The NY Times article on Ivy League female students and the subsequent thread reminded me of this article I read in the magazine Lutheran Woman Today : Fuzzy Sweater Feminist
an excerpt:
quote: How is it that the word feminist came to be so unappealing? I have a theory from my long-ago days as a political consultant. It seems that whoever manages to define a term to his or her advantage and make it stick wins the contest. Men who don’t want women as equals seem to have loud voices. Over the years, they have reshaped the word feminist as a slur, and now many women and most young girls are reluctant to define themselves with that word. Rush-like guys call feminists a bunch of loud–mouthed man–haters and cry out, "Who’d want to be like them?"
Man–haters? Odd, but in all the years I spent at a girls’ high school in the ’70s, a women’s college in the ’80s, and in business in the ’90s, never once did I hear any woman denounce men. Maybe I was out of the room at the time, talking to a boyfriend.
Feminism, for me, has never included the thought that men are an enemy of any kind. Rather than allowing the word to be tarnished by negative stereotypes, why not focus instead on what it really means?
I like the down-to-earth, common sense approach. and the dabs of humor (check out the NFL response : ) I also find the idea of "gently re-claiming" the word feminist appealing.
The topic of social and economic equality for women can not take place in an environment that bandies words about with negative connotations attached . . .
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Unfortunatly, not all feminists are as tolerant as she seems to be.
I have no problem with the word, and I don't automatacally assume a millitant feminist when I hear it, but I have had some up close and personal incounters with the type of woman who gave feminism a bad name in the first place.
Not fun.
Of course, I am sure a lot of women have had experiences with the male gorrilla-type man who does the same for man. Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Interesting that she blames men for reshaping the word, rather than the militant feminists who really did give it a bad name. Or do/did they just not exist?
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Wow. I've often heard women denounce men (in media -- only very very rarely in real life) and I didn't even go to a girl's school. I wonder how she managed to avoid hearing it?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: Interesting that she blames men for reshaping the word, rather than the militant feminists who really did give it a bad name. Or do/did they just not exist?
Do they? I know a lot of women who would consider themselves feminist, but none of them would I consider "militant". Are there any in numbers significant enough to change the definition? I think if the definition has come to really imply "militant" then it largely is due to loud stereotyping by those opposed to the movement. (which isn't all male, btw.)
I think this is a pretty effective tactic, though it is one I abhor. Namely, picking the fringe minority of a movement and talking as if they define the whole. This has worked to largely tarnish the words "Liberal", and "Environmentalist", too. I'm sure there are others.
The value to the opposition in doing this is to make normal people afraid to identify with the good things in the movement for fear of being lumped into the fringe. It's pretty effective actually.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
and it doesn't help that you only hear of the extreme examples of a movement in the media.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: This has worked to largely tarnish the words "Liberal", and "Environmentalist", too. I'm sure there are others. [/QB]
Conservative Christian? Fundamentalist? The problem as I see it is not with a group of opponents co-opting language and tarnishing a noble cause. It's about a media that thrives on those loud fringe movements and uses the moniker to identify the outliers. I figure that eventually everyone will just say they're independant and leave it at that. Sort of like the social heat death of the universe.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
All I know is I hear encriminating things from the mouths of feminazis themselves. No one is telling them to say those things, and I don't think there is a conspiracy behind the fact that they always get press. The sensational is what sells.
They are what we hear. Those things stick out in our memories as we get irritated at what they say. People accuse them of being extreme because they are. And because they are getting so much attention, people wrongly assume that they are authoritative for the "feminist movement".
They give feminism a bad name, and the moderate, balanced, thoughtful feminists suffer because of it. And feminism is far from the only "group" of people this happens to.
That's how it looks to me, anyway.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
My mom was a feminazi for many years. She's lightened up a little, but she's still a man-hater.
I consider myself a feminist. I think that equal pay for equal work should be practiced across the board (it still isn't, btw.) I think that women should not be prohibited to do any job they are qualified to do, or to seek qualification, tacitly or explicitly (yup, that still happens, too.) I think men should treat women as equals in all things (some still don't.)
But it seems to me that the mainstream feminist movement has turned more toward lesbian rights and freeing the opressed women of other countries, which may be worthy goals and all, but when did they give up on the original goals of the movement? And why do they feel the need to condemn women who exercise their right to choose the path they want if that path does not conform to their ideal?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
(BTW, I grew up on Free to be You and Me, among other things, and am now humming "Parents are People". That's the kind of sentiment I like-- mommies and daddies can each be anything they want to be-- except for mommies can't be daddies, and daddies can't be mommies! But if they choose to be just mommies or just daddies, that's good, too!)
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Unfortunatly, not all feminists are as tolerant as she seems to be.
I have no problem with the word, and I don't automatacally assume a millitant feminist when I hear it, but I have had some up close and personal incounters with the type of woman who gave feminism a bad name in the first place.
So have I.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:(BTW, I grew up on Free to be You and Me, among other things, and am now humming "Parents are People". [Big Grin] That's the kind of sentiment I like-- mommies and daddies can each be anything they want to be-- except for mommies can't be daddies, and daddies can't be mommies! But if they choose to be just mommies or just daddies, that's good, too!)
Oh my! This sounds like almost the exact same book that I have in Bernstein Bears format! I think it's called "He Bear, She Bear".
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
We also had Stories for Free Children, which is currently out of print, but you can get it for $2.25 plus shipping. Man, that book had some great stories.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Ketchupqueen, I agree with a lot of your post.
But how can "freeing the oppressed women of other countries" not be a feminist goal?
Unless, of course, you're talking about *American* feminists, who only care about oppressed *American* women.
