DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
edit misread
International Women's Day
- Thread starter miss direct
- Start date
friendofdorothy
Solidarity against neoliberalism!
thank you - its such a simple word but so hard to achieve.
friendofdorothy
Solidarity against neoliberalism!
can you think of a single film that passes the Bachdel test? apart from Alien ?
Wizard of Oz passes, I think. So does the Sound of Music, by dint of two of the nuns discussing Maria near the start.
Others which might pass: The Colour Purple, Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistlestop Cafe, Beetlejuice...
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
struggling tbh. Would 'Boys on the Side' count.
years since I've seen it but it was a very sister centric film. I watched it off the back of seeing ted danson and whoopi do a film. Oh my that one was poor. The central conciet of the film is that Whoopi is highly afrocentric but her daughter was concieved by sperm from ted danson cos whoopi went donor rather than normal procedures.
Its got some heart to it but it is a terrible, terrible film
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
can we have 'witches of eastwick'
thats a straight up classic
jack tho
thats a straight up classic
jack tho
friendofdorothy
Solidarity against neoliberalism!
Can't think of a scene in Oz that doesn't refer to men? even Dorothy and Glinda's conversation includes the Wizzard?
The Hunger would pass - the scene were Catherine Denerve seduces Susan Saradon, yum.
Maybe Thelma and Louise (but they spend so much time talking about their husbands.)
Its tough this test isn't it.
The Hunger would pass - the scene were Catherine Denerve seduces Susan Saradon, yum.
Maybe Thelma and Louise (but they spend so much time talking about their husbands.)
Its tough this test isn't it.
friendofdorothy
Solidarity against neoliberalism!
Do they ever not refer to men?
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
yes they do, but they are arguing amongst themselves and why.......jack nicholson. so doesn't count
now the question has been posed I'm racking my brains hardcore. Not getting much (Iwatch lots of films too). 'Blue is the Warmest Colour' woulld count I suppose but thats supposed to be a lesbian story, its certainly not mainstream. Fucking good though, not for the titillation (I did like the titilation I won't lie) but the complexity of class and attitude and ways of being. It divided the women more than anything else could have. You'd like it I think. Its french but not weirdly french
friendofdorothy
Solidarity against neoliberalism!
If such short scenes count would Calamity Jane pass? - I'm thinking of the scene where Calam and the femme one sing 'A women's touch'. I saw that at as part of a 'S&M lesbian all nighter' at the scala years ago - so different when hundreds of leather clad women are singing along, brings a whole new meaning to it.
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
A friend posted this painting today. Isn't it brilliant?
equationgirl
Respect my existence or expect my resistance
It's a great painting, who was the painter?
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
I don't know. I shall find out. I love the expression on her face.
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
It's a painting of Helen Of Troy (which makes sense, considering my friend's name), by Frederick Sandys, a pre-Raphaelite painter. They weren't known for progressive attitudes but I interpreted it as a feminist painting 
(to me, her expression shouts out 'no, I'm not OK with this')
(to me, her expression shouts out 'no, I'm not OK with this')
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
Johnny Vodka that book I recommended, which you refuse to read, johnnysplains it all for you. The scales will fall from your eyes, if only you read it and stopped listening to your dad.
Johnny Vodka
The Abominable Scotsman
Make It Happen. Does that mean I'm not allowed to watch India's Daughter? Because it doesn't fit with the theme?
My sister is a single mum. Many of my friends are single mums or have been single mums, so I'm well aware of the issues they face.
Maybe because International Men's Day barely gets any attention in the media? It's probably the time of year when it would most occur to people there might be an IMD, just as if a man saw an article on breast cancer, it might inspire him in some small way to look up testicular cancer.
I am, but not for the reasons you think.
Yes, men have it so easy. That's why in the UK 3 or 4 times the number of men commit suicide as women.
Read this article on how some have actively tried to hide the amount of sexual violence against men in war. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/jul/17/the-rape-of-men Male issues just don't get the same media space as women's issues do.
