posted December 31, 2008 09:52 AM              

quote:

---

The answer to the above question begins with a consideration of a rather slippery term: gender.

The immediate difficulty lies in the assumption that an essential defining female feature exists, and that its violation is a betrayal of that identity. Yet as gender becomes fractured and subdivided along lines of race, class and ethnicity, it seems increasingly obvious that no such thing exists and, subsequently, that no single feminism does either. Nevertheless, the historical experience of the equality quest has identified several issues and interests specific to femininity. These include contraceptive use, abortion, divorce and the decriminalization of prostitution. Yet all of these have been opposed by both conservative women and feminists. This has created points of divergence from the mainstream perspective.

But how and when did this turnaround occur, such that the greatest critics of feminism are found amidst its own supposed advocates? In her article "Losing the Gender War," Annalee Newitz describes the latest authors of feminist backlash: women. The mid-90s resurgence of gender essentialism-following John Gray's popular Men are From Mars, Women are From Venus-was adopted and elaborated by feminist theorists. A regression to traditional gender roles seemed a fitting response to frustration with the liberal feminist program.

{{ Awww,..dont say that...the liberal , anti-family lesbo b1tches are the ones responsible ?? not the idiotic men and women who believed them ? }}

Today, proponents of conservative feminism appear indifferent to "class, race, and sexual orientation," with notable supporters including Martha Stewart, Oprah Winfrey and Ellen DeGeneres. Decades of struggle are undone by the reinstatement of traditional gender roles and feminine passivity. Tireless efforts to politicize the personal are inverted as the separation between the public and private realms is redrawn. Worse than demobilization, the movement appears to have reached a point of reversal as a new wave of activists have stepped in to redirect the feminist creed. Perhaps feminism has finally proved herself a legitimate revolutionary cause in being consumed by her own progeny. While the maternal metaphor would be a pointed one, it seems more likely that the feminist movement is on the cusp of explosion rather than collapse.

Consider a few case studies and alleged traitors to the female cause. First, lawyer and columnist Ann Coulter is among the more aggressive faces of feminine conservatism. In her foreword to Phyllis Schafly's Feminist Fantasies Coulter, who is described by one source as the "unwoman prime of this generation," is critical of brooding liberal feminist has-beens who unnecessarily victimize femininity.

But what makes Coulter's case even more paradoxical is her tenuous relation to past feminist activism. The female conservative risks generating an anachronism with antecedent status-quo shattering activism, and a dependency on the benefit of that very form of activity. Coulter and others stand awkwardly at odds with their necessarily revolutionary past while largely denying its contemporary application.

Aside from her seemingly professional likeness to mainstream feminism, Coulter could benefit from the protection of a more gender-savvy politic. The Ann Coulter Talking Action Figure and its accompanying blurb heralding her as a defiant blond beauty confirms the suspicion that critical reception is often based on femininity, even where politics are not. One critic writes, "Ann Coulter wears skirts so short you can see her brains. Or you could if she had any." Whether Coulter intended to employ her platinum hair and short skirt to her advantage, it is inevitably used to define her disadvantageously in a male-dominated arena. Is Coulter's conservative femininity antithetical? Consider another case.

In contrast to Coulter, Laura Doylethe, self-proclaimed feminist author of The Surrendered Wife, illustrates the domestic ideals of conservative feminism. The author's personal frustration with liberal feminism led her to compose what Newitz labels "a feminist program for women who want to become traditional submissive housewives." Claiming that her model is proto-feminist in its desire to keep women divorce-free and consequently pain-free, Doyle advocates the surrender of wifely authority for the profit of family life. Yet there is near consensus on the translation of domestic structures into the public realm. In effect, both Doyle and Coulter are ready to deny either the specificity of female politics or privileges won in the battle for equality.

We are led to wonder, as Newitz did, "why have so many women been seduced by old-fashioned femininity at the turn of the millennium, and why are they calling themselves feminists?" The answer might be couched in the very feminist ideology that so reviles these new practitioners: the new conservative line enthusiastically takes up the task of self-definition so fundamental to women's liberation.

