The radical idea that women are people

Things that don't belong anywhere else. (Check first).

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

T-Form
Posts: 240
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 11:16 pm UTC

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby T-Form » Fri Oct 31, 2008 7:51 am UTC

Pandercolour wrote:
T-Form wrote:I don't agree that it's necessarily feminism

Considering you're pretty much fighting the exact same thing, why not?

Because the word "feminism" is sometimes used as an excuse to unjustly attack men, because feminism has a history of marginalising vulnerable groups of women, because linguistically there is a connotation that the focus is on women, and because everyone should be able to decide which labels apply to themselves (and which do not). The power to link a person to an identity against their will or to deny a person the chance to determine their own identity is one of the nastiest things modernity has created. It's a power that is all too easily abused, and sometimes the user isn't aware that they're harming people or even using it at all; it's a power that simply should not exist.

User avatar
Quixotess
No. Cookies.
Posts: 3243
Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 7:26 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Quixotess » Fri Oct 31, 2008 9:12 am UTC

Yeah, okay, it's late and I wasn't going to try to unpack all that until the morning, but I think I'm too pissed for that and libelulle got it started, plus I don't want the conversation to leave me behind in my sleeping hours, so let's have a look at the things you're saying, shall we?

This is important to address first:

I'm going to submit this, and I'm going to get flamed.

This is a silencing tactic. You just defined all critical responses to your post as flames, thereby delegitimizing them. kinigget, you just did the same thing. Criticisms are not flames: don't lump them together. This is a silencing tactic.

michaelandjimi wrote:As soon as Quixotess started swearing, I went "Blow this for a game of soldiers" and skipped it. I'm a feminist. I generally have a lot of time for Quixotess, and it is interesting to hear what she is saying. But being needlessly aggressive completely blew it out of the water for me.

You mentioned a feminism spidey sense earlier? This is one of those cases. I know the fact that you chose to announce that you skipped over my post and chose to follow that with defensive statements such as "usually I don't" and "I'm a feminist" is not right, but I'm not sure why.

I have no such uncertainty about what's wrong that coupled with this, though:
michaelandjimi wrote:I agree with MLK with the non-violent direct action, but you'll notice this: He is eloquent. He makes his arguments, and though he might be angry, the way he delivers them makes me want to listen. This isn't a personal attack against you, by the way - primarily you do the same as he does - but the aggressive people, including Felstaff's soapboxer, are not.

Like hell you're not talking about me. You just said you skipped over what I read because of the way I put it; MLK makes you want to listen; the dichotomy is clear. You *did* say I was needlessly aggressive, and the further implication of the juxtaposition of your sentences is that I wasn't eloquent either, and while I'm no Andrea Dworkin, I do know that's not right to imply given that you already said you didn't read my post.

Now, *I'm* not very interested in talking about me. I'm not particularly torn up if someone chooses to skip something I read or if they think mean thoughts about me or whatever. But what you just tried to do with that edit was disingenuous.

michaelandjimi wrote:We don't owe it to anybody to tell them about feminism and the problems of a patriarchal society. We certainly have the right to get angry, and don't owe it to anybody not to get angry. Actually, that's not true. We owe it to ourselves. It turns people off and that is precisely not what we want, however you want to spin it.

So now it's gone from "don't express your anger" to "don't even get angry."

me wrote:Yes, what is with those UPPITY women who keep getting SO ANGRY about things like objectification, unequal pay, reproductive oppression, rape, and murder? WHY THE HELL ARE THEY SO ANGRY? WHY ARE YOU SO ANGRY, FEMINISTS, YOU DON'T HAVE ANY REASON TO BE! YOUR ANGER MAKES ME SOOOOOO UNCOMFORTABLE, ALMOST LIKE YOU THINK I SHOULD BE ANGRY TOO IF I WERE ANYTHING RESEMBLING A DECENT HUMAN BEING.


I owe it to myself to get angry, actually, because anything else means I have no self-respect; I don't think I'm worth getting angry over. Guess how that extrapolates?

That's what it is to me. They're "turned off" by my self-respect.

So this "we" that you're talking about excludes a hell of a lot of rightfully angry feminists. What "we" want? An end to violence. Citizenship. Suffrage. Freedom. Safety.

These things will never be achieved without us feeling anger and us expressing anger as aggression. Trying to silence our anger works directly against the goals of feminism. Trying to make feminism acceptable to patriarchy is not only impossible, but harmful. Choosing to discourage us from expressing our anger inevitably delegitimizes our anger and, therefore, the reason for our movement. Feminists need to be sent the message that anger is acceptable. That is at least as important to me as attracting new allies, and certainly more important than attracting new allies who are turned off as soon as [a feminist] start[s] swearing.

