Disturbing Quotes

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-08-21 07:14pm

The Dark wrote:Isn't Dworkin one of those DACOWITS wackos?

What's DACOWITS, as if I woke up this morning burning to know?

Wait, off the top of my head let me engage the ACRONYM ANALYZER(tm)!

Democrats Against Conservatives Or Whites In The Senate?

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2003-08-22 05:59am

Hey, I have read the WHOLE 700+ pages of Susan Brownmiller. IT not only covers Male on Female rapes, it covers Male on male, and women who use electicity to force an erection, or use "Artificial Penises" to sodomize men....

It's rather well researched and even has side commentary from Anthony Burgess (origin of the scenes in a clockwork orange vs. biography), and Colin Wilson (Detailing verious sexual sadists including two women who were serial rapists.)

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-08-22 10:43am

The Yosemite Bear wrote:Hey, I have read the WHOLE 700+ pages of Susan Brownmiller. IT not only covers Male on Female rapes, it covers Male on male, and women who use electicity to force an erection, or use "Artificial Penises" to sodomize men....

It's rather well researched and even has side commentary from Anthony Burgess (origin of the scenes in a clockwork orange vs. biography), and Colin Wilson (Detailing verious sexual sadists including two women who were serial rapists.)

most of the quotes were taken out of context. Sites that list one liners to proove a point tend to do that.

X · Post by X » 2003-08-22 11:03am

I have the solution to this:

Gor is to Feminazism as matter is to antimatter.

Perfect!

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-08-22 11:13am

(movie clip plays)

Feminist: (points at Andrea Dworkin) This person do not represent me.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2003-08-22 11:45am

Just as PETA does not represent the average vegetarian.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-08-22 11:48am

DPDarkPrimus wrote:Just as PETA does not represent the average vegetarian.

And yet certain people insist on quoting PETA out of context to prove that all vegetarians are stupid

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-08-22 12:22pm

DPDarkPrimus wrote:Isn't it interesting how all the radical feminists are also lesbians?

Those aren't feminists. Feminism litteraly means equality of the sexes. These women are female sexists.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2003-08-23 01:40am

They call themselves feminists, just like many PETA people call themselves vegetarians.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-08-23 01:48am

Feminazis is the right word for these people. I'm all for equal rights, especially since I don't get em, so I know how it much it SUCKS. But these bitches are fucking nuts.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2003-08-23 02:47am

"Men are rapists, batterers, plunderers, killers; these same men are religious prophets, poets, heroes, figures of romance, adventure, accomplishment, figures ennobled by tragedy and defeat. Men have claimed the earth, called it "Her". Men ruin Her. Men have airplanes, guns, bombs, poisonous gases, weapons so perverse and deadly that they defy any authentically human imagination."
Pornography: Men Possessing Women - Andrea Dworkin

Female snipers served with distinction during WWII. When matriarchal societies exist, they are just as barbaric and militaristic as patriarchal ones.

Whoever is in charge does bad crap. Get over it.

EmperorMing · Post by **EmperorMing** » 2003-08-23 07:11am

Man, those are some whacked out beotches...

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-08-23 10:46am

DPDarkPrimus wrote:They call themselves feminists, just like many PETA people call themselves vegetarians.

A KKK member can call themselves a civil rights activist, doesn't make it a correct label. These women don't even understand what feminism means and falsely label themselves. They are radical female sexists plain and simple.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-08-23 10:48am

CaptainChewbacca wrote:
Female snipers served with distinction during WWII. When matriarchal societies exist, they are just as barbaric and militaristic as patriarchal ones.

Whoever is in charge does bad crap. Get over it.

There has never been a real-life matriarchal society. The closest things are Nubia (Kush) and the Minoans (Minoan Empire?) -- and since we can't read the writing of either society, we really have no idea how they functioned, though I grant that the Kandake of Kush gave the Roman Legions a run for their money back in Augustus' day. However, Nubia was, like the Minoans, and like southern India, and like various other regions of Africa and India or like the Iroquois Confederacy, Matrilineal--inheiritance passed through the female line rather than the male.