Doyle asserts, "we're making a choice to do this." Even if irreconcilable and offensive to its liberal counterpart, conservative feminism extends the opportunity for freedom from role prescription by a hegemonic structure, be it patriarchal or feminist. Its very existence is, in ways, an essential proof of feminist success in spawning from a single root with a multiplicity of branches which speaks to particular feminine experiences. Mark Glesne, in an article taken from the Intellectualconservative.com, cites Coulter as an "icon of feminism" for delivering women from "hypocrisy within the feminist movement." While this may be the minority view, we need not agree with women like Coulter or Doyle to consider them sufficiently female.

Feminism and femininity in general have avidly sought the deregulation of the female mind and body. These conservative women participate in a core principle of women's liberation: freedom of choice. And if you still can't find Coulter's inner woman, find your inner Voltaire. Disagree with the program, but defend (understand) its right to exist

---

posted December 31, 2008 10:04 AM              

quote:

---

Ann Coulter is the perfect example of both the epitome of feminism and the hypocrisy within the modern feminist movement. I know there are other examples like her, but I’ve chosen her for a bit of irony – considering she is so loathed by modern-day feminists.

If you don’t know who Ann Coulter is, you are truly missing out. Here’s a synopsis: Coulter graduated with honors from Cornell University and received her J.D. from University of Michigan Law School, where she was an editor of The Michigan Law Review.
Coulter clerked for the Honorable Pasco Bowman II of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and was an attorney in the Department of Justice Honors Program for outstanding law school graduates.

Coulter practiced law for a private firm in New York City and worked for the Senate Judiciary Committee. From there, she became a litigator with the Center For Individual Rights in Washington, DC, a public interest law firm dedicated to the defense of individual rights with particular emphasis on freedom of speech, civil rights, and the free exercise of religion.

Coulter is the legal correspondent for Human Events and writes a popular syndicated column for Universal Press Syndicate. She is a frequent guest on many TV shows, including Hannity and Colmes, The O'Reilly Factor, (the late) Politically Incorrect, Larry King Live, American Morning With Paula Zahn, Crossfire, ABC’s “This Week,” Good Morning America, the Leeza Show, and has been profiled in TV Guide, the Washington Post, New York Magazine, Capital Style, National Journal, and Harper’s Bazaar. She was named one of the top 100 Public Intellectuals by federal judge Richard Posner in 2001 and dubbed "One of the 20 Most Fascinating Women in Politics" by George magazine.
Coulter is also the author of the New York Times best sellers, High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton, Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right and Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism.
You may be wondering how this woman can be both an example of the epitome of feminism and the hypocrisy within the modern feminist movement. To you I submit the following.

Feminism is defined as the belief in the social, political and economic equality of the sexes. Right? Right. A feminist is defined as a person whose beliefs and behavior are based on feminism. Right? Right. Ann Coulter believes in these values, therefore she is a feminist by definition. But feminism has moved far from its definition.

If modern-day feminists were consistent in their principles, they would acknowledge what Coulter has done for women. Coulter has risen to the top of her career - - excuse me - - careers, and made great strides in the advancement of women in the social, political and economic realms. A lawyer, a syndicated columnist, an empowered career woman, a media star, a coveted political pundit and best selling author of not one -- or even two -- but three books. Her plethora of accomplishments speak for themselves. Ann Coulter is the epitome of true feminism – I applaud her.

But ironically, guess who isn’t clapping with me. You guessed it, modern “feminists.” Why is this?

I offer you that modern “feminists” are not interested in the equal advancement of women. They are only interested in the rapid advancement of hard left, liberal women. A vast majority of modern feminists are left wing demagogues.