Mulholland Drive? The Descent? Erin Brokovich? (I don't know if they do, but they sound like good places to start.)
What has my dad got to do with this?
I've read plenty of Laura Barton's articles in The Guardian and she's only interested in one perspective - that that paints the life of men as easy and women as hell. I've no interest in reading a whole book of skewed writing.
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
This is not true at all. She argues that sexism/patriarchy is bad for both men and women.What has my dad got to do with this?
Read the book.
friendofdorothy
Solidarity against neoliberalism!
Sorry I called you a waste of skin Johnny Vodka. That was very unkind of me.
But I'm fed up of men trying to set the agenda on any feminist related threads and being impervious to any female argument. I know men have issues too - but a thread about internation womens day shouldn't be the place to discuss them.
But I'm fed up of men trying to set the agenda on any feminist related threads and being impervious to any female argument. I know men have issues too - but a thread about internation womens day shouldn't be the place to discuss them.
Vintage Paw
dead stare and computer glare
What fuels the problems that men face in the world?
Is it women in power?
Is it matriarchy?
omg, wait, no! It's patriarchy! It's a system that pushes certain gender norms that say men should be X and women should be Y. Overwhelmingly, those rules benefit the people who traditionally hold power: white, rich, straight, able-bodied men.
These lines get blurred quite a bit when you add good old fashioned capitalism into the mix, which is why we might see a black man become quite rich - but he's still more likely to be stopped and searched and face abuse as a result of his skin colour than a white man, and indeed more than a white woman. It's why we might see a rich white woman find it easier to pursue her dreams than a poor white woman, but she's still more likely to be raped than a rich white man or a poor white man or a poor black man, etc., while at the same time she's less likely to be raped than a poor woman, particularly if that woman is not white.
Patriarchy and capitalism are complex interwoven things that act on all of us constantly.
For example, the systems and circumstances that stop women from being able to enjoy the freedom men do when it comes to matters of childcare and parenthood are the same ones that might cause some judges to give mothers preference in custody cases -- women are built up in society to be seen as the 'natural' caregiver, they get less job opportunities, get less money, have less time to spend pursuing anything outside of childrearing, are described by their role as 'mother' before anything else, are treated as baby-making factories, and so on, so when they fight against that automatic role they are given they are also fighting for the benefit of men to be allowed to have that role should they wish, the outcome of breaking down that stereotype of woman as mother will also break down the stereotype of man as distant parent and enable them to be more active in their child's life without fear of being seen as less than a 'real' man.
I say 'some judges' because while this is bandied around loudly by a lot of men's rights types and so on, there's evidence that all is not as it seems. In addition, certainly in the US when state courts are assessing what is in the best needs of the child they often look to who has been the 'primary caregiver' over the child's life so far, and because of the way women are automatically expected to be the primary caregiver it's only logical that they will end up being the ones who get custody. I'm sure there are plenty of men who will chime up and say "but I look after my child" or "I'd love to be the primary caregiver," and I'm sure there are a few who are, but overwhelmingly, just in terms of weight of numbers, time and time again it ends up working out the other way. If women are given custody more often than men, is that because women are more powerful than men? Is it because women have more freedom than men? Is it because women are the ones who make decisions about this? Is it because women are in control? Is it because women get preferential treatment and men are treated like crap? No to all of the above. It's because women are subject to the biases of a system that expects them to take on a particular role - a role that proscribes their success and behaviour and equal opportunity. Men are also subject to the biases of that system. For the most part they benefit from it, but as soon as they don't it's the woman's fault? No. It's the system's fault. Fight it TOGETHER.
I'm sure, Johnny, you'll reply with "But..." Don't waste your breath. I'm not interested in what you have to say. You've shown little to no interest in giving even the smallest of shits about anything anyone has to say about any of this. Ever. You have your worldview, and you're determined that no woman ever is going to be allowed to explain her experience of life without you telling her she's got it all wrong somehow, and that really she should incorporate what you think about it all. Or you'll give us some guff about this woman you know from some place somewhere who totally agrees with you and doesn't have it as bad as all that, so everything else is invalidated.
