But fixing the stuff here is a different process from fixing the stuff in the third world. And arguments for fixing the stuff in the third world don't necessarily support arguments for fixing the stuff here.

and not in some other country.

the POINT

who the fuck is talking about some other country, not gonna shut the fuck up, cause women in another country has it worse than i do. i can comfortably acknowledge the "worse" in another country, or even in this country for different reasons. nad STILL... talk about the issue i was talking about.

it is a way to shut a woman up

that simple

to derail conversation. to dismiss a womans voice

it is used by men often. on the nets, in real life.

THAT is what we are addressing. right here. and now. in this OP

But it needs to make sense and be relevant or what you say will be dismissed as incoherent.

again

a woman is talking about issues we face

a man says, .... why you goin' there woman, in saudi arabia it is much worse

no one is talking about Saudi Arabia.

he is basically telling women to shut up and not talk about our concerns in the u.s.

what part do you NOT follow?

dude.

what i said is not a tough one. a simple yup... works.

but cant have that.

a woman is talking about issues we face

a man says, .... why you goin' there woman, in saudi arabia it is much worse

no one is talking about Saudi Arabia.

he is basically telling women to shut up and not talk about our concerns in the u.s.

What were you talking about when you were talking about Saudi Arabia?

is meant to do nothing, but to hide ones true thoughts, and try to say in some way what they feel without really coming out and saying it. It's cowardly.

Secondly, it's derailment. Don't respond would be my advice.

It distracts from your argument.

And BB seems to want to know what people really think. She just found out. The same applies to you. Here's a little education, free of charge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion

Would you care to expound on the efficacy of outrage in the political process. I've already endorsed it several times.

You need to learn to stop with the theatrics and dramatic postings or people are never going to be your ally.

Fascinating really. I'm fascinated by the relationship between form and content. I'm interested in why people say the things they do.

So far I've "bothered" three or four people and they have yet to produce a cogent argument. Mostly they just don't like my affect. Not an unexpected result.

First, American women DO NOT have it better than, say, Scandinavian women, so the pargument itself is asinine.

But even if it were true, the argument itself would serve to justify doing nothing about improving the human condition here.

"We must increase the minimum wage."
"Shuddup. Workers in (Bangladesh/China/wherever) would be thrilled to work at half our minimum."

"We need better access to health care."
"Shuddup. The poor in (Bangladesh/China/wherever) have NO access…"

Etc.

cause in his personal life, he felt women picked on him. are you familiar with benny? since you are with so many duers.

I thought we were rid of him, but I guess not.

harrumph!

He was a sexist misogynistic creep.

Count one drop kick for the home team!

And yes, the whole thing is dishonest and something we'd have expected from right wing, authoritarian males. Too bad so many left wing males turn authoritarian every time a woman says she doesn't like being beaten, harassed, paid less, raped, or generally treated like a second class citizen who is only 3/8 human.

You know, breeding stock.

yes

Yes, of course both are topics for discussion. And concerns about mistreatment of women here can and should be discussed in their own right.
But the number of men on here who wouldn't allow this discussion of women here due to women's mistreatment in other places is miniscule, and your posts are so shrill they
1) Make it sound like no one wants to permit the discussions.
2) Make civil discussion difficult

If you do and think that helps the discussion, or better treatment of women, then you're incorrect.

i really do not care how you like to define me, but it is telling that you choose a word that is used to dismiss, silence, discredit women, as a whole, consistently thru out history.

There's no need to get upset.

The use of shrill as a pejorative, in this instance, is interesting.

No I do not find Seabeyond as "shrill" ... as a matter of fact, I thoroughly enjoy her presence here and have since I joined. Do I agree with her 100% of the time? .... of course not (there is probably no one I agree with 100% of the time) ... I respect her tenacity, her dedication, her tirelessness ... I enjoy her sense of humor, her sometimes "off beat" takes on some things (some may call a fresh perspective).

I am not sure Seabeyond is the one appearing "shrill" here

now. off, with me, lol

woman.

You said it better than I was just attempting to do.

Those particular insults are hurled at feminists extremely often... by certain types of people.

based on my use of that word concerning that poster, you are incorrect. I volunteer a an escort at Planned Parenthood at some personal risk to assist women to get into the clinic, and have done so for over twenty years. I would love to see Elizabeth Warren as president, Hillary less so because of her pro-business policies.
My comment was directed totally at the poster's habit of lashing out at any (usually mis-perceived) affront.

wouldn't like you using sexist terminology when discussing this issue.