Men still possessed much of the actual political power. The Minoans were it appears always ruled by Kings--it just appears that, uniquely among bronze-age civilizations, women had veritable equality in their society--while for the Nubians there were a fair number of Kandakes (their term for a Queen), and women--like in Egypt, also one of the more free societies for women in history--held a particular power, though probably less than among the Minoans. We really can't be sure to any great degree, of course.

In other regions where Matrilineal inheiritance was practiced, it has sometimes been argued to actually give women less actual power--they had a fair amount of influence, but they rarely came to direct power (you don't find many Elizabeths or Catherines in Asia, but there are other factors for this as well--polygamy, for example). But that depends if you look to individuals or in general...

Anyway, I would agree with you in principle. Women can and will be just as violent as men--this has been demonstrated every time women have had the opportunity to do so, from the aforementioned Kandake and her compatriot, Cleopatra VII, to Irene Empress of Byzantium (who had her own son blinded to retain power), to the two Catherines of Russia, to the Scandinavian queens, etc--or, lord forbid, the Dowager Empress of China.

However, until very recently, society has been organized in such a way that almost entirely forbids women to have that power. Agrarian society had particular roles for men, and particular roles for women, and these were required to sustain civilization--because agrarian civilization is really civilization on a shoe-string. You see more freedom for women in areas with a larger economic surplus, like the Nile valley (very regular flooding, very high production of crops), or merchantile Empires like the Minoans, or during the Hellenistic Age, with the huge commercial explosion after the specie stockpiles of Persia were melted down into coinage.

Now industrial society has eliminated this organization into particular gender roles, because machinery has eliminated the need for these lower forms of labour, taking over these roles with mechanized equipment, allowing everyone to perform all remaining jobs in society equally with the aid of Industry. This should, once the process of industrialization is completed globally (which may take easily centuries more), bring about a total equality of the genders, something which has not been seen in a long time.

Eleas · Post by **Eleas** » 2003-08-23 01:02pm

kojikun wrote:I like how het sex is antiwoman. Lets all be gay!

Yeah, yeah, laugh it up.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-08-23 01:56pm

kojikun wrote:I like how het sex is antiwoman. Lets all be gay!

What I like is the idea they seem to have that straight men invented sex. We probably invented farting, too, just to amuse ourselves. Oh, yeah, and to oppress women. Please don't shirk your flatulence duties, gentlemen.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-08-23 02:05pm

innerbrat wrote:most of the quotes were taken out of context. Sites that list one liners to proove a point tend to do that.

Most of those quotes seem fairly self-contained, to me. Lines like "All men are good for is fucking and running over with a truck." aren't exactly vague in their meaning.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-08-23 02:24pm

EmperorMing wrote:

Man, those are some whacked out beotches...

The really disturbing thing (I'm sure it's an Appeal to Authority or something, but I'll point it out anyway) is that with the exception of Solanas, these were some fairly influential women. Catherine MacKinnon, an AD at a fairly prominent college; Andrea Dworkin, a widely read "Feminist" author; Jodie Foster, a celebrity (whose media prominence does seem to have declined); Barbara Jordan, a former member of Congress.

These quotes are certainly extreme, but the attitude of "legitimized" discrimination against men seems to have caught on. Of course, since that's been discussed in other threads already, there's no need to rehash it.

I was particularly struck by the idea of "class-hatred against the oppressor", the idea that it's okay to discriminate against someone based on race or sex as long as some members of that person's race, sex or class has oppressed some members of your race, sex or class at some point.

Funny thing is, I thought that a Hasty Generalization was always a logical fallacy, and sexism is always wrong, no matter what you try to use to justify it.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-08-23 02:24pm

Raoul Duke, Jr. wrote:
Most of those quotes seem fairly self-contained, to me. Lines like "All men are good for is fucking and running over with a truck." aren't exactly vague in their meaning.

Do you think I'm serious when I announce my intention to send all men to the gas showers?

I mean, at the very least, the SCUM quote was from the SCUM manifesto, which was a diatribe written by a rather disturbed individual named Valerie Solanas who is NOT representative of even womynism, let alone feminism.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-08-23 02:38pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
Raoul Duke, Jr. wrote:
Most of those quotes seem fairly self-contained, to me. Lines like "All men are good for is fucking and running over with a truck." aren't exactly vague in their meaning.
Do you think I'm serious when I announce my intention to send all men to the gas showers?

