Kamala Harris: Biden's VP | Page 2 | INFJ Forum

Kamala Harris: Biden's VP

Deleted member 16771 said:
Lol. So many ways to destroy that tweet.

'Do feminism by staying at home...'

Maybe she lacks self-awareness.
Click to expand...

Feminism is about equality and CHOICE. Being a homemaker is OK. Being a career woman is OK. Being chaste is OK. Being promiscuous is OK. ETC.

We could criticize most politicians for the personal choices we disagree with. Let's stick to politics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandie33, pzl2lxie81mc, Pin and 1 other person
Asa said:
Feminism is about equality and CHOICE. Being a homemaker is OK. Being a career woman is OK. Being chaste is OK. Being promiscuous is OK. ETC.

We could criticize most politicians for the personal choices we disagree with. Let's stick to politics.
Click to expand...
I'll not be scalded for that remark, Asa, come on now.

There's clearly a joke one could make out of that tweet along the lines of 'yeah, let's be feminists at home, from the kitchen, where we belong!'.

There's nothing more to it than that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Infjente and Reason
Deleted member 16771 said:
I'll not be scalded for that remark, Asa, come on now.

There's clearly a joke one could make out of that tweet along the lines of 'yeah, let's be feminists at home, from the kitchen, where we belong!'.

There's nothing more to it than that.
Click to expand...
But you can be a feminist from at home--In your kitchen--Taking care of your family. If that's the life you chose. So it's not really funny.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pin, Deleted member 16771 and Asa
Deleted member 16771 said:
I'll not be scalded for that remark, Asa, come on now.

There's clearly a joke one could make out of that tweet along the lines of 'yeah, let's be feminists at home, from the kitchen, where we belong!'.

There's nothing more to it than that.
Click to expand...

Feminism allows for women to "stay home".
Try to grasp the idea that you could be wrong about something you've done very little research about and have a bias against.

Edit: I care for you, @Deleted member 16771, but let's not pretend you haven't been on an anti-feminism binge. You listed it as something you don't find attractive in a thread about dating qualities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pin, acd and Deleted member 16771
acd said:
But you can be a feminist from at home--In your kitchen--Taking care of your family. If that's the life you chose. So it's not really funny.
Click to expand...
Asa said:
Feminism allows for women to "stay home".
Try to grasp the idea that you could be wrong about something you've done very little research about and have a bias against.
Click to expand...
Are you guys insane? The joke isn't based upon what's 'true', only what the particular cultural riff is.

And don't try to impute what my biases are, Asa, that's very disrespectful.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Infjente, Reason and Pin
Deleted member 16771 said:
Are you guys insane? The joke isn't based upon what's 'true', only what the particular cultural riff is.

And don't try to impute what my biases are, Asa, that's very disrespectful.
Click to expand...
Uh oh. Now we're insane.

Hysterical women! :laughing:

What's funny to me is men thinking these jokes are still relevant.

I'm not mad at you so I hope you aren't taking this personal. But your joke was disrespectful.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Infjente, Pin and Deleted member 16771
acd said:
Uh oh. Now we're insane.

Hysterical women! :laughing:
Click to expand...
You should calm the fuck down, acd. ;)

What's funny to me is men thinking these jokes are still relevant.
Click to expand...
To be clear, I'm not saying they're relevant, I'm saying that the joke is in there in the tweet. I don't know what you're objecting to, to be honest.

I'm not mad at you so I hope you aren't taking this personal. But your joke was disrespectful.
Click to expand...
How can it be disrespectful when it's based upon a stereotype?

P.S. No I'm not taking it personally. I see where you're coming from, but I think there's some misunderstanding here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Infjente, Reason, Pin and 1 other person
@Deleted member 16771 – I read your posts. I'm not saying I don't get it, but.....
And stop trying to twist this.
And your joke wasn't funny. LOL.
And now this is exploding into a tangent when we should be focused on policy and the VP candidate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Infjente, Sandie33, Pin and 1 other person
Asa said:
Feminism allows for women to "stay home".
Try to grasp the idea that you could be wrong about something you've done very little research about
Click to expand...
Well, if I look at my notes books, this is the 'research' on feminism research I've done formally, though I'm only including published academic research (monographs and journal articles) and primary sources:

