July 17, 2012

Generally, conservatives will dig up every insignificant little thing they can to hate on Occupy

with, or for, no matter what we do. If they can't dig something up, they make it up.

These conservatives are always on the wrong side of history.

"Almost always, the creative dedicated minority has made the world better." MLK, Jr.

*Sigh*...it's just the nature of the beast, I suppose...

Those who hate on Occupy are basically the same people that hated on us when we were protesting the War in Vietnam, the same people who were hating on us when we protest the WTO. They are the same people who supported corporate rights and corporations over the establishment of labor unions throughout history. They are the same people who were offended that women, and black people, and LGBTIQ folks, etc. would march in the streets for their civil rights.

Some of those who despise Occupy do not see themselves as these people. That is because the people who fought for their rights in the past, and won, made their rights a part of the status quo and collective consciousness ie, a part of the system. This, despite mass conservative opposition. The people who despise Occupy don't know or understand history, don't really understand that real people made real sacrifices to bring about real change, despite their conservative opposition to real change.

If blacks, women, LGBTIQ, labor, etc, had not marched and struggled back when they did, and not yet achieved the recognition they have today, and they were marching in the streets today to achieve this recognition, the same conservatives that hate on Occupy today would be hating on the blacks, women, LGBTIQ, and labor. Of course,the more extreme among them still do hate on minority groups.

We LGBTIQ persons are still struggling for our recognition and rights, in the face of extreme hostile conservative opposition, opposition that, until very recently, came from conservatives in both the Democratic and republican parties. There are still more than a few conservatives in the Democratic party who hate us and oppose the legal recognition and protection of our Constitutional rights and equality. We have had to struggle mightily, and force the issue in order to make the gains we have made up until this point.

A point where we have finally convinced even some of the conservatives in the Democratic party that we are equal human beings deserving of respect and equality.

These gains would not have come about without our direct action/civil disobedience outside of the electoral system.


All these constructive social changes would never have occurred without the direct action/civil disobedience of courageous people who stood up and said "Enough is enough, we're not going to take it any more". These changes would never have been brought about through the electoral system if people had not spent laborious decades struggling for change from outside the system. Who opposed them at every turn?

Conservatives.

They always support the cops, violations of the Constitution, and the corporate system over the people who are willing to risk their health and freedom engaging in whatever non-violent actions they can think of to help bring about the end of war and social and economic injustice.

They are the conservatives. It doesn't matter what political party they belong to. Reagan Democrats brought us Ronald Reagan. Conservatives. It's always the same people, those people who oppose the leftist radicals who struggle to eventually bring about the significant changes that make a better world.

Those same people that hate on Occupy.

Conservatives.

Same shit; different day.

"I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law."

--Martin Luther King Jr.

"

When great changes occur in history, when great principles are involved, as a rule the majority are wrong."

Eugene V. Debs

"When the power of Love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."

Jimi Hendrix

Conservatives.

Wake up!

July 14, 2012

It's like, when financial industry laws and regs become so complex,

vague, and ineffective that it becomes close to impossible (read too time consuming, expensive, and fruitless for government) to interpret or enforce them, whoever/whatever has the most political influence and money to hire the best lawyers wins.

It's an exclusive private casino owned by the 1%/Banksters.

The whatevers (non-person financial entities) control the house, can legally stack the deck, and pay Security (lawyers, lobbyists, government, courts) to make sure they always win. Morality and ethics do not exist in the casino world of non-persons. It's just business, where business is religion, and money is god.

The whoevers (us) are, like you said Manny, rubes, marks, chumps, suckers, compulsive gamblers, etc.

If we could elect around 200 Elizabeth Warren, 200 Dennis Kucinich, and 200 Bernie Sanders clones, and get 5 truly honest justices on the SCOTUS, we could solve these types of problems through the workings of the system. But this just ain't never gonna happen, no way, no how. Because people will continue to say "believe in the system, because tomorrow, the people we elect are surely going to save us".