I mean, at the very least, the SCUM quote was from the SCUM manifesto, which was a diatribe written by a rather disturbed individual named Valerie Solanas who is NOT representative of even womynism, let alone feminism.

Actually, Solanas' quotes make up a small portion of the entire quoted text. And while Solanas' was a literal psycho (Sure, Warhol's work might not have appealed to everybody, but that's no reason to shoot him, lol) her writing is only remarkable here for the degree to which it took a theme which was growing in commonality even then.

Even with Solanas' quotes removed, the remaining body of quotes is still most unsettling. In fact, with the publications cited, I'm sure there are more quotes to be seen, for those who are interested.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-08-23 03:30pm

Raoul Duke, Jr. wrote:
Actually, Solanas' quotes make up a small portion of the entire quoted text. And while Solanas' was a literal psycho (Sure, Warhol's work might not have appealed to everybody, but that's no reason to shoot him, lol) her writing is only remarkable here for the degree to which it took a theme which was growing in commonality even then.

Even with Solanas' quotes removed, the remaining body of quotes is still most unsettling. In fact, with the publications cited, I'm sure there are more quotes to be seen, for those who are interested.

What I meant by that "gas showers" comment was that it would be easy to out-of-context quote something not meant to be taken seriously, incidently--though of course the citations, where provided, does allow for relevant confirmation in most cases.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-08-23 10:07pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
Raoul Duke, Jr. wrote:
Actually, Solanas' quotes make up a small portion of the entire quoted text. And while Solanas' was a literal psycho (Sure, Warhol's work might not have appealed to everybody, but that's no reason to shoot him, lol) her writing is only remarkable here for the degree to which it took a theme which was growing in commonality even then.

Even with Solanas' quotes removed, the remaining body of quotes is still most unsettling. In fact, with the publications cited, I'm sure there are more quotes to be seen, for those who are interested.
What I meant by that "gas showers" comment was that it would be easy to out-of-context quote something not meant to be taken seriously, incidently--though of course the citations, where provided, does allow for relevant confirmation in most cases.

Precisely. I don't think someone would quote out of context (certainly not deliberately) and then provide the source of the context which could discredit the quote.

Still, using your example of the "gas showers" comment, it's pretty hard to believe that even a joke of that nature would be tolerated, were the object of the joke anyone other than men as a group.

darthdavid · Post by **darthdavid** » 2003-08-23 10:51pm

Feminazism

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-08-24 05:34am

darthdavid wrote:Feminazism

Was that even needed to be posted? It was just some rant; if that person's opinion is valuable, invite them to join the board. Absolute gender equality (perhaps parity might be a better term), incidently, is inevitable. It is just going to take a while on a species-wide level to achieve. But its very inevitability makes efforts like the ones of these various lunatics Raoul is complaining about worthless. And besides; the most radical of them are precisely that--lunatics not even trying to force equality before society is ready for it (and we even have legal equality, at that, in western countries, if society has not whiplashed up to it in terms of culture), but the more dangerous sort who want to react, to overturn the entire system--a reversal, a reaction towards the opposition and the submission of men towards women. But this is obviously not going to happen either, and thus the entire movement may be ignored in the grand scheme of things.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2003-08-24 07:24am

For the Brownmiller quote like some of Raine Isler's quotes from Calice and The Blade. Both in the context of the larger work provide more of an inclusive and equlity type statement. The quote is from the Introduction, stating retoric before presenting facts.

let's face it from "Under my thumb", "Stupid Girl", and "Midnight Rambler" you could conclude that the Rolling Stones are violent GF beaters who espouse rape and murder. (Oh wait in the evidence of the 20 plus rapes at Altamont Brownmiller did suggest that people took the lyrics as an excuse to do the wrong thing.), Nothing new, Ten years later Xerenia's punk band "X" stopped playing thier underground hit "Johnny Hit & Run Pauline" (a song that admonishes rape, because too many men were interpreting it as a "Pro-Rape" song...),

Let's face it, no matter how vile the act I can probably find a song about it....