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Letter to M. d’Alembert on the Theatre (1758), trans. by A. Bloom (New York, 1960)
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Émile (1762), trans. by B. Foxley (London, 1911)
Ernest Rhys (ed.), The Rights of Woman by Mary Wollstonecraft and The Subjection of Women by John Stewart Mill, Introduced by Professor G.E.G. Catlin (London, 1929)
Mary Wollstonecraft, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman: With Strictures on Political and Moral Subjects (1792), ed. by A. Touchert (London, 1995)
Patricia Branca, Women in Europe Since 1750 (London, 1978)
Anthony Fletcher, Gender, Sex and Subordination in England 1500-1800 (New Haven and London, 1995)
Jane Rendall, The Origins of Modern Feminism: Women in Britain, France and the United States 1780-1860 (London, 1985)
Barbara Caine and Glenda Sluga, Gendering European History, 1780-1920 (Leicester, 2000)
Hannah Barker and Elaine Chalus (eds), Gender in Eighteenth-Century England: Roles, Representations and Responsibilities (London, 1997)
Katrina Honeyman, Women, Gender and Industrialisation in England, 1700-1870 (London, 2000)
Lezlie S. Knox, Creating Clare of Assisi: Female Franciscan Identities in Later Medieval Italy (Boston, 2008)
Heidi E. Grasswick, ‘From Feminist Thinking to Ecological Thinking: Determining the Bounds of Community’, Hypatia 23.1 (2008), pp. 150-60.
Richmond Campbell, ‘How Ecological Should Epistemology Be?’, Hypatia 23.1 (2008), pp. 161-9.
Phyllis Rooney, ‘Epistemic Responsibility and Ecological Thinking’, Hypatia 23.1 (2008), pp. 170-6.
Christine M. Koggel, ‘Ecological Thinking and Epistemic Location: The Local and the Global’, Hypatia 23.1 (2008), pp. 177-86.
I'm sorry that I couldn't tell you what I've read that didn't involve a full formal read through, or what I've read in order to teach, or even what I've been taught myself (and you'll have to forgive the historical bias).

I'm not a critical theorist, or anything, so my feminist bibliography doesn't range into the hundreds, but it's not nothing and I don't consider myself a complete layman on this subject.

...and have a bias against.
Click to expand...
What do you think I have a bias against, @Asa?

Edit: I care for you, @Deleted member 16771, but let's not pretend you haven't been on an anti-feminism binge. You listed it as something you don't find attractive in a thread about dating qualities.
Click to expand...
Hmm... You'll have to find that for me (I've looked).

Asa said:
@Deleted member 16771 – I read your posts. I'm not saying I don't get it, but.....
Click to expand...
What are you suggesting?

And stop trying to twist this.
Click to expand...
I'm not trying to 'twist' anything, Asa.

And your joke wasn't funny. LOL.
Click to expand...
Lol, so you're saying I'm not booked? Normally that would be fine, but in this case I'm not even claiming it as a 'joke' I would make, just that it's there; her wording is unfortunate.

And now this is exploding into a tangent when we should be focused on policy and the VP candidate.
Click to expand...
Well you're going to have to suffer the tangent you've created by calling someone out.

I think people are overly sensitive about this topic these days and tend to think only in terms of the polarised discourse, watching constantly for its associated shibboleths and 'dog whistles'. Not everything critical of 'modern feminism' is anti-feminist, and nor do we have to plant our flags in one camp or another in order to discuss these things or, *gasp*, joke about them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: Infjente, Reason and Pin
Asa said:
Edit: I care for you, @Deleted member 16771, but let's not pretend you haven't been on an anti-feminism binge. You listed it as something you don't find attractive in a thread about dating qualities.
Click to expand...
Do you mean this?:

Gaze said:
Guess who's back? Back again? Guess who's back? Tell a friend!

Sorry, just had to write that since I haven't created a thread in ages. :D

Anyway, here goes.

Although none of us are fish per say :D, I'm curious about how changes to our society and cultures affect what we look for in a mate. Has your criteria changed for what makes someone a great partner yesterday vs. today based on social, economic, cultural, or political changes? Has recent politics shaped your idea of how a partner should think or feel? What qualities are becoming more significant or relevant for relationships today that wasn't that significant in the past? How do you think this has changed how people express or promote themselves on dating sites or how they present themselves in potential dating situations? Are some interests more significant or visible compared to others?

Is having one set of interests more important than others?

One of the things I've noticed is attention-seeking behavior. If you don't put yourself out there and "show up" in a big way, it's harder to be seen or noticed. On some level, this makes sense because there are far more options available for the average person than there were in previous decades because of travel, communication, immigration, etc. However, it almost seems as if having more options, means your own unique qualities can be easily fade. It also seems that one set of qualities are privileged over others, so if A is valued and you have more of B, you may not be as noticeable because A is seen as the trait of the day.

Because of the recent political engagement, it also seems that activism is now a new standard. If you are not standing up and vocal about a cause, then you're not saying much. And you're expected to be firmly on one side or another. Not much balance. What do you think?
Click to expand...
Deleted member 16771 said:
Oh boy, this is a big one.

I'll have a think about my own personal position, but in general:

- Being a declared feminist is now much less attractive than it once was (either gender).
- Being respectful with women is now extremely suspect because of a sustained attack against 'nice guys', 'SIMPs', 'neckbeards', 'pedestalising', &c.

Sexual politics has become an extremely dense minefield, and the way people attempt to tiptoe around the mines and navigate the new and ever changing rules has become a characteristic feature of Western culture.

The whole thing is baffling, and to be honest everytime I hear a term like 'SIMP' I just switch off. I want to distance myself as much as possible from the whole 'sexual insults' culture of the West because there's little I find more distasteful.

Generally I think people get on fine without all of this ridiculous cultural baggage.
Click to expand...

I think it's clear that I was speaking generally about how being a declared feminist is much less attractive than it once was.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Infjente and Pin
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back