And apparently, to you, this is all "spin."

Of course, if more people would support that anger, and validate it, rather than playing the concern troll and saying "Oh boo, you'll never change anyone's mind that way" there might actually be some momentum there.

Because, as it turns out, saying "I agree with you, but you should be nicer about it" is pretty much paraphrasing King's moderate White.
Hell yes would this be amazing. If it worked that way, I would be straight behind it. But it's human nature to not sympathise with extremely angry people.

Yeah, apologies to Belial if what I'm about to say here misinterprets you.

MaJ, you're being completely nonsensical. The point of that bit you just quoted is that people (Felstaff earlier, concern trolls in general, and now you) who claim they understand that anger is justified (so these aren't people who might want to be convinced, these are people who self-identify as already having been convinced) continue to make the choice to say, not "your anger turns me off" but "your anger will turn other people off."

Actually, that isn't naturally true, and now I'm going to Godwin it up in this thread. Generally, people aren't turned off by someone who is angry about the Holocaust. Generally, people aren't turned off by someone who expresses anger at the fact that someone lit their kitten on fire. Generally, people aren't turned off by someone who expresses a lot of fucking anger at the fact that someone just punched them in the face and stole their cellphone and their wallet.

(Note how lopsided the severity of those three things are.)

Because everyone agrees that these things are horrible and wrong. That these are problems. That they should never have happened.

Everyone, listen very closely: The anger is not the problem. The problem is that people don't think anger about this specific topic is warranted. It is not societally acceptable to be angry about patriarchy. This seems like a "duh" sort of concept.

So. The point of what Belial is saying? This is, in part, on you. Because instead legitimizing our anger, you attempt to silence it. Oppressed people are not responsible for the fact that their anger turns off people who don't take their problems seriously. King's white moderate is responsible for that, and so are you. And ascribing that to "human nature" is an attempt to deny that you have a choice, either to contribute to the societal acceptability of anger about feminist issues, or to silence that anger.

Make a different choice. Stop being part of the problem. Come. Fight with me.
Last edited by Quixotess on Fri Oct 31, 2008 10:50 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Raise up the torch and light the way.

User avatar
michaelandjimi
Isn't Even Playing
Posts: 2353
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 8:21 am UTC
Location: Citizen of the World
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby michaelandjimi » Fri Oct 31, 2008 9:59 am UTC

Let me preface this with me saying that I'm inexperienced at argumentation over the internet. I interpret "being flamed" to mean "people arguing the opposite rather well, to the extent that I am way out of my depth". This is what is happening. This is what has happened in the past when I've seen people get flamed.
Quixotess wrote:Like hell you're not talking about me. You just said you skipped over what I read because of the way I put it; MLK makes you want to listen; the dichotomy is clear. You *did* say I was needlessly aggressive, and the further implication of the juxtaposition of your sentences is that I wasn't eloquent either, and while I'm no Andrea Dworkin, I do know that's not right to imply given that you already said you didn't read my post.
Personal attack != not talking about you. I was talking about a specific thing that you did here, once. Not you as a person. If you have a person and they do an act that is completely out of character, praising or attacking them for that is not personal. The reason I mentioned that you weren't eloquent is because of the swearing.

Quixotess wrote:So now it's gone from "don't express your anger" to "don't even get angry."
I'm quite embarrassed about this, to be honest. I meant "aggression" instead of "anger". It should read "We certainly have the right to get angry, and don't owe it to anybody not to get aggressive" And that change of meaning was precisely because of what you said - we have a right to get angry for all of those reasons. And, to be honest, I believe I said the thing about aggression later on.

And now I'm going to reiterate my personal opinion, which I attempted to make clear. People can be angry, and express your anger, without outright aggression. MLK did this. He was extremely angry, and rightly so, just like us. But he expressed it in a manner that made people listen. And I intend to do the same.

So most of that was a misinterpretation, and I apologise for that. I apologise for not understanding flaming, miscommunicating what I meant in the "personal attack" bit, and accidentally switching out my words. I did not assert that anybody's anger was unfounded -
michaelandjimi wrote:We certainly have the right to get angry
but I'm taking issue with aggression. Aggression like saying that I'm not resemblant of a decent human being. Aggression like asserting that I'm not a real feminist just because my opinion differs from yours.
Whelan wrote:Relax, have a good time, and hope for the bees ;)

User avatar
Jesse
Vocal Terrorist
Posts: 8635
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 6:33 pm UTC
Location: Basingstoke, England.
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Jesse » Fri Oct 31, 2008 10:11 am UTC

I suggest that it is better to direct aggression towards those who are the cause of the oppression, and certainly not towards anyone trying to understand. And therein lies my problem. EDIT: I was wrong about this, the attacks came from elsewhere other than this site. My apologies to Quixotess.