Sorry to be snarky, but that really got to me. Feminism isn't about borders. And caring about women in other countries doesn't mean departing from the original goals.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:But how can "freeing the oppressed women of other countries" not be a feminist goal?
The problem I have with this is they way people go about it. You can't just go in and change someone's culture. You have to work within it. And to do this, you have to have a profound understanding of that culture.
If you go in and force people to adhere to the beliefs of our culture, is that any better than going in and forcing them to accept our form of government?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:But how can "freeing the oppressed women of other countries" not be a feminist goal?
Unless, of course, you're talking about *American* feminists, who only care about oppressed *American* women.
If they cleaned up their own house first, wouldn't they be in a better position to help others? And of course it's a feminist goal. But when they focus on it to the exclusion of helping abused and oppressed women down the block, doesn't that become a problem? Of course we should try to help women in other cultures who struggle with things like FGM and beatings, who have no legal recourse against an abusive husband, who have no say about whether to marry an abusive man with three other wives or not, or who have no right to vote or get an education. BUT. Should we do it to the exclusion of helping women who are facing similar trials right in our own backyards?
I didn't mean to imply that those weren't worthy goals. But I often see groups focusing on them to the exclusion of women here, because we live in such an "enlightened" country that if they're suffering these things, "it's their own fault." Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
And also, what bev said. Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
We have the DVD of Free to Be.... It's a hoot watching Michael Jackson singing "You Don't Have To Change At All."
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
KQ, I do agree with your conclusion. But I have problems with your assumption that that helping women in other countries is to the exclusion of helping women in my own country.
I certainly haven't had the experience you have where women in first world countries are excluded because "it's their own fault." , and I agree, that's short-sighted, un-compassionate and frankly inexcusable.
I find it staggering you have found this the norm. And fairly depressing.
To be frank, if you were Australian I would accuse you of not knowing what you are talking about. I cannot think of a single feminist group here (extremists included) who would focus of on the rights of women overseas to the exclusion of the rights of women at home. Certainly I have never seen any suggestion of it being a woman's fault if she suffers any harm.
If that is the case in the US, I think it needs changing. Now.
**
Bev - yes and no. It's one of the issues I struggle with, actually. Who am I to make cultural assumptions?
Except, I know, unswervingly, that some of these practices are wrong . FGM is the most predominant of those. I draw strength from two things; one is the number of women who are publicly coming forward from these cultures to condemn the practice. The other is the fact that the cultures which proscribe penalties like stoning to death for a women for pre-maritral sex (even if it was rape) are complete patriarchies. So how do I have a moral imperative to interfere with their culture? Because I believe the right of women to participate in their government and society outweighs cultural relevance.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:Except, I know, unswervingly, that some of these practices are wrong . FGM is the most predominant of those. I draw strength from two things; one is the number of women who are publicly coming forward from these cultures to condemn the practice. The other is the fact that the cultures which proscribe penalties like stoning to death for a women for pre-maritral sex (even if it was rape) are complete patriarchies. So how do I have a moral imperative to interfere with their culture? Because I believe the right of women to participate in their government and society outweighs cultural relevance.
I share your ambivalence on FGM in particular (but on other issues as well). It kills me to think that whole societies of women are being denied sexual pleasure when the men are welcome to it--especially when I believe that men and women's sex drives are very different. (Not a popular idea these days.)
I do believe that men are more likely to lust sexually after women not theirs than women are to lust sexually after men not theirs. In fact, I think that when women "dally", the reasons tend to be other than sexual, whereas men are more likely to dally for sexual reasons. So, to me if you are going to remove sexual pleasure from one of the sexes to cut down on adultery, it should be the men. Not that I think that should happen at all. So the whole reason (that I understand) behind FGM doesn't make sense.
Of course, it is entirely possible that I don't understand the reasons behind it *at all*. And I certainly wouldn't feel prepared to approach liberating these women until I did understand it.
And if the women are against it, I am a lot more likely to want to help them out of their situation. Just as I'd rather go to war to liberate an oppressed people than to force change on a people that didn't want to change in the first place.
Where the ambivalence comes in for me is when the women embrace (what I view as) sexist practices. That's a little more tricky.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:If that is the case in the US, I think it needs changing. Now.
I agree entirely.
quote: It kills me to think that whole societies of women are being denied sexual pleasure when the men are welcome to it--especially when I believe that men and women's sex drives are very different. (Not a popular idea these days.)
I could live with that, I suppose, if that's their belief. It's the fact that women are intentionally injured, almost never with pain relief, sometimes with fatal results, usually at a very young age, and it often has a bearing on their ability to healthily bear children that bothers me.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Warning: The following is a tangent.
quote:The other is the fact that the cultures which proscribe penalties like stoning to death for a women for pre-maritral sex (even if it was rape) are complete patriarchies.
You know, coming from a patriarchal faith myself, I believe that patriarchal order can only work when the men involved truly listen with understanding to the counsel of the women involved. It is so easy when someone is "in power" to not make the effort to understand the other side and dismiss their needs. I believe that the men involved are held heavily responsible by God for not doing so. I believe that they must follow the example of Christ who showed that true leadership and authority is embodied in his washing of his disciples' feet.
It's interesting, I was listening to a recent talk from a leader in my church just the other day (an apostle--meaning what he says is scripture to us). He professed quite strongly that the patriarchal order is eternal and ordained of God. But in the same talk he stressed that men and women are equal partners.
I remember wondering at this a great deal--it seems illogical to the human mind. I figure the only way it is possible is that this eternal, God-ordained "patriarchal order" does not resemble in the least what people tend to think of as "patriarchal order" as being. But Christ's illustration of leadership above must be kept in mind for this to make any sort of sense.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: It's the fact that women are intentionally injured, almost never with pain relief, sometimes with fatal results, usually at a very young age, and it often has a bearing on their ability to healthily bear children that bothers me.