My senior year of college wasn’t long ago and I remember sitting in “Cultural and Social Change,” my Sociology 426 class and the last of my minor in the subject. My professor and I were debating, as usual, and she was trying to tell me that I was indeed a feminist myself with the views that I hold (i.e. the equality of women, etc.). To an extent she was right. Purely speaking, I hold traditional feminist values. However, what I had to explain to her was how the modern feminist movement has mutated into an entirely different being – an entirely different monster if you will. The modern feminist movement has no room for conservatives like myself, even with my pure feminist values.

Getting back to my main point. This mutation is so perfectly illustrated through Ann Coulter. With all that Coulter has succeeded in her life thus far, she should be a champion in the eyes of the feminist movement. But alas, she is not. She is loathed and considered the opposition to what feminism “stands for.” Can you imagine NOW (the National Organization for Women) hiring Ann Coulter to be a voice for women nationwide? Not going to happen. Why not? Simple: organizations such as NOW have been overrun with a liberal agenda. Don’t believe me? Am I just a paranoid conservative? For the answer one needn’t look further than the front page of the organization’s web site. Front page article titles include "Radical Anti-Abortion Doctor Takes Predictable Stand on RU-486" and "NOW Blasts Introduction of Federal Anti-Marriage Amendment." NOW has assumed for all you women out there that abortion is okay and so is gay marriage (even though national statistics contradict this assumption). One can easily see the liberal, anti-conservative agenda of organizations such as now, typical of the modern feminist movement.

The sad fact is this: without pro-abortion, pro-taxation, anti-capitalistic, anti-gun, pro-homosexual marriage, anti-war and other liberal sentiments, no matter her accomplishments, Ann Coulter will always be considered a traitor in the minds of modern “feminists.” This is precisely why Coulter is in fact a feminist icon. True to herself, her beliefs and her values, Coulter is everything feminism should be, but is no longer.

---

posted December 31, 2008 10:14 AM              

So because Sarah Palin never mind her amazing acheivements in addtion to her beautiful family " chooses " to be pro - life she is to be attacked and mocked by the Liberal feminist ass- licking media even well after the elections are over .

Because , as per Liberal , fem-lesbos ,
A woman who is happy just being a stay at home mom , or a Career woman *** Housewife , if she has an inch of feminity is a brainwashed imbecile - because you cannot be happy unless you follow the Liberal feminist hate ideology that makes all humans apart from you 2 dimesional cartoons to be used for your " Fullfillment " and you look something like this

instead of an empowered , sexually liberated , no make up , no feminine clothes ,thing like this ...

posted December 31, 2008 10:14 AM              

quote:

---

"As long as some men use physical force to subjugate females, all men need not. The knowledge that some men do suffices to threaten all women. He can beat or kill the woman he claims to love; he can rape women...he can sexually molest his daughters... THE VAST MAJORITY OF MEN IN THE WORLD DO ONE OR MORE OF THE ABOVE."
Marilyn French (her emphasis)

'My feelings about men are the result of my experience. I have little sympathy for them. Like a Jew just released from Dachau, I watch the handsome young Nazi soldier fall writhing to the ground with a bullet in his stomach and I look briefly and walk on. I don't even need to shrug. I simply don't care. What he was, as a person, I mean, what his shames and yearnings were, simply don't matter."
Marilyn French; The Woman's Room.

"All patriarchists exalt the home and family as sacred, demanding it remain inviolate from prying eyes. Men want privacy for their violations of women... All women learn in childhood that women as a sex are men's prey."
Marilyn French

"All men are rapists and that's all they are."
Marilyn French, Author; (later, advisor to Al Gore's Presidential Campaign.)

"We live, I am trying to say, in an epidemic of male violence against women."
Katha Pollitt.

"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman."
Catherine MacKinnon

"I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He's just incapable of it."
Former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan.

"The traditional flowers of courtship are the traditional flowers of the grave, delivered to the victim before the kill. The cadaver is dressed up and made up and laid down and ritually violated and consecrated to an eternity of being used."
Andrea Dworkin

"The media treat male assaults on women like rape, beating, and murder of wives and female lovers, or male incest with children, as individual aberrations...obscuring the fact that all male violence toward women is part of a concerted campaign."
Marilyn French

"Probably the only place where a man can feel really secure is in a maximum security prison, except for the imminent threat of release."
Germaine Greer.

"Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience."
Catherine Comin, Vassar College. Assistant Dean of Students.

"Men renounce whatever they have in common with women so as to experience no commonality with women; and what is left...is one piece of flesh a few inches long, the penis. The penis is the man; the man is human; the penis signifies humanity."
Andrea Dworkin

"You grow up with your father holding you down and covering your mouth so another man can make a horrible searing pain between your legs."
Catherine MacKinnon (Prominent legal feminist scholar; University of Michigan, & Yale.)

"Man-hating is everywhere, but everywhere it is twisted and transformed, disguised, tranquilized, and qualified. It coexists, never peacefully, with the love, desire, respect, and need women also feel for men. Always man-hating is shadowed by its milder, more diplomatic and doubtful twin, ambivalence."
Judith Levine

"Men's sexuality is mean and violent, and men so powerful that they can 'reach WITHIN women to **** /construct us from the inside out.' Satan-like, men possess women, making their wicked fantasies and desires women's own. A woman who has sex with a man, therefore, does so against her will, 'even if she does not feel forced.'
Judith Levine, (explicating comment profiling prevailing misandry.)

'To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he's a machine, a walking dildo."
Scum Manifesto. (Valerie Solanas)

((Delaney Nickerson, of the American Coalition for ABUSE AWARENESS, refers to the False Memory Syndrome Foundation as "The ******* Molesters Society". (Miami Herald, April 3, 1995) The ACAA is a lobbying group, which includes Ellen Bass (co-author of THE COURAGE TO HEAL), and Rene Frederickson, leading feminist psychotherapist and strong proponent of repressed memory theory.))

((At the STONE ANGELS satanic ritual abuse conference in Thunder Bay in February, 1995, the following was contained in the handouts at a conference supported financially by the Ontario Government: FMS stands for: FULL OF MOSTLY **** ; FOR MORE SADISM; FELONS, MURDERERS, SCUMBALLS; FREQUENT MOLESTERS SOCIETY.))

"The male is a domestic animal which, if treated with firmness...can be trained to do most things."
Jilly Cooper, SCUM (Society For Cutting Up Men.)

"Women have their faults / men have only two: / everything they say / everything they do."
Popular Feminist Graffiti

---

posted January 04, 2009 05:17 AM            

Where do you get your information from?

posted January 05, 2009 04:15 PM              

little did she know they did not expect activism from her after feeding her lies about the western culture.

someone taught her this to keep her down.

posted January 06, 2009 02:13 PM            

Back the truck up!

posted January 06, 2009 10:54 PM            

Frankly, I thought that argument was a load of crap then and I still think it is a load of crap now. There are problems in all countries. America is not perfect. Neither is India or any other country. Now, if you disagree with what VDI's posts are saying, I don't really care. Please post your rebuttals and your links and facts and opinions and whatever else. But is it really necessary to try and stifle discussion from a member because they're from a foreign country? I live in Japan now. Can I no longer comment on the US because I don't live there?

The whole reasoning is absurd and too emotional. We live in a much smaller world as far as information is concerned. That is, the problems faced by many nations are common knowledge even if distortions on both sides muddle them up at times. Instead of taking a defensive approach, if you really believe someone is ignorant about the US because of their different cultural and national upbringing (and this was also brought up in other threads VDI posted and so I'm not "picking on" any particular member here), then wouldn't it at least be more productive to address the inaccuracies with facts rather than saying the likes of "well you can't talk, you're not American" or "obviously your screwed up cultural upbringing makes you think this way" or "neener neener your country is just as bad or worse"?