Don't bother. Just fuck off. You show a glimmer, here and there, that you might be listening, but in the end you just can't help yourself, you just have to wade in with the same old shit. You're told time and time again that what you say is bullshit, that it's not welcome, and I'm yet to see one positive outcome for you on any thread about this sort of thing that you contribute to. Shouldn't that give you a hint that you're on a hiding to nothing?
Do us all a favour. Fuck off. Read these threads if you want. Try to educate yourself, please. But do us all a favour and let us have the space to discuss things without having to fend off your puerile fucking bullshit over and over and over again.
I am a woman, in a thread about International Women's Day, TELLING you to give us the space to talk about issues that affect women without having to navigate your derailing shit yet again. I'm not asking you. I'm telling you. Fuck off.
Is it women in power?
Is it matriarchy?
omg, wait, no! It's patriarchy! It's a system that pushes certain gender norms that say men should be X and women should be Y. Overwhelmingly, those rules benefit the people who traditionally hold power: white, rich, straight, able-bodied men.
These lines get blurred quite a bit when you add good old fashioned capitalism into the mix, which is why we might see a black man become quite rich - but he's still more likely to be stopped and searched and face abuse as a result of his skin colour than a white man, and indeed more than a white woman. It's why we might see a rich white woman find it easier to pursue her dreams than a poor white woman, but she's still more likely to be raped than a rich white man or a poor white man or a poor black man, etc., while at the same time she's less likely to be raped than a poor woman, particularly if that woman is not white.
Patriarchy and capitalism are complex interwoven things that act on all of us constantly.
For example, the systems and circumstances that stop women from being able to enjoy the freedom men do when it comes to matters of childcare and parenthood are the same ones that might cause some judges to give mothers preference in custody cases -- women are built up in society to be seen as the 'natural' caregiver, they get less job opportunities, get less money, have less time to spend pursuing anything outside of childrearing, are described by their role as 'mother' before anything else, are treated as baby-making factories, and so on, so when they fight against that automatic role they are given they are also fighting for the benefit of men to be allowed to have that role should they wish, the outcome of breaking down that stereotype of woman as mother will also break down the stereotype of man as distant parent and enable them to be more active in their child's life without fear of being seen as less than a 'real' man.
I say 'some judges' because while this is bandied around loudly by a lot of men's rights types and so on, there's evidence that all is not as it seems. In addition, certainly in the US when state courts are assessing what is in the best needs of the child they often look to who has been the 'primary caregiver' over the child's life so far, and because of the way women are automatically expected to be the primary caregiver it's only logical that they will end up being the ones who get custody. I'm sure there are plenty of men who will chime up and say "but I look after my child" or "I'd love to be the primary caregiver," and I'm sure there are a few who are, but overwhelmingly, just in terms of weight of numbers, time and time again it ends up working out the other way. If women are given custody more often than men, is that because women are more powerful than men? Is it because women have more freedom than men? Is it because women are the ones who make decisions about this? Is it because women are in control? Is it because women get preferential treatment and men are treated like crap? No to all of the above. It's because women are subject to the biases of a system that expects them to take on a particular role - a role that proscribes their success and behaviour and equal opportunity. Men are also subject to the biases of that system. For the most part they benefit from it, but as soon as they don't it's the woman's fault? No. It's the system's fault. Fight it TOGETHER.
I'm sure, Johnny, you'll reply with "But..." Don't waste your breath. I'm not interested in what you have to say. You've shown little to no interest in giving even the smallest of shits about anything anyone has to say about any of this. Ever. You have your worldview, and you're determined that no woman ever is going to be allowed to explain her experience of life without you telling her she's got it all wrong somehow, and that really she should incorporate what you think about it all. Or you'll give us some guff about this woman you know from some place somewhere who totally agrees with you and doesn't have it as bad as all that, so everything else is invalidated.