And not only that, but a lot die because of the procedure.
[Edit - and having re-read, KQ's post says that. Yeah, what she says. ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:I could live with that, I suppose, if that's their belief.
Whereas I have a harder time accepting that. But it is still hard for me to feel right about forcing change.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:And not only that, but a lot die because of the procedure.
quote:sometimes with fatal results
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Whereas I have a harder time accepting that. But it is still hard for me to feel right about forcing change.
I see it as a public health issue. Like preventing the spread of AIDS.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Bev, I think you are exactly right when you say
quote: I figure the only way it is possible is that this eternal, God-ordained "patriarchal order" does not resemble in the least what people tend to think of as "patriarchal order" as being.
.
I personally do not believe in a God-ordained "patriarchal order" as you do. I don't agree with it either. However when I talk about a "patriarchal order" I am not referring to a one where the men listen, and are counselled by women, like your faith ordains.
I guess I talk about the sadly more realised example where anyone in power (in that case, men) will only listened to the empowered and will ignore the disempowered (the women).
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I understand, imogen. And I thank you for your respect of my beliefs. I agree that far too many of the examples of "patriarchal order" that we see around us are disgusting. I wrinkle my nose in their general direction!
I am disgusted to learn that they would go about FGM in those ways. The fact that they do it at all already doesn't sit well with me. But if I were an ambassador intent on making changes in their culture, it might go something like this (based on my limited understanding):
First, I would want to be male, since they'd be more likely to actually listen to me and consider my words. Or, that being impossible, I'd try to get male ambassadors for my cause.
Then I would ask them if they would like assistance in their procedure to make it more humane. Basically I would try to find out if it being a painful, risky, horrific procedure was essential to their belief. I would appeal to the problems that effect the males I'm talking to: trouble with childbirth and it's ramifications.
If I could help make the procedure more humane--yay. Small victory for my side.
If it is part of their belief that the procedure must be as it is, I would appeal to their feelings and "claims" that they honor and respect women. I would have to truly understand their mindset on this in order to be skilled, though. I would suggest that perhaps God allowed anesthesia and the like to become available out of mercy for His daughters.
Anyway, that sort of thing. Baby steps.
And for the women who know they can only escape FGM by escaping the grasp of their culture, I would try to help them escape.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I think you would make an amazing ambassador, Bev.
Seriously.
I think you have the right idea. I think I would be counter-productive - too het up on the injustices to see what actually has to *happen* to stop them. As you said, it's baby steps. But many steps can make a whole different culture.
So, how would you feel about a new job, some overseas travel?
[ September 22, 2005, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: imogen ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Thanks, imogen. That would be quite a job.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Your post is completely right. What needs to be done to start stopping this. You have it down pat.
So* - if we're serious, as women (and as privileged, educated women) , how do we start stopping this?
Obviously we can't change into a male diplomat (tempting as it may be ) but there must be something we can do.
Seriously. Grass roots change can mean a world of difference.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: I share your ambivalence on FGM in particular (but on other issues as well).
Bev??? How are you using the word ambivalence here? Imogen doesn't seem ambivalent on FGM at all. Sorry for being nitpicky. It's so incongrous I'm having a hard time putting it aside and going on with the rest of the thread.
AJ
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:So* - if we're serious, as women (and as privileged, educated women) , how do we start stopping this?
Obviously we can't change into a male diplomat (tempting as it may be ) but there must be something we can do.
I think our first step is akin to this:
quote:And for the women who know they can only escape FGM by escaping the grasp of their culture, I would try to help them escape.
Unfortunately, for every two steps we take forward in granting asylum to women seeking to escape FGM and other "gender issues", we seem to take three steps back, at least in this country (and from what I've read, Britain isn't much better; I know nothing much about the situation in Germany or Australia.) We could make it easier for those women who do try to escape their cultures and come here to be granted asylum and helped to learn to support themselves once here.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
AJ: Ambivalence as to what to do about it. Part of me wants to force a stop to it. I am *not* ambivalent about whether I believe it is right or wrong. I think it is an evil, disgusting practice.
In fact, it is my opinion that it is males projecting their weakness onto women as has been done so many times throughout history.
Like how many Christian teachers of the past taught that women were sinful sexual creatures (due to Eve, of course). Just because those men couldn't control their own impulses!
Or how Freud taught that women suffer from penis envy.
I even heard the ridiculous theory that women buy melons that are comparable to the size of their own breasts. Since the size of my breasts do not approach the size of any self-respecting melon, and I have no trouble whatsoever picking the biggest, juiciest one of all, this so called "theory" made me laugh out loud.
Male projection. It can get really, really ridiculous.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:Unfortunately, for every two steps we take forward in granting asylum to women seeking to escape FGM and other "gender issues", we seem to take three steps back, at least in this country (and from what I've read, Britain isn't much better; I know nothing much about the situation in Germany or Australia.)
I don't know anything about this. Could you give more info?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:I even heard the ridiculous theory that women buy melons that are comparable to the size of their own breasts. Since the size of my breasts do not approach the size of any self-respecting melon, and I have no trouble whatsoever picking the biggest, juiciest one of all, this so called "theory" made me laugh out loud.
Yeah, that must be why I like watermelon so much...
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
*light bulb on* Bev, thank you for clarifying. I knew I was missing something!
AJ
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:I don't know anything about this. Could you give more info?
Sorry, missed this earlier.