What use is that? Education is a tool. Sure, anger and aggression are great tools, but they're no use unless people know what you're talking about.

I'm also here to ask for a more civil tone in this thread. From everyone. People have been banned before for flaming, and for consistently losing their temper (Also for dictating what a thread should be about: anfurny). I don't want that to happen here. There are rules outside of FaiD, and it'd be better if everyone could stick to them.

Thankyou.

User avatar
kinigget
Posts: 721
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:56 pm UTC
Location: the wild wild west

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby kinigget » Fri Oct 31, 2008 10:57 am UTC

Jesse wrote:When the feminism thread first started out in FaiD, I asked for help understanding, it never came; and any time I tried to ask questions, present things I felt were wrong with the statement in order to understand it better, it was perceived as an attack. I've tried asking in other threads, but still no joy. So what I'm left with is still not understanding the situation, but with a vague sense that I am wrong and should just stay away.

and here we see the problem with just about every controversial subject that exists: almost anything can be misinterpreted as an attack. people get angry, start yelling at each other, and somewhere along the line, lose sight of what the argument was about in the first place. I understand why people get angry, I understand the need to yell at someone, all I'm saying is that it doesn't make for an effective argument and almost invariably degrades into a shouting match. So in conclusion I would like to second Jesse's request that we all play nice.

Please?
The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:I can tell from his word choice that he is using his penis to type.

Steax wrote:I think the courts are kinda busy right now. Something about cake and due process.

User avatar
michaelandjimi
Isn't Even Playing
Posts: 2353
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 8:21 am UTC
Location: Citizen of the World
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby michaelandjimi » Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:13 am UTC

It has been brought to my attention that I have again not made my meanings clear.
michaelandjimi wrote:Let me preface this with me saying that I'm inexperienced at argumentation over the internet. I interpret "being flamed" to mean "people arguing the opposite rather well, to the extent that I am way out of my depth". This is what is happening. This is what has happened in the past when I've seen people get flamed.
This was not an attack against Quixotess. It was a response to:
Quixotess wrote:This is a silencing tactic. You just defined all critical responses to your post as flames, thereby delegitimizing them. kinigget, you just did the same thing. Criticisms are not flames: don't lump them together. This is a silencing tactic.


I embarrassingly did not know the correct definition of flaming until now, being inexperienced in argumentation over the internet.
Whelan wrote:Relax, have a good time, and hope for the bees ;)

User avatar
kinigget
Posts: 721
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:56 pm UTC
Location: the wild wild west

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby kinigget » Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:20 am UTC

actually, I kind of did the same thi ing . . .I define "getting flamed" as getting yelled at, period. This is not the first time I've done something like this either.

bye now, will probably be back.
The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:I can tell from his word choice that he is using his penis to type.

Steax wrote:I think the courts are kinda busy right now. Something about cake and due process.

User avatar
cypherspace
Posts: 2733
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 9:48 pm UTC
Location: Londonia

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby cypherspace » Fri Oct 31, 2008 2:38 pm UTC

You know what pisses me off?

Quix is right. I bloody hate that.

I've often said I agree with her but don't like the way she puts things. But really, she's right - anger and aggression may not be pleasant to the person they're directed at, but I bloody well bet that all of you think more now about the issues at hand than you did before, and despite your negative reactions to the arguments put towards you, those arguments are absorbed and understood, even as you hate doing it. Being nice and accommodating and quietly logical is all very well. Standing up and shouting may provoke negative reactions and dislike, but I doubt Quix gives a shit, or indeed should give a shit, about how she's perceived as long as the message gets through. And I believe it does.
"It was like five in the morning and he said he'd show me his hamster"

User avatar
bigglesworth
I feel like Biggles should have a title
Posts: 7461
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:29 pm UTC
Location: Airstrip One

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby bigglesworth » Fri Oct 31, 2008 2:40 pm UTC

libellule wrote:I think the IRA and the PLO would disagree with you. Terrorism exists for a reason: it works. Prior to the late 1960's there was plenty of sympathy for the Northern Irish "cause" but no political action or even discussion among the leaders of more powerful countries. A few well-placed bombs changed that. It was no longer possible to ignore the Irish Catholics because their more violent representatives ensured that the issue remained on the global political agenda. And all the "We'll never deal with terrorists" aside, it's exactly the terrorism that made the dealing possible, even mandatory.