It's such a waste of time. I think there are negative aspects of both liberalism and conservatism, particularly in their extremes. I don't hate America and I don't hate women. Do I think there are very real problems in our country that are worthy of discussion? Absolutely. But I don't think only Americans should be allowed to discuss them or that those from other countries should be shunned for their opinions about us. And before someone tries to turn this into a GU liberals vs conservatives showdown, let me make it clear that it happens from BOTH sides at times.

Anyway, I think this thread (and the others VDI has recently posted) is a perfect example of why some on the left and right cannot possibly get along. The right can be very critical, arguably even unfairly so and insulting in general, of the left regarding issues they see as essentially moral problems, while the left refuses to address anything said and instead focuses their attacks on the individual making the posts or bases their entire argument on their feelings about what was said and usually tries to shut up any discussion they don't like. And the whole thing snowballs with nastiness on both sides.

posted January 07, 2009 12:44 AM            

quote:

---

The whole reasoning is absurd and too emotional.

---

Sounds just like another patriotic Lion that you always like to defend...one that's used similar arguments against foreigners.

quote:

---

The right can be very critical, arguably even unfairly so and insulting in general, of the left regarding issues they see as essentially moral problems, while the left refuses to address anything said and instead focuses their attacks on the individual making the posts or bases their entire argument on their feelings about what was said and usually tries to shut up any discussion they don't like.

---

I think you've got this reversed Eleanore. There have been a number of people from Left being quite critical while those on the Right get aggressive, hem, haw, change the subject, etc. If you need me to find threads where the Left is clearly staying on topic and relevant to the conversation, I can.

I'll give you that there have been numerous emotional outbursts on both sides, which aren't always the most rational.

In VDI's more-posted-in thread, I am one of the voices of the Left, and I am patiently attempting to get VDI to start naming some sources for her statistics. There isn't a disrespectful tone in my posts either as I've generally enjoyed VDI's presense up until this issue. I just don't see how she's logically linking these things together, because there isn't necessarily logic to it. If there is, then there should be some explanation forthcoming.

quote:

---

I've been around here long enough to know many people can't take a joke so I'll jump the gun and apologize for anyone's hurt feelings.

---

This is twice in a row you've mentioned yourself joking where I'm completely in the dark as to where the joke lies in your text. I almost asked you to clarify last time. I don't know if you say that to give yourself an out in case someone does take issue with what you wrote, but my general belief is that you should just say what you mean.

posted January 07, 2009 06:22 AM            

quote:

---

This is twice in a row you've mentioned yourself joking where I'm completely in the dark as to where the joke lies in your text.

---

"These threads should be compiled into one thread and brought up to parade around new members who ask, "why can't people in GU get along?"" <---- Joking about ACTUALLY uniting these threads into one thread and bringing them up again in the future. As in, I'm laughing at the absurdity of the behavior in these threads and yet I fully am aware that (1) this is not unusual and has happened before (2) it will likely never end and (3) I don't think it's actually possible to compile all similar threads into one thread. It's not a knock knock joke, I understand the bird sometimes flies high and I clarify myself as joking, even beyond a winky smiley, because from experience (and not just my own) I have seen people take great offense to anything remotely critical written, even if it is of both sides and even if they misunderstood what was being said.

I don't believe I said that the right and the left NEVER play in each other's sandboxes. That is, not everyone on the left behaves X way and neither does everyone on the right behave Y way, always, all the time. I don't understand, and this has come up on other threads lately, why it is that when someone says something about some people in a group that others jump in ASSUMING that those comments were meant to blanket ALL THE PEOPLE in that group.

quote:

---

a perfect example of why SOME on the left and right cannot possibly get along.

---

posted January 07, 2009 10:46 AM              

I do not however apologize for debating from an emotional standpoint. For one thing, I am not a good political debator, but that does not mean I don't have opinions. I only respond when something can apply to my life and I can relate. I would never make a great debater and I am ok with that. Mars in libra makes me too wishy washy to argue unless it really matters to me.