We have now made it easier for women to seek asylum on the grounds that if they return home, they will be subject to forced marriage and/or FGM. However, we still don't treat detainees waiting for asylum hearings as humanely as we should. US law now requires that people seeking asylum request it IMMEDIATELY upon entering the country. Not everyone has a good enough grasp of the law or the language or is well informed enough to do so; they are now, under law, automatically turned back if they fail to request asylum immediately. Women are, of course, even less likely to have access to the education that would inform them of what they need to do to seek asylum. I thoroughly recommend the book Do They Hear You When You Cry?. (Be warned: there are some graphic depictions of FGM in this book.) I've read articles about similar treatment of detainees and asylum-seekers in Britain.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote: I even heard the ridiculous theory that women buy melons that are comparable to the size of their own breasts. Since the size of my breasts do not approach the size of any self-respecting melon, and I have no trouble whatsoever picking the biggest, juiciest one of all, this so called "theory" made me laugh out loud.
I need to find a grocery store that carries larger bananas.
--Enigmatic
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Heh. Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
KQ, I ought to read that book.
quote:on the grounds that if they return home, they will be subject to forced marriage and/or FGM.
For serious?
Who are the men that force these women to marry them? Or are they already betrothed to someone against their will?
Sounds like a lot of good reform could be done right here in our country. Sounds like we could use more people who speak foreign languages working for us as well.
I would want to make asylum for these women as easy as possible.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
FGM is no more crucial to Islam, at any rate, than celebrating Christmas is to ours. It started out as a thing practiced by the people being converted, and somehow got turned into people thinkint it was a celebration of their new faith. And now some people are horrified at the suggestion of doing away with it. If you grow up in a dysfunctional family, Christmas is the time of year you most desperately pretend you are not dysfunctional until everything melts down all at once.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Sounds like we could use more people who speak foreign languages working for us as well.
Considering how many languages are spoken in Africa alone, yes, we sometimes have interpretation problems.
quote:Who are the men that force these women to marry them? Or are they already betrothed to someone against their will?
Often they are betrothed or sold by their families against their will and sometimes against their interest. Again, I'm not against arranged marriage in every case, but if the woman doesn't want it enough to try to escape it, shouldn't we help her?
Another thing-- did you know that you have to provide documented proof of danger to seek asylum? I mean, I understand that we can't just let anyone claim that they're being persecuted, but I think the "proof" requirements are far too stringent.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote:My mom was a feminazi for many years. She's lightened up a little, but she's still a man-hater.
I don't have anything productive to add, except that I absolutely loathe and despise the word "feminazi." I think it reflects way too much of the Rush-type pundits' stereotypes; I think labeling anyone with this is extraordinarily counterproductive, because it gives opposers of feminism carte blanche to use the term and apply it to any and all women who believe that they should have equal rights of men.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Um. My mother IS a feminazi. Or at least, was when I was younger. There is no other way to describe her accurately. I have never used the word about anyone else. But my mom, it accurately describes.
Just like I'm the Christmas Nazi.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
But, where are you getting your definition from that word? What does that word mean to you when you use it, and what does it mean to people who think that Rush has it right, that all feminists are basically uppity women and apply the word feminazi indiscriminately to anyone who argues for women's rights? In my view, anyone using that word lends credence to ditto-heads who equate feminism with militant man-haters. I react very strongly to that word because to me, it's akin to a racial slur.
YMMV, though.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I think the author of this article misses the big problem with feminism. It's not something added to the definition by opponents of feminism, or a matter of extremists hijacking the definition; it's something inherent in the most basic goals of feminism. The big problem is that to promote social and economic equality for women inherently begs the question of why you aren't promoting social and economic equality for everyone, men and women. You don't have to actually denounce men - you still imply it if you promote women's rights and not men's, even though it may be unknowingly.
There was an excuse when it was blatant that women had fewer rights than men. Today, that excuse no longer holds.
Don't reclaim feminism. Instead move on to a more complete philosophy, promoting the rights of both men and women. Call it humanism if you'd like - and recognize that domestic abuse, birth control, the equality of the sexes, and similar issues are not just concerns for women, but rather should be concerns for everyone.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Y'know, this has all taken an interesting twist. Allow me to divert back to the usage of the word feminism, and the question of what it means:
The opening paragraph in the article:
quote:Fuzzy-Sweater Feminist
by Jennifer Basye Sander
Here’s how this feminist spent her day: taking a sick child to the doctor, vacuuming the living room, running a couple of loads of laundry through the washer and dryer, and baking a loaf of whole wheat bread. (Lest you hate me right off the bat, I will admit to using a bread machine.) In between loads of laundry, I read the obituary of the writer Elizabeth Janeway, who died this year at age 91. The headline in my local paper identified her as "Elizabeth Janeway, feminist author," and the article went on to say that "among feminists, Mrs. Janeway was a less strident, but still powerful voice." Less strident? Where did this notion that feminists are strident come from?
My thoughts:
Our assignment of application and meaning to words affects the state of our culture and society.
Our ability to do the work that needs to be done around gender equality is affected by these assigned and applied meanings.
I think some people - male or female, young or old - can be strident and obnoxious, hell-bent for election on being the loudest voice. This does NOT make all others who say similar things strident, obnoxious, etc.
I think we come to these conclusions about the "other" when we don't listen fully, carefully, thoughtfully. When we listen ONLY from our viewpoint, and not at all from the viewpoint of the other.
Molly Yard died today. She was known as a vigorous advocate of "liberal" causes. Now, don't wrinkle your nose - as you read the article you find out what helped shape her in her formative years, and what works she is known for . . .
I consider myself a feminist, based on what I understand the word to mean.