Thus, congress will remain firmly in the control of Wall Street Banksters and Global mega-corporations forever, and people will go on believing that a compromised congress will surely fix it tomorrow.

The simplest, probably the only, non-violent solution is for enough of us come to consensus and decide to stop playing the game, and then stop playing the game in real time, until we have the leverage to negotiate with the PTB (sans attorneys).

What part of the fact that "The Game is Rigged" are so many sincere people not understanding? Or is it a collective paralyzing fear of change causing this comfortable mass self-delusion that we can fix these problems from within a rigged system?


Top Justice officials linked to mortgage banks
Eric Cantor Hit By Democrats For Potentially Profiting From U.S. Default
When I was a child
I caught a fleeting glimpse
Out of the corner of my eye
I turned to look but it was gone
I cannot put my finger on it now
The child is grown
The dream is gone
And I have become...

comfortably numb.

July 11, 2012

Under most circumstances, I don't like being told what to do either.

However, I often defer to another person's judgment if I recognize that the person telling me what to do is more experienced and knowledgeable about a subject and/or a situation than I perceive myself to be.

Regarding the "b" word...I have never told anyone, or implied to anyone, that they cannot use it.

Many DU feminists have, in the past, pointed out the reasons why we do not believe that the "b" word should be a completely acceptable, commonplace descriptor used in a progressive forum.

The roots of the slang/slur usage are clearly misogynistic. However, again, I won't "tell" anyone that they cannot use the word.

Rather, I would ask them to weigh the benefits/detriments of using the word, just like I would ask them to weigh the benefits/detriments of using the "n" word if the "n" word had not been, over time, transformed from a commonplace word into a distasteful slur, basically due to the consistent and assertive disapproval of liberal progressives.

Do you have any type of problem with people discouraging the use of the "n" word, so that it would eventually become semi-taboo, a word only used in the derogatory sense by bigots?

I consider myself an extremely democratic, tolerant, and liberal progressive, and will stand up for your right to free speech and to call anyone a sexist slur that condones and promotes the misogynystic, institutionalized concept that essentially means that powerful, assertive women are like nasty, snapping, vicious, mindless female dogs who refuse to do their male masters bidding. (Of course, the "b" word has many other misogynistic connotations also, all of which stem from a misogynistic root...connotations such as a woman who is frequently sexually active with more than one sex partner, or as a male that is "ineffectual, inferior, and weak, like a woman" etc.).

So, maybe you can see from my POV here, why I have major difficulty understanding why some DU women so assiduously wish to continue the widespread use of this nasty misogynistic word. It is, essentially, universally insulting to women; but I do, unfortunately, understand to some extent why many women mistakenly believe that they deserve to be insulted, having been beaten down, in many societies, by so many centuries of religious, social, legal, and brute physical force into a state of what is now voluntary, obsequious deference to males. These unnecessarily servile women are holding the rest of us back, and I can't help but resent them, in much the same way that I resent Log Cabin Republicans, from my perspective as an LGBTIQ woman.

Despite my firm belief in individual and collective liberty, I feel that, for me, much is permissible, but that some of what is permissible is not beneficial. Voluntarily, collectively not engaging in, and/or actively disapproving of, actions that are not beneficial and which can be negative/destructive, are a way to lessen or eliminate destructive phenomena.

That's basically how we finally got rid of the "n" word.

I am a liberal Feminist egalitarian. I desire to institutionalize the full equality and worth of women (and all human beings), both legally, and in the essence of collective human consciousness as well. I believe that the "b"word is detrimental to collective recognition that women are equal to men. Therefore, I naturally try to discourage the use of the word, and attempt to persuade others to stop using the word.

I very sincerely do, in fact, wish to see the "b" word made verba non gratis at DU. And while I recognize that others have the right to speak out against my attempts to discourage use of the "b" word, I, like you, don't like being told what to do, particularly when being told what to do is accompanied by unreasonable arguments.