Except for the fact that there's an extraordinarily apt example against your argument: That of feminists in the 1900s and 10s. In the UK, at least, vandalism, hunger strikes in prisons and other actions did not further the cause of votes for women. The reaction against it was huge, and it had to wait until after the first world war when many women became workers and army employees for the vote to be extended to them.

[Edited for correct decades]
Last edited by bigglesworth on Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:13 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Generation Y. I don't remember the First Gulf War, but do remember floppy disks.

crowey
That's DOCTOR Crowey, to you
Posts: 1603
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 10:52 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby crowey » Fri Oct 31, 2008 2:42 pm UTC

wow, this thread has turned angry in the last 24h. I'm going to avoid all of that (way to scary clever speak for me)and stick to my own little tangent...

Quixotess wrote:
crowey wrote:
Quixotess wrote:It's like...those who say "I reject the label of feminism; I'm an equalist" and those who say "I reject the label of feminism; I'm a womanist" trying to have a discussion about why they don't identify as feminists. 101 and 303 in the same room again. .


Out of curiosity, which one is which, and why?

"Equalists" are the ones on the bingo cards, because here and also because identifying as a feminist is identifying with all the feminists who came before you and honoring your legacy; rejecting that label is rejecting them.

Which is why there are womanists: WOC who do reject the history of (and current state of) feminism as not having ever been for them.


I see, I think...
I kind of dislike the label of feminist because it is (in some people's minds) forever associated with the man-haters who use the term as a blanket to cover all sorts of bollocks behaviour (what I think the OP was referring to).
Now, I don't think those people are proper feminisits, but I know a lot of people do think that's what feminists are like, and as such if I identify as a feminist they will assume I am one of those crappy non-feminist "I'm a feminist" people. Did that make any sense?

I certainly don't want to reject the legacy of the generations of women and men who have faught for all of us to have the liberties we have now. Nor do I want to dissassociate myself from proper feminists who are still fighting the fight now.
I also don't want to get into lengthly discussions with people who assume I hate men because "that's what feminism is", every time explaining what it really is, and why they are wrong (I probably should have these discussions, maybe someone will learn something, but frankly the less time I spend speaking to those people, the less chance there is of me hitting someone).

Which leaves me in a quandry, since an equalist (in a literal interpretation of the word) is someone who want equal rights for all, so is all encompasing of feminism, gay rights, trans rights, age rights, racial rights, whatever else rights. It's the shortest way to sum up what I think about rights and equality.
Same goes for egalitariansim, or something.

So if I say I'm an equalist, it's not because I'm disrespecting those who came before me, or think that I'm not a feminist, it's because I don't want people to think I hate men and because it's the quickest way to sum up all of my views on equality.
But if I say I'm an equalist a load of feminists get annoyed because I am somehow dissing them/those who came before them?

I'm an equalist because I'm a feminist and a gay-rightsist and a racial-rightsist* etc etc.




*why don't those other movements have easier names, like gayist or racist....oh wait....I think I see now.

Edit: I'm going to be offline for a couple of days, so I'm not ignoring any response to this, I'm jsut not here. Also, I don't want to make you angry. :wink:
Last edited by crowey on Fri Oct 31, 2008 4:10 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Rinsaikeru
Pawn, soon to be a Queen
Posts: 2166
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 5:26 am UTC
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Rinsaikeru » Fri Oct 31, 2008 2:44 pm UTC

Quix doesn't piss me off, but that aside I agree with cypher.

I think we get lulled into a false sense of equality sometimes. We look back and think we've got the vote, things are better, here is pretty good. But still it isn't safe for me to walk home from the bus at night. Still I hear staff at the community centre disparage little boys by calling them girls when they do poorly at sports. Still women are judged harshly regarding their attire and how often they have sex.

Yes we're better off than we were in 1900--but it was so bad then that even the baby steps we've taken seem huge.

EDIT to respond to in between posts:

I don't think that anyone is advocating terrorism as a method--just channeling anger into action. There is certainly a difference. The publicity of the hunger strikes and prison probably did lots for feminism, things will take time in any case. Violence against others isn't likely to do any cause good--but anger, assertiveness and action can do plenty. You obviously have also forgotten your history class because WWI ended in 1918 and therefore any actions taken BEFORE the war could not have occured in the 20s and 30s. These feminists actually stopped their protests to help out in WWI and were given suffrage after the war in honour of that.
Rice Puddin.

User avatar
libellule
Posts: 504
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:39 pm UTC
Location: The Ivory Tower

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby libellule » Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:04 pm UTC

KingLoser wrote:Spoilered for off-topic:

Spoiler:
libellule wrote:
michaelandjimi wrote:Going out and causing pain to people will certainly not help a cause.