Don't bother. Just fuck off. You show a glimmer, here and there, that you might be listening, but in the end you just can't help yourself, you just have to wade in with the same old shit. You're told time and time again that what you say is bullshit, that it's not welcome, and I'm yet to see one positive outcome for you on any thread about this sort of thing that you contribute to. Shouldn't that give you a hint that you're on a hiding to nothing?
Do us all a favour. Fuck off. Read these threads if you want. Try to educate yourself, please. But do us all a favour and let us have the space to discuss things without having to fend off your puerile fucking bullshit over and over and over again.
I am a woman, in a thread about International Women's Day, TELLING you to give us the space to talk about issues that affect women without having to navigate your derailing shit yet again. I'm not asking you. I'm telling you. Fuck off.
Johnny Vodka
The Abominable Scotsman
I'm not trying to set any agenda. I was merely joining the discussion (I think at the point where it turned to what type of women should be allowed to celebrate it). But, yeah, I agree this thread shouldn't be about men's issues... I don't want to get bogged down in any aggro so will stick to just reading this thread, unless anyone directs a question at me.
el-ahrairah
forward communism, forward gerbils!
not this shit again.
you're always complaining that women aren't interested in you but the continual disdain and disrespect you show to the experiences and opinions of women on urban should perhaps indicate something to you.
you're always complaining that women aren't interested in you but the continual disdain and disrespect you show to the experiences and opinions of women on urban should perhaps indicate something to you.
Johnny Vodka
The Abominable Scotsman
Sorry, this is mean and over-stated. We have a thread of all of four pages. It's hardly been derailed. I don't see any off topic posts and I'm not crowding anyone out.
I'm off anyway.
Treacle Toes
Time
You manage to position yourself like this on every (it seems) single thread about women/feminism/female experiences etc.
I will give you that the post I have quoted is more humble than ususal, but it does bother me slightly that you have said you'll only read for now because you don't want any aggro, rather than showing you understand why your BUT BUT BUT WHATABOUTTHEMENZ approach is what often causes aggro, or to use less dramatic/more realistic language, you wind people up and frustrate them.
FTR I am not saying for one second that you can't have an opinion, contribute to threads etc. I certainly don't mind you disagreeing...I just don't feel like you are getting it...I am not sure you understand or appreciate why some of your posts on women's issues/experiences get our backs up and/or reinforce the very things we struggle against. Moreover, as has been articulated to you here, the very things that you as a man struggle with and cause you aggro.
Last edited:
Vintage Paw
dead stare and computer glare
Nancy_Winks
Well-Known Member
Hell of a post. You are fucking awesome
I so want a T shirt with that on it.
friendofdorothy
Solidarity against neoliberalism!
I object (not to you Rutita) - I don't want men constantly disagreeing and interupting womens conversation so it never really gets going. We've hardly discussed the Womens Day protests going on and we didn't get to celebrate womenkind at all.You manage to position yourself like this on every (it seems) single thread about women/feminism/female experiences etc.
I will give you that the post I have quoted is more humble than ususal, but it does bother me slightly that you have said you'll only read for now because you don't want any aggro, rather than showing you understand why your BUT BUT BUT WHATABOUTTHEMENZ approach is what often causes aggro, or to use less dramatic/more realistic language, you wind people up and frustrate them.
FTR I am not saying for one second that you can't have an opinion, contribute to threads etc. I certainly don't mind you disagreeing...I just don't feel like you are getting it...I am not sure you understand or appreciate why some of your posts on women's issues/experiences get our backs up and/or reinforce the very things we struggle against.
Anyone here remember CR - womens conciousness raising groups in the 70s / 80s? Has anyone else here done this? We talked about sex, abuse, history, rape, war, health everything. We talked a lot about language and consensus and respect for each other. We questioned every convenvension, every assumption we had grown up with. We shared books and pamplets and tried to learn and grow. I feel like so little has changed and and somethings have gone backwards - I'm saddened by so many things I see and hear now.
I feel a lot of men would benefit from a similar CR process - after all theres so much been written now and the net allows the kind of info /connection /sharing we could have only dreamed of then. I don't think its up to women to provide CR for men, particularly not in every urban thread.
Similar threads