From my perspective, the phenomenon of so many DU members insisting that using the "b" word is completely appropriate and acceptable is a possible indication that they (consciously and/or unconsciously) believe that women are not worthy of the same level of respect given to other minority groups. I believe that this is because the notion that women are inferior to men has historically been so deeply imprinted within the collective consciousness, that even many women in the present moment cannot discern when they are buying into this notion that they are inferior to men, and by doing so, accept, and help perpetuate, the erroneous perception that we are intrinsically of unequal status.

I will, therefore, adamantly continue to attempt to discourage the use of the "b" word, with the goal that it will, sometime in the near future, be collectively recognized as a word that is just as offensive and inappropriate as the "n" word.
<<<>>>

July 8, 2012

*sigh*...The poop pit grows ever deeper. If you want to feel guilty about something, that's your

choice, but don't blame me/other women for how you feel.

In reality, no one can make you feel guilty unless you allow it. If many men feel some sort of collective negative feeling about women having had an unequal social, political, economic status throughout most of history, maybe there is some underlying reason for feeling that way. Kind of like how many Americans in the present still feel horrible that our country was largely developed on the backs of slaves. Luckily, some wise, decent folks believed that slavery was unjust and monstrous in its inequality. But, unfortunately, we're still, in 2012, working on gaining full equality for the descendants of people that were legally enslaved in America, and equality for other ethnic and gender minorities as well.

The point is, genuine full equality still takes a very, very, long period of time to become a part of a general cultural consciousness, and a practical reality, after equality becomes the law of the land. You can't change the enculturated, institutionalized effects of history upon a population overnight just by passing a law.

"I want to support feminist causes but when I hear about how "MEN ARE THE PROBLEM" and the like, it makes me back off."

Really?

Then, with all due respect, I suppose it's probably best for all feminists, women and men alike, that you back off from supporting feminist causes, until you have at least a minimal degree of genuine recognition/understanding of how and why the majority of women understand themselves to be almost universally in undeserved, unequal, social, political, and economic positions throughout the globe.

Not all men are the problem.

But many men really are a huge part of the problem.

Here's an example of 10 men who are definitely "the problem"...
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Caption: Nine US legislators standing behind George W Bush in 2003 as he signs the partial-birth abortion ban.

Hint: There are no women in the above photo; republican men are arbitrarily making decisions for us. They fully believe it is their divine right to do so. Almost half the voters in the US often vote republican. Most GOP men consider women to be inferior to men, and do not treat women as their equals.

Even many GOP/RW fundy religious (christian, muslim, and other) women consider themselves to be inferior to men as well; it is almost always their patriarchal religious/cultural background and/or family uprbringing that causes this very sad state of crushed self-esteem and ignorance among affected women.

So you see, it's not all men who are the main part of the problem. It is a general widespread history of global patriarchy that created the general cultural mindset of many men, and even some women, that is still the major cause of the conditions that women find themselves in today.

Far too many men really do remain a huge part of the problem. Some of the active causes of the problem range from outright individual misogyny and institutionalized sexism to ignorance or complete denial of the fact that women do not have equal social, political, legal, and economic status basically everywhere on the planet.

Can you empathize/conceptualize for even a brief moment what it is like to be a woman in Saudi Arabia?

Caption: July 4th, 1976: After more than 2,400 years of general global gender inequality, Glinda Goodwich magically ends historical patriarchy, and makes all women totally equal to men instantaneously.

VOILA!

July 1, 2012

+1. IMO, too many people mistake selfishness, and ruthlessness, as signs of good leadership skills.

"Fundamentalism is the triumph of Paul over Christ."--Will Durant

(Caveat: I do not consider myself to be a Christian, but I'm quite sure that I genuinely understand far more about essential Christianity than any RW fundamentalist christian.)

