, and a complete person as any man. Being female, male, transsexual, from any culture or religion, speaking any language, or having any color should not limit someone’s humanity in the eyes of others, nor should society perpetuate the idea that it does. The equality we are striving for is not GIVEN to an oppressed group, it is ACCEPTED as truth by the society as a whole.

We all still have work to do.

Dr Whiplash, er, are you for real? You say that you like being inflammatory, so perhaps not. But just for the record:

No, of course not all women are enlightened feminists working towards liberation for all. So what? I don’t accept that it’s okay and we deserve to stew in it, because some of our own gender are helping perpetrate inequality. You don’t seem to expect that kind of activism and homogeny from men - why not I wonder?

‘I tend to think they’d gain more ground in assuming or realizing (â€?…we hold these truths to be SELF-EVIDENT…â€?) that they have now it. [...] I’m not saying there are no “finer pointsâ€? to the quest for equality that don’t still need to be hammered out.

If you think all that’s left to discuss about attitudes to and treatment of women in our culture are ‘finer points’, then I’m not really sure what I can say, except that I find that patronising and insulting. We should sit down and shut up and realise that actually the battle’s already won, so stop making a fuss already, it’s unseemly? please. To echo Bacchus, you really aren’t helping.

No. My point is that each of us is in the best position to know our own will and choose our own bliss or poison. A lot of those choices are bad ones, made from bad places, under bad influences. But they are still better than the choices someone else offers to make for us, or the choices somebody else smugly assures us we would make if we could only join them on their plane of enlightenment. And, to paraphrase you, “how did they get up there?”

How is it that the proponent of this argument has managed to escape the chains and brainwashing of patriarchy, enough to know for herself what any of us — myself, her, anybody — do and do not consent to?

How is it that I am unable to consent to… well, apparently anything, by this argument — but this this wonderfully knowing person has managed to escape this brainwashing enough to know what I do and do not want, better than I do myself?

I mean, is she arguing that any sex at all is non-consensual because it’s done in the framework of the patriarchy? And if so… well, what about the pressure on women to *not* be sexual? How is it that participating in sex (either any given sex act, or sex in general) can’t be consensual, but refusing to participate in sex *can* be? How is it that my experience and understanding of sex is the wrong one, completely controlled by the patriarchy… but hers is not?

I think we would all be better off if we understood that power — and therefore, the power to consent — is not an either/or phenomenon. It’s not like any of us are either all-powerful or all all-powerless. Power comes in shades of gray… and so, therefore, does the ability to consent.

Sometimes I tend to think (write) out loud… And for the sake of brevity, I may have made some leaps in logic that left huge chasms… Sometimes I tend to expect others to read my mind.
And as well, not being above (or below…) arguing from either side of the fence on occasion, I may have also been guilty of pouring a bit of gasoline on the fire. (I hate to see the embers of a potentially hot thread die before producing a good flame.)

Something about that original quote hit me as a bit whiny, and I felt like it was an attempt to re-fight a battle that may already be won. Sometimes I hear women subtly asking or demanding that men GIVE them equality, and I tend to think they’d gain more ground in assuming or realizing (”…we hold these truths to be SELF-EVIDENT…”) that they have now it. My Britney-Lindsay-Paris line was meant to show that women have a power now that they didn’t have in the ’50’s… Maybe like the bra-burning of the ’60’s, going without panties flies in the face of the patriarchy. Perhaps their statement is, “I am a woman, don’t you dare try to tell me what I can and can’t do!” My message to women is more along the lines of “Carpe diem!” but defined or rather translated more as “Seize the times!”… What I was trying to say is listen to the feminists who realize the power women have ( and USE it yourself!), not to the whiny ones who are waiting for someone allegedly more powerful to GIVE them the equality that is rightfully theirs. That is de facto admitting to inferiority. Focusing on what a woman “cannot” do (as Twisty did, true or not…), is a step BACKWARDS. Seize the power! If its true (as Twisty said) that a woman’s will is obviated by her status in a patriarchal society, then can we trust ANYTHING that Twisty (as a woman herself) might say? Just sayin’…

I didn’t mean in any way to imply that there weren’t still among us those who work to oppress women (or anyone else they can oppress for that matter…), and I’m not saying there are no “finer points” to the quest for equality that don’t still need to be hammered out. I am of the opinion that if any segment of society is oppressed, then NONE of us are truly free. No matter what their sex or race, the less powerful have little recourse against the more powerful in America under the current atmosphere in this country, even in the court system. Too many politicians and judges can be bought, whether its directly or indirectly.

Its not just men who are to blame by the way. Women like Ann Coulter stay up late at night just thinking up new ways to maintain the oppressive status quo. For instance, she said, “I think [women] should be armed but should not vote…women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it…it’s always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care.”, and, “… Women shouldn’t be in the military. In addition to not being able to carry even a medium-sized backpack, women are too vicious.”, and finally, “…Frankly, I’m not a big fan of the First Amendment.”
That sounds to me like a WOMAN who’d like to enslave us…

Am I still missing something here, or perhaps being somewhat misunderstood…