That said, I am flabbergasted that the author of the statement quoted above has never encountered a "man-hater," or heard a woman denounce men. I most certainly have. In fact, when I was in college and grad school, it was the norm, and when it happened in a class, we male students were most emphatically expected to nod our heads.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote: What does that word mean to you when you use it,
Someone who hates men, and tries to impose their world-view on everyone else.
quote:In my view, anyone using that word lends credence to ditto-heads who equate feminism with militant man-haters.
(She IS a militant man-hater. I use the word seperately from feminist.)
quote: I react very strongly to that word because to me, it's akin to a racial slur.
I'm sorry. If it's that offensive to you, I'll just call her a militant man-hater.
quote:YMMV
(Now I feel stupid, too, 'cause I don't know that one. )
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
"You Moronic Mendacious Vermin"
Very poor taste, actually. *tisk tisk*
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Of course, my prior post has now fallen prey to "bottom of the page syndrome."
*sigh*
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
You know, Icky, I read your post. I'm flabbergasted that you won't buy the possibility that someone really has been able to live in dreamland.
If it makes you feel any better, I experienced conversations with folks who expected me to smile and nod my head while women were told off as baby-makers and good for cooking, cleaning (and sex). Period.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: militant man-haters.
Well, feminazi is just another word for militant man-haters. If a woman is not a miliant man-hater, she probably isn't a feminazi. The people who use it to apply to all feminists are simply wrong. Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote:(She IS a militant man-hater. I use the word seperately from feminist.)
Yes, but the VAST majority of people who use that word mean it as equivalent to feminist, and to militant man-hater. They're all the same to the ditto-heads.
quote:I'm sorry. If it's that offensive to you, I'll just call her a militant man-hater. [Razz]
Actually, I find that to be far more descriptive.
YMMV = Your Mileage May Vary.
Icky, if I wanted to call someone vermin, I would say, "Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!"
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:There was an excuse when it was blatant that women had fewer rights than men. Today, that excuse no longer holds.
Don't reclaim feminism. Instead move on to a more complete philosophy, promoting the rights of both men and women. Call it humanism if you'd like - and recognize that domestic abuse, birth control, the equality of the sexes, and similar issues are not just concerns for women, but rather should be concerns for everyone.
If rights and perceptions truly were equal, I'd agree that there would be no need for feminism.
But it ain't so. Yes things are better than they were, but there are still too many who are stuck in sexist ruts. Feminism hasn't finished it's work until the sexes are treated equally and fairly. And though you may think we are there and no more needs to be done, I disagree with you. Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:If it makes you feel any better, I experienced conversations with folks who expected me to smile and nod my head while women were told off as baby-makers and good for cooking, cleaning (and sex). Period.
I don't think I'm capable of smiling and nodding my head in such discussions. Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:Yes, but the VAST majority of people who use that word mean it as equivalent to feminist, and to militant man-hater. They're all the same to the ditto-heads.
Then they are stupid and not worth my time. That's all there is to it.
There is a world of difference between "feminist" and "feminazi".
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
For the record, the title of this thread keeps making me think of Ed Wood.
"Is that angora?"
--Enigmatic
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: There was an excuse when it was blatant that women had fewer rights than men. Today, that excuse no longer holds.
Don't reclaim feminism. Instead move on to a more complete philosophy, promoting the rights of both men and women. Call it humanism if you'd like - and recognize that domestic abuse, birth control, the equality of the sexes, and similar issues are not just concerns for women, but rather should be concerns for everyone.
I hate this line of thought. It over-simplifies the problems by saying "Well, it happens to men too!". It ignores that a lot of these issues *are* gendered and when they happen to men (male rape in prison for instance) it's an issue of power and dominance, of submission and "feminising" a victim.
I don't see any value in statements like this, they won't help the problem and by refusing to see the gendered reality of the situation they make it even harder to work towards the end goal of equality.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
You know, I know I don't have much of a leg to stand on, but it is frustrating how feminists have "ownership" of issues such as rape, and all conversation about the topic assumes that all victims are females and that all perpetrators are males. Yes, I know, I know, this is because most of the victims are female, and most of the perpetrators are male. But it's frustrating nonetheless because there are exceptions, but the natural assumption is that a man wouldn't know anything about that.
Just saying.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I don't think all victims are women. I agree that the perception you see exists, Icarus, and it is a problem. If it helps, a lot of contemporay feminist thought is focused on how not to be exclusionary about these issues.
But I think rape is a gendered crime, best understood by a power dominance/submssion model.
Unfortunately in our society, dominance is a male societal trait and submission is a female societal trait.* When a man is raped he is being feminised, and forced to relinquish his male power.
___
* Note - I say *societal* trait. This does not mean I think all men and dominant and all women are submissive.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:But I think rape is a gendered crime, . . .
Interesting thought. I'm not certain if I agree with it or not, but it is interesting.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I know there are cases of males raping males, but how about females raping males?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I actually lost my virginity in a manner that might be considered rape. But I won't elaborate.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Actually, I have heard of several cases of this. (EDIT TO ADD: And I'm not referring to the statutory variety.)
-o-
And also, children get raped too, you know.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Well, I consider all sex with children rape no matter who is doing it.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I'm not disagreeing with you, I was just forestalling the use of that angle to dismiss my point. (Not that I have reason to believe that anybody would do that, just covering all my bases. )
EDIT TO ADD: But in that case, it certainly answers your question about whether females ever rape males.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I meant males capable of giving consent.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I saw an episode of SVU about that...
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Again, I have heard of several cases of it happening. Not statistically significant, perhaps, but it does happen.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I would imagine that it is severly under-reported.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote: That said, I am flabbergasted that the author of the statement quoted above has never encountered a "man-hater," or heard a woman denounce men. I most certainly have. In fact, when I was in college and grad school, it was the norm, and when it happened in a class, we male students were most emphatically expected to nod our heads.
This has been my experience as well.