Check it at the door, or you lose all credibility.

And you have no idea what those women would think about about my terminology.
Men can be shrill too, of course, by the way.
And what I do there is walking the walk. I wonder how many of the people here criticizing me on this are putting their time and their bodies out there.
Clinic escorts do get attacked, you know, sometimes even killed.

But when using sexist terminology in a thread like this, don't get all indignant that others may come off with a different view of you, regardless of what you've volunteered for. It doesn't give you a right to be sexist and un self enlightened regarding what women are pointing out to you.

If you had escorted me, I'd be cringing at your lack of self reflection here. But still be grateful for your escort.

Somebody wants a cookie.

a du man actually not supporting choice, equal pay, prostitution, and porn.... then, we have gone to the right. it really is fascinating to see the distinctions. if we have a man that can actually step to supporting actual women integrity, then there.... is the gem that shines. it is very very interesting.

today has been fun. in insight

I was just responding to the chest-puffing. A woman probably wouldn't have felt the need to say she was escorting women into the clinic "at some personal risk." Plus, Center City Philadelphia isn't exactly Kansas (or wherever the worst protests are).

while appreciating the support for womens choice, does not make a feminist. there is a lot more to feminism than the more easy issue like choice and wage. those are duhs. flat out repug if you cannot at least support women there.

but, many more men do not go beyond that. that is not feminism. more pro womens rights.

but attempting to diminish the legitimacy of discussing the problems here by stating the problems are worse elsewhere is a specious tactic. And it's been used on DU.

Otherwise they would be incredibly boring and wonky. DU would be like reading stereo instructions. We are all aware of the problems women and a host of other groups of people face. Simply pointing out the obvious fact that Americans have it better than people in the third world does not diminish the need for justice and equality both here and there.

People are perfectly free to express outrage at injustice. That's what powers political movements and causes meaningful change to happen. But outrage and passion are only half the equation. The other half is actually doing something meaningful to effect change. That means laws that depend on empirical rules of evidence, the economic realities of enforcing those laws, and due consideration to the civil liberties of those who will be affected by them. The passions that prompt political action can effect changes here, but not in some other sovereign nation.

When we use the travails of people in foreign countries to demand changes on our own culture it amounts to a sort of emotional blackmail. Changing our culture won't effect change in the culture of the third world in any measurable way, but our emotions are stirred nonetheless. It's not fair, and people don't like to be treated unfairly so the net result is damage to a worthy cause.

Serious people will stick to facts that are relevant to the subject. Introducing an irrelevant fact is an attempt to change the subject.

Edited to add: I have no idea whether you are putting down the OP or agreeing with her. Your writing, after I filter out the patronizing language, is too vague.

Outrage at injustice is a fact based on an emotional response. If the objective is to the discuss the facts that prompt the outrage those distinctions are pretty easy to evaluate. If the objective is to express outrage in itself then the feelings of the participants become the objective, and much more difficult to evaluate. Thus, in a discussion designed to express outrage at injustice an observation of less outrage would derail the emotional trajectory of the discussion.

There's nothing wrong with emotional discussions and expressions of outrage on a political forum. Without outrage nothing would get done. But it's not fair to evaluate others based on one's perception of their feelings. And it's certainly unwise to try to expand political support with that attitude.

Or do you reserve that patronizing tone for women?

Are you aware of how you are coming across? Another poster mentioned it right above. I'm guessing you're not female based on your posts. If you are male, maybe you could think about how you are coming across and if it is helpful or demeaning to women.

On reflection, let me see if I've got this straight. I'm male. It is impossible for me to understand what it's like to be female (or a member of any of the other groups you mentioned). But if the discussion is about how it feels to be a member of one of those groups and the criteria for participation for discussion is the depth of one's feeling, isn't that kind of a set up?

How can someone who cannot possibly feel the way you do be considered a full participant if they are judged based on their feelings?

I'm not sure if it is even sincere. If so, then yea, you should try to find out why you keep coming across so patronizingly.

I would like not to hear you talk down to women and reduce their positions/plight to that of "emotions".

I'm not the only one pointing this out to you. So maybe you can look at yourself a bit and refrain from posting if you are obviously not helping. That's assuming you do want to help.

EDIT: when I wrote the above you had only the heading in your post, nothing in the body. Here's the response to the body:

I'm not sure why you keep making this about "feelings" and "emotions". There's no reason for that. You're the only one who brought it up and now you are trying to say it is being used to keep you from discussing the situation?

Are you for or against equal rights for women? Because it's not clear that you are for them and that would make a difference to the discussion.

