🚀 go-pugleaf

djeopm@telerama.lm.com (Sourcerer) writes:

>I think there is a 'wobbling' going on here, and I am having a bit of 
>trouble knowing what is being addressed.  Are we talking "about 
>systematic rejection of the legitimacy of feminist perspective" and if we 
>are should we be in the context of this thread?  Or are we discussing a 
>-- not to put too tight a definition on it -- "systematic" rejection of 
>the legitimacy of (some? most? all?) women's perspectives -- I point back 
>to the *plural* -- on the 'net?

Well the latter can accomodate the former. "some" women are feminists. But
I think feminist perspectives are more marginalised than the words of
"good well behaved girls" who often could be of either sex and it would
make no difference. But if women are to be accepted then they should be
accepted as women and not as generic human beings. Many men and women 
disagree but I don't see how they can fail to see that "generic human
being" is just a renaming of the old word "man" to mean the same thing.
We may speak politically correctly here but it wont change the mainstream
perspective which is dominated by men (and women) who in ignorance think 
that if women are treated fairly then there could not possibly be a 
problem. Of course there is more than one way to think but only 
marginalised groups feel this acutely.

>I mean, there is nothing unusual, mysterious, or satanic about the 
>"systematic rejection of the legitimacy" of *any* perspective, but the 
>second...*that's* a pathology.


Of course. And that's a problem. It's just plain old ordinary everyday
ignorance. It's not a conspiracy. It's not about demonising men. It's 
about opening minds. It's a difficult thing to accomplish en masse.

>-- 
> (__)    Sourcerer       
>/(<>)\ O|O|O|O||O||O     
> \../  |OO|||O|||O|O  "I rise, a corpse already wept, and live."
>  ||   OO|||OO||O||O                               -- Maximian


The truth is out there.


Engine.