In the history of Christianity, we see instance after instance, ad nauseum, of murderous, evil, authoritarian sociopaths gaining control of people's minds and actions.

It's basic group dynamics.

Authoritarians take power and control over groups by being selfish, aggressive, and ruthless. Too many people are cowed by by bullies. Instead of standing up to them, they submit. Far too many people are insecure and under confident, and frightened by bullies, and are afraid to challenge their authority. That's why Christ has been usurped by Paul, and why most Democrats won't stand with Occupy to remove the 1% from power. (Occupy recognizes that individual authoritarians will eventually assume control of Occupy if not prevented from doing so. Our fail-safe mechanism for preventing this is our non-wavering insistence on collective leadership. And this is also why so many Democrats have a problem with the collective leadership ideal of Occupy. They need an authority figure, a queen or king, to shepherd them, and cannot conceive of living life without an authoritarian leader.)

IMO, it's the same with fundy Christians, when viewed in the context of material reality vs. the reality of the Christ Consciousness. Instead of recognizing their own metaphysical leadership of the collective, of what is often called the "Body of Christ" ("I am the Vine, you are the Branches&quot , the connection with the Christ consciousness (being "Born Again of the Spirit&quot that exists in each member of the Body, they delegate authority over their beliefs to an authoritarian person, most often a male, - ie Paul, an authoritarian Pope, a Pastor, a Bishop, whatever, and give up their faith and belief in the Spirit of Christ and any possibility of genuine real time interaction with a Living Deity to the authority of flawed, often very egotistical, men, and the Bible. They abandon the "Love of Christ" for the authoritarian material precepts and approval of Saul of Tarsus and his modern day representatives, the interpretation of Paul's words respective to their sect, and what has primarily become Paul's doctrine, the book known as the Christian Bible.

Anyway, that's only my very humble and incomplete POV on this, as someone with maybe too much time on their hands and who has always been interested in history, politics, theology, and metaphysics, as vehicles for attempting to gain a better perspective on the conditions that exist today, and those that may exist in the future.



"For this is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another; not as Cain, who was of the evil one and slew his brother. And for what reason did he slay him? Because his deeds were evil, and his brother's were righteous." (1 John 3:11-12).

Historical Quotes Concerning Paul and his doctrines from Historians, Philosophers and Theologians:

<<<>>>

June 25, 2012

I think the real message was, and still is,

make more profit for United Global Enterprises, Inc.

From my POV, it's not Feminism that has lied to women. The big lie is the corporate media manufactured illusion of the "Ideal Feminist Superwoman".

My simple concept of Feminism is that it is a collection of individuals and movements aiming at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women.

But after reading the whole article, I re-evaluated and realized that I am not at all qualified to make judgments here. Now I don't even know if I'm "qualified" to even post on DU anymore.

I'm very much of a different culture than the majority of Americans. I have never lived in a city, and only lived in or near a town for brief periods, and I don't feel intrinsically a part of Euro-Judeo-Christian collective consciousness. Having many material things, being wealthy, has never been a goal, or marker for success in life, for me. So, even though I am relatively well educated, after reading the article, it struck me that my perspective, opinions, and observations are, to an extent, that of a cultural outsider, forcing me to question their validity in terms of the position of women in American society.

Even when I was struggling with everything, I lived on the fringe of a system that I never believed in, and even saw, as a child, as a dangerous illusion, and a trap. I only really participated in it to any significant degree when it literally came for me, and forced me into it, and was my only reasonable option.

Anne-Marie Slaughter sees change coming from deep within a system in which she is clearly fully immersed. I see, and have always seen, the system as a trap, and a sucker's game, a broken system that I can basically only change as an individual by how I conduct my life and to the extent that I can control my circumstances. And I'm all for assisting collectives inside and outside the system, collectives that I feel further social evolution, by deliberately acting to establish a world where the well being of people, and of all beings, and not the profits of a few individuals, are the primary considerations for social and economic activity.