And how would I express it to your satisfaction?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt enough to say that I don't know if you are doing this purposely or if you are being genuine but you are coming across as a patronizing ass so I'm not going to take your post seriously.

If you are seriously wanting to know how you are coming across you can ask again but make the question about you, and not me. The way you are asking it is making other people who take your posts as patronizing the problem in this discussion and it's such a typical way that men talk down to women.

And your post sounds like a tone argument.

You are in fact doing exactly what I described above. If I don't offer sufficient emotional support I must be all sorts and kinds of terrible things. Of course where the emotional bar is set is anyone's guess. That's why it's a setup. Hell, I even asked you directly what you wanted to hear, and you couldn't say. That's because there is probably no upper limit.

Such is the nature of partisan politics. Every revolution has its radicals who judge others against their own radicalism. They serve an important place in the scheme of things and we need more of them on the left. But radicalism must be tempered by reality since ideology without meaningful results is useless. And that relationship is what causes about ninety percent of the friction around here.

Everything you say is patronizing. If you want to know why you can ask. But you already stated you don't care.

I believe the only reason you are posting here is to try to get an emotional response so you can say "see? women are too emotional."

You keep saying abstract things that have nothing to do with what we're actually discussing. You seem to try to make yourself sound so intellectual yet you can't seem to follow a train of thought.

Do you support equality for women?

You will never understand, because... well... walls of words prove it or something.

I believe he is attempting to anger women so he can prove his point that women are just too emotional.

That's the most generous explanation I can think of.

My understanding of THIS concrete situation is clear, however: When someone has a problem, they don't like being told that other people have it worse. They know they are being brushed off, they know they are being condescended to.

Unfortunately, this is not a support group. It's a political forum, and the realities of political action will be brought to bear. There will always be somebody to disagree with you. Sorry. It's the internet.

Do you just regurgitate phrases you've read somewhere, and insert them into sentences without thinking whether they're saying anything? No wonder people can't make head nor tail of what you're writing.

A forum by definition is a place to talk, to communicate. Wherever people are gathered, there are politics. So the OP fits very comfortably within DU's purpose and purview.

You have difficulty making your points (whatever they are). I suggest a website that has tips on communication.

And it should be clear that the last thing I'm looking for here is support. It looks like I've got about three or four conversations going at once and none of them are very supportive.

So why don't you expound on the relationship between public disapproval, outrage and the political process? Lets see what you think.

That was a rhetorical question.

to other nations, including the Third World. Many of the best and brightest from Pakistan, China, Egypt, Brazil, Mexico, India and elsewhere come to the US to study and work and make connections, and then return to their birth countries and influence the way work and culture changes and modernizes in those places, as well.

So the idea that changing our culture will have little impact on Third World cultures is false. In many cultural endeavors, the US leads.

How do you think people of other countries respond to our cultural exports? Given the totality of our influence on the world as it stands right now I think it's a wash at best. American exceptionalism can take many forms and I expect most of them are counter productive.


It's not fair to evaluate other cultures based on our own. Nor is it fair to evaluate our culture based on others.

more progressive in some areas of the womens movement, and way behind the u,s. in other areas of the womens movement.

in actual patriarchy, rapes, objectification, work harrassment, they are behind. in equality like decriminilize prostitution, wage, daycare, health, it is better.

so. .... working together, excelling both areas, with our strengths, helps the other. in uk, they lept ahead in the media objectification area of feminism. it is interesting.

NOT making excuses for their failings, like, 'well, it's not fair to demand they treat women like people!'

Working TOGETHER is, 'you've got to stop doing this, and we want to help, if you wish, but it must end.'

I think that it would be difficult to pass a law here and change the culture of a third world country.

It wasn't asking for us to change the third world countries, it was saying just because there are other countries where women have it worse doesn't mean we don't have a right to complain about inequality here.

I asked my original question of you because you posted a "yes but..." response which isn't full agreement that women have the right to complain about inequalities here.

How do you evaluate that? Do posts #8 and 15 above qualify? How would I agree more fully?

Partisan fervor is a means, not an end.

I looked at posts #8 and #15 and I had not really worried about them before because it seemed that you had a personal issue with seabeyond and were being argumentative with her because of history.

But if you are going to use them in our discussion as some sort of evidence that you fully support a woman's right to speak to the inequalities in this country no matter that other countries have it worse than us then you have failed.