I think the IRA and the PLO would disagree with you. Terrorism exists for a reason: it works. Prior to the late 1960's there was plenty of sympathy for the Northern Irish "cause" but no political action or even discussion among the leaders of more powerful countries. A few well-placed bombs changed that. It was no longer possible to ignore the Irish Catholics because their more violent representatives ensured that the issue remained on the global political agenda. And all the "We'll never deal with terrorists" aside, it's exactly the terrorism that made the dealing possible, even mandatory.

Bad example. It's more likely the stalemate that grew between the PIRA and the UVF which caused people to stand up and say "Stop". Neither group ever really held any superiority in the North. As regards progress, the improvements since the Good Friday agreement are pretty good evidence of the credibility of "dialogue over guns". Either way, I see your point... but it's my national duty to chime in on that one. :)


Off-topic again but I can't let this one go. Why do you think Good Friday ever happened? You're obviously much younger than I am and have no sense of personal history here. Having been Irish living in England, I do. Now it's quite trendy to be Irish. In the 80's it most definitely was not. The English members of the British government couldn't have given a toss about the Irish question from their ex-British-Empire loft. It was always condescend-stifle-discriminate... all the time. Why should they have listened to McGuinness, Adams et al ? The more the IRA bombed, however, the more the Brits would say "we will never deal with terrorists", the more discussions would happen and progress made. Hence the division of the Provo IRA into its militant and political factions. The Brits could disingenuously claim they weren't dealing with terrorists whereas Sinn Fein had the threat of bombs to make sure the Brits kept talking. That's how Good Friday happened. The Brits didn't suddenly decide that the Irish deserved a fair chance, they just wanted the bombs to stop because it made them look bad and weak to the English voters, and brought the Irish question to the attention of the word and the pocketbooks of Irish-Americans.

Progress never comes by hoping the other side sees sense. It's not in the vested interest of the other side to do so. Sometimes aggression is needed, sometimes fate intervenes. I don't think the women whose labor was appreciated during WWII were rewarded with the vote just because their talents and contributions were suddenly recognized and had hitherto been hidden, though certainly in the context of having screamed for the vote prior to this, the inequity stood more starkly in the light of their labor. We owe our "crazy" 20s-30s suffragettes for a big part if not all of that. They suffered ridicule and the admonishments of "reasonable" people to stop acting counterproductively and .... and what.... the status quo could continue and they could remain their squashed feminine selves?

Monty40xi
Posts: 370
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 2:55 pm UTC
Location: Iowa, USA

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Monty40xi » Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:07 pm UTC

Quixotess wrote:
michaelandjimi wrote:We don't owe it to anybody to tell them about feminism and the problems of a patriarchal society. We certainly have the right to get angry, and don't owe it to anybody not to get angry. Actually, that's not true. We owe it to ourselves. It turns people off and that is precisely not what we want, however you want to spin it.

So now it's gone from "don't express your anger" to "don't even get angry."

me wrote:Yes, what is with those UPPITY women who keep getting SO ANGRY about things like objectification, unequal pay, reproductive oppression, rape, and murder? WHY THE HELL ARE THEY SO ANGRY? WHY ARE YOU SO ANGRY, FEMINISTS, YOU DON'T HAVE ANY REASON TO BE! YOUR ANGER MAKES ME SOOOOOO UNCOMFORTABLE, ALMOST LIKE YOU THINK I SHOULD BE ANGRY TOO IF I WERE ANYTHING RESEMBLING A DECENT HUMAN BEING.


I owe it to myself to get angry, actually, because anything else means I have no self-respect; I don't think I'm worth getting angry over. Guess how that extrapolates?

That's what it is to me. They're "turned off" by my self-respect.

Anger does not measure something's value. Staying calm about something does not demean it. In my house, a claim of "I have a right to be angry sometimes" from my father was met with a swift "no, you do not" from my mother (and Word of Mom being practically the same as Word of God, there was no further discussion until he calmed down).

Anger can motivate, but anger also cuts off lines of communication. It should be saved for times when a particular line of communication is past the point where it can be an asset anymore - for those who can't be swayed by reason. The question is not "am I worth getting angry over?" The real question is "is the motivation I'd get from letting myself be angry here worth the loss of this potential ally?"

Sometimes it's worth the loss. Sometimes it's not. Depends on who's around to hear and what you're actually going to do when the fire's lit. I, for one, would rather be treated like your potential ally than a lost cause.
Occam's Quandary: any idea can be made to sound like the simpler one.