As a general rule I refuse to call myself a feminist. I'm a woman, I agree with the feminist opinions you've mentioned here. If the majority of active feminists I'd met behaved as you do, I would have no problem with labeling myself a feminist.
HOWEVER, the vast majority of women I know who primarily self-define themselves as feminists I find far too extreme to want to ever be connected with them. I'm pro-life, most of the feminists I've met would say that disqualifies me right there. I intend to stay at home with my children when I have them. I shave my legs, which many feminists seem to view as almost as important an issue as domestic abuse. I don't think only of my own pleasure in my relationship. My boyfriend and I compromise, I don't simply expect him to do things my way. All of these are things which I have been chastised for, sometimes by individuals, sometimes by groups. I've seen it occur too often to want to ally myself with a group that is so antithetical to my beliefs.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd:
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: Interesting that she blames men for reshaping the word, rather than the militant feminists who really did give it a bad name. Or do/did they just not exist?
Do they? I know a lot of women who would consider themselves feminist, but none of them would I consider "militant". Are there any in numbers significant enough to change the definition? I think if the definition has come to really imply "militant" then it largely is due to loud stereotyping by those opposed to the movement. (which isn't all male, btw.)
I think this is a pretty effective tactic, though it is one I abhor. Namely, picking the fringe minority of a movement and talking as if they define the whole. This has worked to largely tarnish the words "Liberal", and "Environmentalist", too. I'm sure there are others.
The value to the opposition in doing this is to make normal people afraid to identify with the good things in the movement for fear of being lumped into the fringe. It's pretty effective actually.
Yeah, but militant feminists didn't just upset men. I believe in equal rights etc for women, but don't stick the word feminist on me. I've had too many of them tell me that if I choose to be a stay at home mother when the time comes, I'll be setting the movement back 20 years. Gee, I thought the whole point was that I ought to be allowed to do whatever I want.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
*sigh*
Two strong witnesses to the "feminazi" movement. It's real, it's out there. It is a shame that they give feminism a bad name to the point that so many women hesitate to be associated with that name.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
That's exactly it. I'm a feminist. I believe in women's rights and free choice for everyone, male and female. But. I won't self-identify as "feminist" in public, because people get the wrong idea.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I´m a feminist, and will self-identify as such.
I´m much less strident now than I was as a teenager because my immediate surroundings have given me much less to fight.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:That said, I am flabbergasted that the author of the statement quoted above has never encountered a "man-hater," or heard a woman denounce men. I most certainly have. In fact, when I was in college and grad school, it was the norm, and when it happened in a class, we male students were most emphatically expected to nod our heads.
My first thought on reading that was "Well, they must not have gone to college then."
quote:Yeah, but militant feminists didn't just upset men. I believe in equal rights etc for women, but don't stick the word feminist on me. I've had too many of them tell me that if I choose to be a stay at home mother when the time comes, I'll be setting the movement back 20 years. Gee, I thought the whole point was that I ought to be allowed to do whatever I want.
Yep, I agree. One other reason I don't self-identify as a feminist is that is the strong association between feminists and abortion. As a strident, emphatic believer in the right to life for unborn children, I won't take that label as long as the two are linked.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
"Feminist" isn't the only word to have been appropriated by a group. It got taken by the pro-abortion, anti-man crowd; earlier this century, "liberal," which used to mean something like "preferring limited government," got appropriated by FDR to mean "statist" (!). "Gay" wasn't as big a loss, since we have "happy," "gleeful," and "cheerful" still. I am sure there are others.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I hate this line of thought. It over-simplifies the problems by saying "Well, it happens to men too!". It ignores that a lot of these issues *are* gendered and when they happen to men (male rape in prison for instance) it's an issue of power and dominance, of submission and "feminising" a victim.
Yet it is feminism that oversimplifies - by failing to note the difference between "gendered issues" and "women's issues". Feminism, by definition, casts aside the gendered issues that effect men. For instance, enrollments in college show a strong bias towards women - suggesting a major crisis for young men in the area of education. Or consider the many female-dominated careers (nursing, teaching, stay-at-home parenting, etc.) that remain taboo for males, even as male-dominated careers have become largely open to females. These too are gendered problems, but by advocating women's rights rather than rights in general, feminism implies that they are not important problems - that the important problems are only those hurting women.
quote:If rights and perceptions truly were equal, I'd agree that there would be no need for feminism.
This may be true, but is it men or women who are now at the disadvantage? The answer is no longer obvious - and will change depending on what you consider to be important. Feminism is not about ensuring rights and perceptions are equal - it's about ensuring that rights and perceptions for women are fair. What we need is a philosophy that attempts to ensure that rights and perceptions for everyone are fair.
Feminism is an approach to social change - but why would you want to choose such an approach that only pays attention to half the problem, when you can just as easy take an approach that pays attention to the whole problem? The only way for feminism to survive is to become that complete approach - but if it does, why would we still want to call it feminism?
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
In my late teens and early 20s, I met a large group of strident people. Mostly also in their late teen's/early 20s. This group of people change in specific rallying cries, faces, and names - but tactics don't seem to change.
That said - this is also the group of people that rally the homeless to protest when the city locks the public bathroom doors; mobilize lots of time and energy for cleaning the city before Earth Day celebrations (picking up litter, scrubbing off and painting over gang-signs); keep the public walks and trails in good condition; help out in businesses, schools, daycares, prisons, treatment centers, hospitals, etc., as they work their internships - and the list goes on.
So, yeah, they do some good things - AND they can make it really difficult for us more moderate thinkers (and do-ers, dare I say) to put forth opposing ideas and viewpoints.