Uh-oh! I need to go...a hornet just got into my little house somehow; I'm going to try to gently convince her to move toward, and then fly out of, an open window. I'll do my best to only frighten her as little as I possibly can, so that she can get back outside, and make her way home again.

June 22, 2012

The "field of Reality" is owned by Monsanto.

It's private property now, the cops won't let us play there anymore, and anyway, it's full of huge mounds of genetically modified bullshit.

The only way to level the playing "field of Reality" is to remove the 1% from power by peaceful direct action, getting enough like minded people together to simply surround those who have attained, through the ego/greed driven manipulation of wealth, the control our media, of our factors and means of production, and our common resources.

We kindly remove them from the field of Reality, then take over control of the commons that they have so tragically wasted and abused in their greed, for the satisfaction of their bloated egos.

Honestly, I believe you must be living in some kind of patriotic fairy tale, if you really believe that you are going to solve the massive problems we face through the current system. It simply does not work anymore, the machine is irrevocably broken.

It can't fix itself. The anti-virus programs have all been disabled, the hard drive is corrupt, and the processor is toast.

Don't get me wrong, I understand that re-electing Obama is literally, pretty much a matter of life or death for democracy in this country. The balance of the Supreme Court has never been more critical, and the importance of Obama winning this election cannot be overstated. If Romney wins, this country is toast. SCOTUS will be fascist for generations. And yes, we absolutely, positively need to prevent as many republicans as we can from holding office. The more Democrats we have in office, (despite the fact that many are compromised by the incessant lobbying/wealth of the 1%), the more time we will have to assemble and plan, and actually take effective action to solve our problems from outside the system.

The game is rigged, it really is, and if you can't see this, then your credibility is shot. It doesn't take a rocket scientist. The intense polarization of wealth has created a system with two classes:

The wealthy owners/rulers, and their subjects. Us.

It's called Feudalism, and it is going to get much, much worse, until we, the people, fix it from outside the system.

Now, you can wave your flag, and yell hooray for our team, and then watch as very little changes, as we lose all possibility of retaining any real democratic liberty forever.

Or, maybe acknowledge that wealthy global business people are constantly working at gaining more wealth and control for themselves, in order to create an oligarchy through continuous monopolization. Are you aware of the intense, extreme monopolization of the global factors and means of production and resources, and the concentration of wealth into the hands of a very few, that has occurred since the advent of WWII?

Do you really believe that this was some scattered and disorganized takeover? Do you really believe that the selection of Bush, and the Citizens United decision, was the result of chance?

In your "field of Reality", wouldn't a wealthy global capitalist attempt to control/own governments so that they can make more profit? Isn't that just simple logic and common sense?

They took over governments, just like they took over their corporate competitor, and they have a monopoly on governments now.

Plutarchy is the end game of global capitalism, it's just "business as usual", and it's totally logical, in the most destructive and inhuman sense.

Right now, we are in a serious check situation, just a few moves from checkmate, without any effective strategy for eventually removing our opponent's king from the board.

Hiding our heads in the sand doesn't work.

..

June 20, 2012

Yeah, they're way off the mark...

Hi! I'm Z, and I'm an "alien" <<< (that's my "real" form)

I hope y'all are having an awesome day, but I need to get right to the point here.

Listen..like, ya know...our guys have never needed to enslave others in order to build enormous phallic symbols and gather shiny stuff as testaments to how wise and marvelous they are in order to impress our females, or engage in lame attempts at achieving immortality , and then go and lie about it and say they did it for the glory of some fictitious, omniscient, egomaniac killer sky daddy.

Do y'all really believe that an omniscient, omnipotent being would think and behave like Hitler or Stalin?

C'mon, now...let's get real. Only a totally devolved thug would want a thug as their deity. Non?

It's disturbing, and quite embarrassing, to see all this crazy shit y'all been doing to each other and your poor world, like...forever?