User avatar
Rinsaikeru
Pawn, soon to be a Queen
Posts: 2166
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 5:26 am UTC
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Rinsaikeru » Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:09 pm UTC

They still weren't suffragettes in the 30s considering that women over 30 had the vote in 1918 and women had the same voting rights as men in 1928 in the UK. I'm saying that their vandalism, protests, hunger strikes were a very important contribution to that. I was just pointing out that the dates were not correct in the post that originally mentioned them.
Rice Puddin.

User avatar
libellule
Posts: 504
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:39 pm UTC
Location: The Ivory Tower

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby libellule » Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:18 pm UTC

Rinsaikeru wrote:I don't think that anyone is advocating terrorism as a method--just channeling anger into action. There is certainly a difference. The publicity of the hunger strikes and prison probably did lots for feminism, things will take time in any case. Violence against others isn't likely to do any cause good--but anger, assertiveness and action can do plenty. You obviously have also forgotten your history class because WWI ended in 1918 and therefore any actions taken BEFORE the war could not have occured in the 20s and 30s. These feminists actually stopped their protests to help out in WWI and were given suffrage after the war in honour of that.

heh. I suffered a similar 20+-year history jump and referred to WWII instead of WWI. Aggression is good but it shouldn't blur one's fact-checking activities :oops:

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Belial » Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:52 pm UTC

I, for one, would rather be treated like your potential ally than a lost cause.


Potential allies get the "Just because we're angry, doesn't mean we're unreasonable. We have every reason to be angry. Anger is the only reasonable response. We will not smile and console and make you feel better about our struggle for equality." speech.

How they react to that speech kindof determines how "potential" they really are.

So. How's it going?
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
kinigget
Posts: 721
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:56 pm UTC
Location: the wild wild west

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby kinigget » Fri Oct 31, 2008 4:16 pm UTC

Belial wrote:
I, for one, would rather be treated like your potential ally than a lost cause.


Potential allies get the "Just because we're angry, doesn't mean we're unreasonable. We have every reason to be angry. Anger is the only reasonable response. We will not smile and console and make you feel better about our struggle for equality." speech.

How they react to that speech kindof determines how "potential" they really are.

So. How's it going?

My day is going well so far, thanks for asking.

anyway, while I do agree with this, it doesn't address the problem of "most people don't like listening to angry people". and, while I admit that this is a very bad way of putting it, I stick to my position of anger not winning you many friends. It doesn't matter how reasonable you're arguments are, delivery still counts for a lot.
The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:I can tell from his word choice that he is using his penis to type.

Steax wrote:I think the courts are kinda busy right now. Something about cake and due process.

Monty40xi
Posts: 370
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 2:55 pm UTC
Location: Iowa, USA

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Monty40xi » Fri Oct 31, 2008 4:17 pm UTC

Belial wrote:
I, for one, would rather be treated like your potential ally than a lost cause.


Potential allies get the "Just because we're angry, doesn't mean we're unreasonable. We have every reason to be angry. Anger is the only reasonable response. We will not smile and console and make you feel better about our struggle for equality." speech.

How they react to that speech kindof determines how "potential" they really are.

So. How's it going?

It seems like most of what I said there has been missed. Can I get some more feedback before I respond?
Occam's Quandary: any idea can be made to sound like the simpler one.

User avatar
kinigget
Posts: 721
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:56 pm UTC
Location: the wild wild west

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby kinigget » Fri Oct 31, 2008 4:19 pm UTC

why do I get the feeling that I'm the one on the sidelines trying to get a word in edgewise?
The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:I can tell from his word choice that he is using his penis to type.

Steax wrote:I think the courts are kinda busy right now. Something about cake and due process.

User avatar
KingLoser
Obnoxious Distraction
Posts: 458
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:04 pm UTC
Location: Port Láirge, Éire
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby KingLoser » Fri Oct 31, 2008 4:24 pm UTC

Spoilered again, although I have gone out of my way this time to relate the topic back to feminism and the topic on hand... so don't kick my ass plx.

Spoiler:
libellule wrote:
KingLoser wrote:Spoilered for off-topic:

libellule wrote:
michaelandjimi wrote:Going out and causing pain to people will certainly not help a cause.


I think the IRA and the PLO would disagree with you. Terrorism exists for a reason: it works. Prior to the late 1960's there was plenty of sympathy for the Northern Irish "cause" but no political action or even discussion among the leaders of more powerful countries. A few well-placed bombs changed that. It was no longer possible to ignore the Irish Catholics because their more violent representatives ensured that the issue remained on the global political agenda. And all the "We'll never deal with terrorists" aside, it's exactly the terrorism that made the dealing possible, even mandatory.