Those two posts are even more egregious examples of your patronizing attitude towards women. Does seabeyond come off a bit too angry? Perhaps. Does that mean the content of her posts is wrong? No. Yet you choose to dwell on that and bring in words like "emotions" when discussing women's issues and that is obviously a way to belittle women and their quest for rights because we're just too emotional and don't understand the real issue and how to really do anything about it because we let our emotions get in the way.

If you can't be supportive perhaps you should just not post on the subject. I'm assuming you do believe women should have equal rights.

I don't want to type all that shit again, so here.

I'm not too sure how many times I have to endorse the value of outrage, which is an emotion, in the political process.

This business of trying to ferret out people's true feelings is a manipulative waste of time and a gigantic red herring. Here's a video just for you. See if you can figure out why it's here.

You just don't get it do you?

fyi... I didn't watch the clip. I'm not here to play guessing games. If you can only talk down to women then why don't you just move along. You're not even discussing the OP. In fact, it appears that no one can figure out just what you are discussing.

and trying to get off to do some playing. will check back in later, ....

thanks cyberswede

" the U.S. isn't racist because we have a black president" bullshit.

.... the poor in the US aren't really poor .... most have running water and electricity ("they" even have TVs) .... therefore, they really aren't poor because the poor in Kolkata subsist on a cup of rice a day and do not have indoor plumbing, etc.

Homophobia is not an issue in the US because in juxtaposition to some areas of the world because we do not have state sanctioned summary execution of gay folk ....

How dare women in the US complain ... women are allowed to go to school, drive, etc .....

The same arguments have been used to further marginalize all groups that are subject to bigotry and the absence of equal opportunity.
I view any person trotting these idiotic "arguments' out as simply saying: I HAVE NO INTEREST IN EQUAL RIGHTS/OPPORTUNITY FOR ANYONE.


It is very painful to see this idiocy posted here

It is exactly the same rightwing silencing tactic. It is and has been used to try to silence progressives for decades on many issues.

. . . in play. One is the injustice being called out (e.g. poverty) the second is an excessively negative assessment of American society based on the existence oft that injustice. This may lead to point in; out greater injustice elsewhere in defense of America, not in defense of injustice.

Of course women in the US are better off than women in Afghanistan .... but using the plight of women in Afghanistan to silence women here seeking, a full seat at the table is disingenuous and dangerous.

A hungry child in the US should not be dismissed because of famine in sub-Saharan Africa.

We are not in a race to the bottom ... I am hoping we are ion a race to the top .... and will give all others a 'hand-up"

it when *some* people say that unless you speak of male rape each and every time, I won't take you seriously when you talk about female rape. Or I would support you if you said *some* men instead of just men. Why do you hate men?

and still look damn fine doing it, too.

......the status quo in the first place. The wing nut "Mission Accomplished" meme works no better here than it did in Iraq IMO.

on

OFF du. now. i have to get off. lol

thank you for your post.

being discussed is clear evidence that the subject changer doesn't have a decent response to the topic at hand.

Just like smokers like to bring up how terrible the health effects of obesity are rather than admit smoking is so awful. Or gun apologists bring up car accidents rather than acknowledge how many unnecessary deaths occur from guns. Just two examples.

I mean, do you expect the fire department to rescue your cat from a tree, when across the street there is an orphange on fire and its full of kids?

The other problem is a certain list that claimed Burundi was better than the US.

Sorry, but that is just ridiculous.

Further, I am not sure it is ever bad for somebody to appreciate what they have especially in regards to the big picture.

And other countries are right across the street, and a building's on fire and children need to be rescued...I gotcha so far. But who's the fire department in this analogy?

This thread sounds like it might be a carryover from some other thread, & I'm coming in in the middle, but talk about ridiculous.

But your final sentence does stand alone, as a general statement, and in reply: Yes, it can be bad to tell somebody to appreciate what they have, when they are trying to get you to address a specific problem. You are being trivializing & diminishing. You are telling them the problem means so little to you that you're not even interested in discussing it. "Oh, look over there!" you are saying.

they are given?

I told how bad I felt for women in such countries as Saudi Arabia, and her response was "well, we cannot impose our own culture on them". It was as if she was looking for a way out of agreeing that some women in the wold DO have it worse.

There is disagreement about that within feminist circles, here in the US and with muslim women as well. It's not cut and dried.

I don't think any feminist would ever say that they didn't care about rape, sexual assault, selling of female children for marriage, in Saudi Arabia, to name a few.

It was about not being allowed to drive, walking behind male relatives and being jailed for premarital sex.

but they don't have it better here compared to the highest status groups.