We don't need ships, monuments, weapons, or any of this other stupid junk you make from what you rip from your mother's belly so that you have something to amuse yourselves with in order to make the time go by faster until you die. You've totally gone off course, and made a real mess here; you are seriously devolving very quickly. It's going to take some serious time and effort to fix this. There's still some time left, but not a whole lot, relatively speaking, of course.

Y'all do realize that if you don't all get together soon, surround the crazies with sheer numbers, and take their toys and their place away, this world, and most of the physical life on it, is toast, right? The crazies have used technology in order to deceive you into believing you have no power to stop them. But you really can.

Believe in yourselves. Do you really want/need a bunch of depraved, ignorant, greedy authoritarian evolutionary throwback morans controlling your lives and poisoning your children?

Place your heart before your head, and kiss yourself hello.



This public service announcement has been brought to you by ⒶliensForPeaceLoveAndKindess.?

ⒶFPLAK?

☮ccupy?

June 8, 2012

Hi, Warren. I know for a fact that you are more perceptive/intelligent than this.

I don't see how it is possible that you realistically believe that our concept of what the patriarchy is, is a conspiracy theory.

pa·tri·arch·y/ˈpātrēˌärkē/
Noun:
A system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.

Below is, to an extent, my simplest basic conceptual understanding of patriarchy and its manifestation. As I am a female, I am naturally affected by this system in a much different way than you are as a male. Therefore, my concept and experience of patriarchy is probably much different from yours. But I think it is disingenuous of you to dismiss my concept of patriarchy as a conspiracy theory.

How can you truthfully deny that the system described in the above definition is not the system that has been the system employed by most civilizations throughout history?

Or can we assume that you are being somewhat deliberately obtuse, and facetious?

I'm not an unreasonable person. I fully recognize that men have to deal with their own institutionalized shit in this world, and that women are not perfect either, and you won't find me denying any of it. I can't fully understand your shit as a male, and you can't fully understand mine as a female, because we were born into much different places and spaces in this world, and have had to navigate different minefields respective to gender.

Being real and honest is, IMO, the best place for both genders to start solving our respective group problems, which are also the root of many of our collective group problems as well.

Recognizing and honoring the condition and perspective of the rational element of the other group, and working together to solve our individual and collective problems, is a positive and constructive first step in resolving misunderstandings and solving problems.

It is critical that we both make every effort to understand the institutional forces that have done so much to shape our respective lives and perspectives as gender groups. But if you cannot recognize the most basic element of the space we are born into in this country, the historical, and present, background and environment of an existing patriarchy, then, how are you going to relate to any woman honestly, and as someone equal to yourself?

I would appreciate an honest answer to the following three questions. I am asking these questions to you, because you are a very vocal and active member of the Men's Group here on DU:

If another man called you a woman, how would you feel/react in your mind?

Do you sincerely desire women to be equal to men in every possible, plausible, applicable way?

If you were to discover that you are actually in a position of male privilege that you previously did not understand and recognize, would you be willing to abdicate this privilege in favor of becoming completely equal in status to women, out of a personal sincere desire for equality?

Thanks. I'm really not being snarky here. I hope this doesn't come off as condescending, or disrespectful.

I just see a great opportunity to get a better perspective on where you are coming from, without condemnation or conflict getting in the way of honest communication.

June 5, 2012

I did that over and over and over. It doesn't fit. It doesn't work.

Almost all the constructs are stereotypical male constructs, you cannot replace man/men with woman/women, in that screed, and make it work in any logical, rational way.

I know sexism, racism, and homophobia/transphobia when I see them, because of long experience.

I understand satire intrinsically. I use it frequently, and am a big fan of Twain, Austen, Shakespeare, Matt Groening, Mel Brooks, etc.

Valerie was no Jane Austen, by any stretch of the imagination. She may have harbored a reactionary defensive self-delusion that this diatribe was purely for literary effect, but any reasonably intelligent and literate high school sophomore could see though this excuse.