The fact that she was taught those lies and fed erroneous statistics about our country and had such a vehelement opinion on what is wrong with our county really ticked me off. As it was mostly propoganda she has been taught as to not get too lofty and want womens rights, look where it has gotten us. Give me a break.

First of all - Someone from a third world country would never comprehend what life is really like here. It is a different world than they can imagine.

most of them getting married at 12-13 years of age would be a crime in our country as children have rights too. Prison are filled with what we consider pedophiles while the men in thier country are filling thier bellies with children prior to 15 years of age on a regular basis. How can I undersatnd the plight of the indian woman any more than she could understand the plight of the american woman. Spousal abuse is just part of thier life, according to our statistics, which due to freedom of the press, are a bit more accurate than the information they are fed.

I am quite sure prison population would aslo be statistically screamingly high if poverty levels were assessed instead of single working mother familiies and evaluated with inmate population. So is it poverty or the fact that most of them were raised in a single parent home. With a over 60 percentdivorce rate, most of our population is from a single parent home. that is a good debate to have without the mudslings and percieved persoanl attacks on americans.

Of course we are going to defend our own. That is what we do. We are not all analytical thinkers nor do some of us want to be. SO your next arguement might be, stay out of GU...Well, while you may not respect our emotional responses or opinions, we are still entitled to them.

Due to the fact that I am not a great political debator, nor as loftily smugly informed of every dissectable subject, I shouldn't be looked down upon by those of you who could argue politics like it is a full time job.

See I already know you don't value my opinion, but sometimes I still have one. I won't be here much because the snobbery is apparent and apparently it is justa tight little circle of expert arguers that are really welcome. That and anyone with a penchant for putting others down to feel superior. I am picking up on what you are putting down.

But, should I feel inclined to jump in with my emotional responses wheny ou are discussing my towns, country, and or financial situations, I will be there wether or not you like it or respect me, I don't need validation, nor do I have to be george stopanopolis to have an opinion.

Have a nice day.

posted January 07, 2009 03:00 PM            

quote:

---

That is, not everyone on the left behaves X way and neither does everyone on the right behave Y way, always, all the time.

---

posted January 09, 2009 06:30 AM            

I never meant one couldn't or shouldn't defend their own country. But do you really think telling foreigners that they can't discuss our country because they are foreigners is not going past defense into intolerance? You can defend your country to someone with positives about it and with facts or anecdotes to back up your statements and negate the other person's argument. How are we, globally, suppposed to come to a better understanding of each other if all seemingly negative things outside of our own nation are supposed to be off limits in a discussion? How will we learn when we are wrong if we can't even question?

quote:

---

SO your next arguement might be, stay out of GU...Well, while you may not respect our emotional responses or opinions, we are still entitled to them.

---

This is precisely what I mean by an emotional argument. You are projecting what you assume my opinion would be based on your feelings about what I wrote. I've never said people don't have feelings or should ignore them and neither have I said same regarding opinions. I'm saying a worthwhile defense in any argument includes (that is, does not exclude feelings but also includes) an argument about the topic, too.

quote:

---

Due to the fact that I am not a great political debator, nor as loftily smugly informed of every dissectable subject, I shouldn't be looked down upon by those of you who could argue politics like it is a full time job.

---

Same as above. I don't believe I or anyone else here has stated that they look down upon you. That's your perception just because of one simple criticism about, not YOU as a person, but a common tactic employed in debates by many.

quote:

---

See I already know you don't value my opinion, but sometimes I still have one. I won't be here much because the snobbery is apparent and apparently it is justa tight little circle of expert arguers that are really welcome. That and anyone with a penchant for putting others down to feel superior. I am picking up on what you are putting down.