How? Anyone who disagreed with anything they said, did, or believed was dead wrong. The best way to prove it was by shouting over and "ganging up" on the disagree-er. If you bucked the status quo more than once, you were henceforth a suspicious entity. Twice, and you were perpetually outcast.
This has the rather deleterious effect of putting quite a period to any conversation - and then paints with a broad brush any others who opinions/beliefs which may move along similar lines.
They all (MEN and WOMEN) seemed to stand upon a very large soapbox that included numerous political and social beliefs along the lines of:
Abortion is a right and a choice. The death penalty for anyone is bad - no matter the crime.
Shaving your legs and armpits is bad - however, so is washing or cutting your hair. Or wearing tidy, clean clothes. Or . . .
Men have been very naughty throughout the ages to women, and women have every right -nay! the obligation! - to be loud and critical now to ensure that it doesn't happen again.
There is no God. Star Trek proves it.
We called 'em "trust-fund" hippies, as they tended to be better off than your average student, didn't need to work to get themselves through college (although they did a lot of college projects which involved experiencing the effects of poverty by being sent out on the streets to beg for a week or two by their professors ), and didn't appear to study a whole lot, but did spend significant amounts of time doing community-based work (as described above), and in engaging in creating shock-based political commentary on whatever the issue of the day happened to be.
My interactions with them were no less loud than with the (here comes another generalization) red-neck, right-wing, fascist-style christian that insisted that women and children were nothing more than chattel. (And no opposing viewpoints were allowed to be heard on that matter, either.)
Loud? Loud because they yelled and were intense, and loud because I am no less so at times - even though trying to argue for a middle ground in both cases.
All right - what's the point? Painting individuals with a broad tarring brush is wrong. Period. End of discussion.
Just kidding (sorta) - carry on the discussion.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
" Or consider the many female-dominated careers (nursing, teaching, stay-at-home parenting, etc.) that remain taboo for males, even as male-dominated careers have become largely open to females. "
Except that nursing care in retirment centers, teaching careers at the pre-K/child care level, and a whole host of other "female-dominated careers" are not SOUGHT by men because the pay is pathetic.
I made (in my early college days) FAR more money doing the following jobs (many of them traditionally male):
*Tear-off/clean-up crew for a roofing company ($7.00/hour versus fast-food work at $5.15/hour) *Restaurant dishwashing/bussing in the college I went to ($6.07/hour compared to TAing in childcare at $5.15/hour) *Working for moving companies ($10.00/hour compared to data entry for gov't at $8.92/hour) *Swing-shift custodial ($9.18/hour compared to private day camp dishwashing at $5.50/hr)
Men don't seem to WANT to work for those wages. Gee - wonder why . . .
Perhaps we'd find more stay-at-home dads if more women had access to living wage jobs?
Just saying, mind . . .
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Then why do women take those jobs? It's not because women don't have access to living wage jobs - you don't spend the time and effort to get a degree in nursing or get your teaching degree because those are the only jobs you could possibly get.
I suspect it is because they want those jobs, although you could ask women at Hatrack who are in female-dominated careers.
The question then is, why do you think men should care more about pay than women? There may be an even more significant piece of discrimination coming from society's expections right there - and it is probably at least as harmful to men as it is to women.
[ September 23, 2005, 10:41 AM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Edit: Nah, this comment didn't need to be in this thread. Carry on.
[ September 23, 2005, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: Bob the Lawyer ]
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:It's not because women don't have access to living wage jobs
There are other, undegreed jobs that women are traditionally dominant in, that women take becuase either they can watch their children while doing them or they allow women to work only while their children are in school.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
But still the question remains, why should we expect only women to want to watch their children or be home when their children are back from school?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
And that's the million dollar question. If more men were around and willing and able to take care of their children, it wouldn't happen. But either men are absent from the households for whatever reason, or they have to work long hours at jobs that don't accomodate caring for their children to survive, or they just won't.
(I heard a couple fighting in the complex next to us the other day: "Why are you punishing me?" "Staying with the kids for a few hours while I run errands is not punishment!" "Yes it is, you're punishing me for something!" It then devolved into swearing at each other, very loudly. )
Edit: I would like to add at this point how much I appreciate my husband, and all you other good husbands and fathers out there who love your wives and kids and don't think spending time with the kids while your wife has a little time to get things done or just be alone is "punishment."
[ September 23, 2005, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: ketchupqueen ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
FGM... is that female circumsicion? Horrible, absolutely horrible. And wasteful. The goal of lovemaking as someone once pointed out was to give pleasure.
At least there are societies in polynesia have veeeeeeery open sexual practices. Where the couple will have xxx about 4-6 times a day everyday until your 40, where you may refuse 1-2 times a day.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Where the couple will have xxx about 4-6 times a day everyday until your 40, where you may refuse 1-2 times a day.
Hmmm, a culture where the husband is perpetually too exhausted to ever even consider cheating on his wife?
quote:The goal of lovemaking as someone once pointed out was to give pleasure.
Apparently it isn't in that culture. Part of why I find the practice so disgusting. What does this sort of thinking do to the male psyche?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:If more men were around and willing and able to take care of their children, it wouldn't happen. But either men are absent from the households for whatever reason, or they have to work long hours at jobs that don't accomodate caring for their children to survive, or they just won't.
And this, getting back to the original point, is a big part of why promoting women's issues but not men's issues is a mistake. Our society discriminates against men, expecting them to choose certain forms of work over family and more family-oriented work in the same way that it simultaneously expects women to do the reverse. It places pressure on anyone who bucks those norms. To try and alleviate that pressure from women without alleviating it for men is not only unfair to one half of the population, but also ineffective, because one attitude reenforces the other. The attitude that men must be breadwinners effectively forces women more into a role of homemaker, even after the social expectation that they do so is lifted.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
That's irrelevant when the man is absent or unwilling. I absolutely agree in the case of men who wish to stay home and women who wish to work, but we also need to provide better and affordable child care for women who don't have that option.