Bad example. It's more likely the stalemate that grew between the PIRA and the UVF which caused people to stand up and say "Stop". Neither group ever really held any superiority in the North. As regards progress, the improvements since the Good Friday agreement are pretty good evidence of the credibility of "dialogue over guns". Either way, I see your point... but it's my national duty to chime in on that one. :)


Off-topic again but I can't let this one go. Why do you think Good Friday ever happened? You're obviously much younger than I am and have no sense of personal history here. Having been Irish living in England, I do. Now it's quite trendy to be Irish. In the 80's it most definitely was not. The English members of the British government couldn't have given a toss about the Irish question from their ex-British-Empire loft. It was always condescend-stifle-discriminate... all the time. Why should they have listened to McGuinness, Adams et al ? The more the IRA bombed, however, the more the Brits would say "we will never deal with terrorists", the more discussions would happen and progress made. Hence the division of the Provo IRA into its militant and political factions. The Brits could disingenuously claim they weren't dealing with terrorists whereas Sinn Fein had the threat of bombs to make sure the Brits kept talking. That's how Good Friday happened. The Brits didn't suddenly decide that the Irish deserved a fair chance, they just wanted the bombs to stop because it made them look bad and weak to the English voters, and brought the Irish question to the attention of the word and the pocketbooks of Irish-Americans.

Progress never comes by hoping the other side sees sense. It's not in the vested interest of the other side to do so. Sometimes aggression is needed, sometimes fate intervenes. I don't think the women whose labor was appreciated during WWII were rewarded with the vote just because their talents and contributions were suddenly recognized and had hitherto been hidden, though certainly in the context of having screamed for the vote prior to this, the inequity stood more starkly in the light of their labor. We owe our "crazy" 20s-30s suffragettes for a big part if not all of that. They suffered ridicule and the admonishments of "reasonable" people to stop acting counterproductively and .... and what.... the status quo could continue and they could remain their squashed feminine selves?


Smarmy, btw.

But yes, plenty of personal history. I lived in Strabane, Co. Tyrone as a kid in the 80's and early 90's, and a lot of my extended family still live in the North. So keep your assumptions to yourself. If you think it's the PIRA bombings that got the attention of Parliament, then you're the ignorant one. All the bombings led to was the collapse of Stormont and the return of power to London. Quite the opposite of what you suggest. The SDLP, and other nationalists, with a campaign of non-violence, picketed for power-sharing, which eventually led to the Sunningdale Agreement and, unlike you, I wont insult your intelligence and will presume you know the rest.

British aggression against the dissidents increased, while power-sharing continued to evolve.

Ultimately, the story of the North, is a story how violence did not achieve anything. If the PIRA were successful, then where's this United Ireland?

According to your analogy, violent feminists would be treated as outsiders, while their peaceful diplomatic comrades would be given seats of power. Good job, oh wise and old one. :roll:
Last edited by KingLoser on Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:09 pm UTC, edited 4 times in total.
Add me on: Last.fm | Facebook | Flickr doodz.
Is minic a gheibhean beal oscailt díog dúnta.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Belial » Fri Oct 31, 2008 4:26 pm UTC

kinigget wrote:anyway, while I do agree with this, it doesn't address the problem of "most people don't like listening to angry people". and, while I admit that this is a very bad way of putting it, I stick to my position of anger not winning you many friends. It doesn't matter how reasonable you're arguments are, delivery still counts for a lot.


And if they can't get their head around someone being angry at the patriarchy, not them, and they can't get their head around the idea that someone could be angry for a reason, then they weren't going to be terribly good allies to begin with.

As Noc said, it's an intuitive leap. If you don't get it, no amount of reasoned discourse is going to make you get it until you have that leap.

And if you have made that leap, then you're probably angry too. So get on the bloody train.

To quote Ms McEwan (who needed to make an appearance in this thread at some point), from her own feminism 101 series, specifically the chapter on Anger:

How can you look at a cultural landscape of institutionalized inequality and not be angry, right? I mean, if you're a genuine ally and all.

And, if you are, you'll be glad for that anger, because you know that the opposite of anger, for a progressive, is complacence—and there can be no progress if everyone is perfectly complacent with the way things are.

Progress is dependent on people who get angry, because anger—productive anger, motivating anger, directed anger, rational anger—is the root of all progress.

Feminists/womanists and their allies know that change comes by virtue of anger.

Progress ain't fueled by rainbows and gumdrops.