SCUM is a childish attempt at satire at best; its value lies not in its worth, or even recognition, as literature or satire, but in its very direct description/explanation of long established patriarchy, and the effects of patriarchy, and as an outrageous avant garde radical feminist proclamation that somewhat validated the long simmering feelings of women who had just lived through the 1950s and/or early 60's, and in reality, were also feelings that had been felt by many women from time immemorial.

Why put cologne on this by trying to excuse the hatred as satire? Most women are either consciously or subconsciously frustrated, outraged, and furious at the unfair and unequal position we've been put in by this patriarchal system. Let's get real. I fracking HATE it. Seriously, I really do. I believe I feel much of what Valerie Solano felt.

But I absolutely do not hate men because of this, and Valerie very obviously did.

Unfortunately, IMO, her blatant condemnations were of all men everywhere, not of the system of patriarchy itself, her transphobic hate comments, her contempt for the burgeoning liberal/progressive movement of the time, and the feelings of intense rage, and hatred she obviously felt (and fully expressed, let's be real here) toward all men, did little more than validate a few women's feelings about men as a whole. unfortunately, at the same time, it alienated many people from the women's equality movement, helping to marginalize and obstruct the progress of the women's equality/rights movement.

Not much different than what the most radical, discriminatory element of the women's rights movement is doing today.

And of course, Valerie's shooting and crippling of an unarmed human being with intent to commit cold blooded murder was pretty much the coup de grace on the credibility of Valerie and the SCUM Manifesto, at least among most people with a reasonably socially acceptable sense of ethics.

This might be described as Feminism's little Charlie Manson moment.

Frankly, there are many things I did not understand about the radical feminist movement prior to yesterday. My last partner, who I lived with for 3 years, maybe the most insightful and brilliant person I have ever met, would not approach the subject of feminism with me, no matter how hard I tried to get her to open up and discuss. She had told me that her mother was a raving radical '60's feminist, and that she (my ex) was not a feminist, and would/could never associate herself with the feminist movement; she always quickly made it clear that the subject was off the table every time I tried to broach it.

I did not ever come close to comprehending how she felt until this morning, after thinking about Valerie and her hate screed, and Sheila Jeffreys, and transphobic radical feminism, all night long. Now I believe I have a fairly good grasp on where she was coming from.

For me, Feminism has always solely been about solidarity with the intention of gaining full equality/rights for my iself, and for every other woman in this country, and on this planet. It has not been my main struggle; my status as an LGBT woman is diminished even more by the prevailing attitudes of both many women and men in this society, and this struggle is coming to a head right now at this time in history and calls for greater attention.

Anyway, IMO, those who have made a quasi religion out of Feminism, who have become stagnated sycophants of discriminatory pseudo-feminism, and who reject the idea that all women are equal in worth and standing, do every other woman in the world a grave disservice. If they wish to remain in a subordinate socio-political-economic position, that's their right, but the rest of us would prefer to move forward as a united front, and gain our equality ASAP.

Expressing bigotry toward other members of the group creates unnecessary obstacles and is an obstacle in itself, and fully detracts from constructive struggle, and can only bring about stagnation, regression, and futility. Bigotry is totally destructive; no positives. There is only loss in becoming our own enemy.

Unwarranted infighting stemming from prejudice, OC nitpicking, and engaging in Oppression Olympics within the group sucks energy from the struggle and moves the group backward, further from the goal. This is self-defeating, and is a useful tactic for those who have become comfortable in, and wish to remain in, the role of eternal subordinate victim.

Every woman who recognizes the reasons for struggle and subsequently desires to participate in the struggle is important, and should be honored, respected, and accepted as an equal member of the group.

Let's all of us, all progressive women and men, become of one mind, and commit to acting to eliminate discrimination, hatred, and bigotry, at every opportunity, in our daily lives.

We are all equal members of one human family....☮.