Posted by Allegra (Member # 6773) on :
I think many people have stopped focusing fighting sexism in the US because it is not as obvious here. Women get paid less then men in every profession and most of the higher paying jobs are held by men. It is hard to change this because this is not usually caused by employers conciously trying to hire more men or wanting to pay men more. It is often caused by prejudices that people do not even know that they have. An employer may give more or bigger raises to men or hire more men without realizing that they are doing it.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I deliberately call myself a feminist because I think that's the only way we will get around the stereotypes surrouding feminism. Sure, there are plenty of man-hating women out there. But I think there are many women who simply want as much equality between the sexes as possible. And yes, that does mean equality for men, too. I think that the right of men to care for their children and spend time with their family is as much a part of feminism as the right of women to have careers. Career and family are both important, and ought to be equally available to both sexes.
I do think that things have definitely gotten better here in the United States. I don't run across conscious discrimination. But I also notice that most of the instructors I've had in college have been men. The number of TAs has been about equally men and women. The five women professors/instructors I've had taught lower-level courses. I don't think any of this is deliberate. But it's definitely a significant difference in the numbers of men and women. I wonder what sort of effect this might have on the students.
I also find it interesting that some of my male friends insult each other by implying that the other is feminine in some way. This annoys me, because it sort of implies that women are inferior. I guess it could be that they consider violation of gender roles a bad thing, but that isn't a good attitude to have either, and I've never seen one of my friends (male or female) insult another by calling her too masculine.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Many good points raised here . . .
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
"The attitude that men must be breadwinners effectively forces women more into a role of homemaker, even after the social expectation that they do so is lifted."
I don't think the social expectation HAS lifted, actually - either for men or women. Mostly, it's just expanded for women to do both roles to the same degree they might do one or the other.
IMHO
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Keep in mind that only women CAN have a baby, at least for now. . .
A lot of the people you saw in thiose equal positions leave to have kids, where since the man can't actually do that he continues on and contributes how he can....financially. That is particularly important while the woman is recovering from giving birth, as she is uaually not able to work at that point, and for some time after.
That alone would describe a reason, but erhaps not the only reason, why the ineuality seems to grow greater with distance from being a student.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
But the man could choose to be the one who stays home and takes care of the baby.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Yes, but the VAST majority of people who use that word mean it as equivalent to feminist, and to militant man-hater. They're all the same to the ditto-heads.
So you don't like people making statements about the vast majority of feminists but you feel qualified to make statements about the vast majority of people who use a particular word?
I have heard many people use that word precisely because they want the word feminist to apply to themselves and don't want the militant man-haters being called feminists.
I've also been personally threatened with honor charges (an offense that carries expulsion as the only penalty) for advertising a speech by a pro-life feminist as "A Feminist Perspective on Abortion," a title selected by the person giving the speech. There is a serious problem with the word "feminist" being coopted by a particular view of feminism, and many people react strongly to it.
[ September 25, 2005, 03:45 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Agreed. I am a feminist, because I believe all the opportunities in the world should be available for anyone who wishes to do the work it takes to make those dreams come true, and I believe that people should be treated fairly as they work for them. They should be rewarded for their production, instead of their class or gender or station. For the majority of human history, women haven't had a level playing field. Not only does it need to be possible, it needs to be possible for more than just the extraordinary.
Feminist is my word, as much as anyone else's. I'm not giving it up.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But the man could choose to be the one who stays home and takes care of the baby.
In some states, there are laws that make this technically illegal. Although they are probably not enforceable.
There was a SCOTUS case that struck down a vagrancy law that included "persons able to work but habitually living upon the earnings of their wives or minor children" as criminal vagrants. The law was not struck down because of this phrase, but for vagueness arising out of the entire definition.
Many other statutes, some of which have not been specifically struck down, include this type of restriction.
As I said, I doubt it would stand up to a challenge today, but it makes it clear the extent of the structural discouragement of fathers as primary child caregivers.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Wow, I never knew that.
Papa Moose better watch out. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I never knew that, but this would conflict with Clinton's family leave act, no?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I've also been personally threatened with honor charges (an offense that carries expulsion as the only penalty) for advertising a speech by a pro-life feminist as "A Feminist Perspective on Abortion," a title selected by the person giving the speech.
Of course it should be noted that this threat would have to be 100% empty, because it is not anywhere close to being lying, cheating, or stealing - at least until they get the votes to change the honor code into a hate speech witch hunt. (And Jefferson will be spinning in his grave if that ever happens.)
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Good question, Ic -
Dags?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I never knew that, but this would conflict with Clinton's family leave act, no?
It's very likely these laws couldn't meet a constitutional challenge. I doubt the family medical leave act would be the reason for it though - the leave act is clearly temporary.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Temporary leave, that is - not a temporary act, no?
Nathan and I were visiting a wildlife refuge the other day, and in the gift shop found this particular book ( She's Wearing a Dead Bird on Her Head! ).
I am sure these ladies were considered "strident" during their hey-day - which dove-tailed (no pun intended) with the women's right to vote movement, too.
But for all you equal opportunists , this excellent children's book (the illustrations are great!) lays out not only the condition of some women (I say some, because this book obviously deals with white, upper-class/well-off women versus the poor and working-class women), but also their way of dealing with an ecological concern and being heard and that they both acknowledged and accepted the need for the assistance of the powerbrokers - their husbands and other men.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
: ) I also find the idea of "gently re-claiming" the word feminist appealing. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
Yeah, that must be why I like watermelon so much...
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)