---

Again, with the assumptions and projections and even into victimization. My commentary was about a behavior ... a behavior I clarified many have engaged in before, from both sides of a debate. It was not an attack on sunshine_lion but you obviously took it as such and then proceeded to assume that you are somehow being looked down upon or otherwise attacked. I find that sad as I don't even know you, have no qualms with you and never said anything remotely the likes of what you have come to believe. I really apologize that any such small amount of criticism about a debate would cause you such offense as to feel unwelcome here. And I did even try apologizing beforehand as I know how touchy some people are and yet, here we are. Really, I hope you stay and contribute to your heart's content. I never take issues with individuals nor attack them personally or anything else of that sort. I hope you can come to understand that a criticism of a method employed or of a position in a debate does not have to translate into an I-hate-soandso kind of a reaction from me or from so many other members here.

posted January 09, 2009 07:04 AM            

Do you think it's possible that maybe sometimes you also expect to hear certain things from me and then overlook what I've actually written? I think it takes two to tango. Really, over the course of years, my writing has condensed. I used to write much more elaborately but you know what? It doesn't really make a difference when people (not you) want to pick a fight. I just can't be bothered with a 3 page essay clarifying every point so that no one takes offense. That said, I try to make my point clear as concisely as possible. I appreciate that instead of jumping to conclusions you do ask for clarifications. Can we clear this one issue up between you and me at least? When I talk about leftists, I don't mean liberals. I mean the far left leaning liberals. Which means any comments that sound like I'm blanketing all non-righties really is only about the far lefties. I usually use words like "some" or "most" for this very reason. Yes, I used to make a greater effort to clarify (I'm only talking about ...) but, ime, clarification is usually needed no matter how many qualifiers are used.

Really, I think a balance between left and right can only be achieved by the constant friction between actual liberals and conservatives. But, I think both sides also have whacko nuts who ruin the whole thing for everyone else. I think we're most if not all of us here are normal, average people who lean more to one particular party, who, yes, sometimes share an opinion shared by the far side of that party, but who generally are not themselves full blown whacko nuts. And so, I think essentially we're all of us shades of gray.

When we pinpoint a specific issue, say abortion, then some of us are decidedly black or white ... but only on that particular issue. Do you see? There is issue. That is all I'm interested in discussing in black or white terms ... and that is without ignoring all the shades of gray that pop up. EG and arbitrarily assigning colors; there is the black position of every fetus has a soul and the white position of life and thus any possible soul only begins at birth. Gray position? Well, what if that soul exists prior to birth but is not fully attached to the body until birth?

Then there is the individual poster. All gray. Their posting methodology may reflect the more black or white leanings of their party based on their own education/exposure on said issues or and more likely it may be a purely individual attribute independant of any (far right or far left extreme) propaganda. There is a difference between saying "your stance on this issue I think is wrong because" or "your use of xyz argument I believe is a [insert party] tactic ..." and saying "I hate you and think all you [liberals or conservatives] are a bunch of idiots and should be shot point blank". Somehow, the first two translate way too often into something resembling the last. Ie, the pinpointing of black and white issue stances or group notable behavior (not always, as I said, and I think more often it is individualized attributes) is perceived instead as "I hate all you "black" people" or "I hate all you "white" people". (Racial pun definitely not intended.)

I find it very disconcerting that on so many threads, the issue is entirely lost or forgotten because people focus instead on each other or believe that an attack on X black or Y white position of a party (usually extremes as we tend to dwell on those more often here for whatever reason, imo) somehow translates into this-is-really-my-passive-aggressive-attack-on-you-as-an-individual-mwahahaha. Very sad all around.

posted January 09, 2009 10:08 PM              

I think if I took the time to research more and spout off less, I would be a much better debator.

some say live and learn I prefer to learn and live.

posted January 10, 2009 01:45 AM            

My analysis of myself is that I'm trying to figure you out.

Do I overlook what you've written in favor of what I expect from you? Could be. Have you quelled my inquiry regarding your mindset, biases, or sense of fairness? I don't think so (honestly).

Concise writing does pose issues. I've faced that myself quite a bit.

It's interesting to think about a balance between liberals and conservatives. I would be inclined to think that they'd get along best if they were stripped of those labels, and instead the discussion was about ideas that work or could work. Neither side is all wrong or all right.