If you're not angry, you're probably not helping.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

Monty40xi
Posts: 370
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 2:55 pm UTC
Location: Iowa, USA

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Monty40xi » Fri Oct 31, 2008 4:35 pm UTC

"Anger is the root of all progress"? Oh come on. Compassion has never achieved anything? Love has never achieved anything? Curiosity has never achieved anything? Ambition has never achieved anything? Anger is most certainly NOT the root of all progress. That's just wrong. Anger is the root of more setbacks than of progress.

I have an image in my head of Einstein screaming "Damn you, photons! DAMN YOOOOOOUUU!!"
Last edited by Monty40xi on Fri Oct 31, 2008 4:43 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
Occam's Quandary: any idea can be made to sound like the simpler one.

User avatar
sophyturtle
I'll go put my shirt back on for this kind of shock. No I won't. I'll get my purse.
Posts: 3476
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:19 pm UTC
Location: it's turtles all the way down, even in the suburbs
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby sophyturtle » Fri Oct 31, 2008 4:36 pm UTC

The courage to change the things needing to be changed, and to sacrifice the things that will need to be sacrificed to make those changes happen, cannot occur without a large motivation. Anger, fear, and hope are needed to carry forward a movement. It is important to get angry. Yes, it may be easier to listen to someone talk calmly. However, when you are trying to get people to take arms to fight for themselves, the best way to do that is emotionally and logically.
Last edited by sophyturtle on Fri Oct 31, 2008 4:45 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
I want to get to a place where I am neither conforming nor rebelling but simply being.

User avatar
Decker
Posts: 2071
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 4:22 pm UTC
Location: Western N.Y.

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Decker » Fri Oct 31, 2008 4:36 pm UTC

Monty40xi wrote:"Anger is the root of all progress"? Oh come on. Compassion has never achieved anything? Love has never achieved anything? Curiosity has never achieved anything? Ambition has never achieved anything? Anger is most certainly NOT the root of all progress. That's just wrong.

Maybe not anger, but discontent.
I was angry with my friend. I told my wrath. My wrath did end.
I was angry with my foe. I told it not. My wrath did grow.

User avatar
kinigget
Posts: 721
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:56 pm UTC
Location: the wild wild west

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby kinigget » Fri Oct 31, 2008 4:45 pm UTC

I'm going to change my position, belial convinced me that my current mindset was wrong. However, I will still say that delivery counts for a lot. shouting at people (just in general, please don't kill me) tends to alienate more than it does recruit. and with that I am done.

still might come back though.

(hopefully something I say will get noticed, I feel like I'm being ignored, which I'm sure isn't the case, but I can't help feeling that way.)
The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:I can tell from his word choice that he is using his penis to type.

Steax wrote:I think the courts are kinda busy right now. Something about cake and due process.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Belial » Fri Oct 31, 2008 4:55 pm UTC

Monty40xi wrote:"Anger is the root of all progress"? Oh come on. Compassion has never achieved anything? Love has never achieved anything? Curiosity has never achieved anything? Ambition has never achieved anything? Anger is most certainly NOT the root of all progress. That's just wrong. Anger is the root of more setbacks than of progress.

I have an image in my head of Einstein screaming "Damn you, photons! DAMN YOOOOOOUUU!!"


Lol your meanings of progress.

Social progress, m'boy. Social progress.

kinigget wrote:I'm going to change my position, belial convinced me that my current mindset was wrong. However, I will still say that delivery counts for a lot. shouting at people (just in general, please don't kill me) tends to alienate more than it does recruit. and with that I am done.


Well, there's a difference between shouting *at* someone and shouting *near* them. Yes, if I walk up to you and start screaming at you and calling you a fuckwit, it's probably not going to have that great an effect on you. But if you witness me (or, more likely, an actual female feminist) getting all riled up about the patriarchy, telling me/her to calm down and be less angry....

....well, if you're very lucky, it'll get you this argument we've been having. If you're not, you'll get told to fuck right the hell off.

.....and if you live in the world of darkness, you may be eaten by a huge black werewolf. Gotta love the black furies.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Jessica
Jessica, you're a ...
Posts: 8337
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:57 pm UTC
Location: Soviet Canuckistan

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Jessica » Fri Oct 31, 2008 4:59 pm UTC

Decker wrote:
Monty40xi wrote:"Anger is the root of all progress"? Oh come on. Compassion has never achieved anything? Love has never achieved anything? Curiosity has never achieved anything? Ambition has never achieved anything? Anger is most certainly NOT the root of all progress. That's just wrong.

Maybe not anger, but discontent.

Or, as it explained, anything that's the opposite of complacence.

I'm angry, and this thread has been angry for 7 pages. This is the same thing I was talking about in the pride parade thread, or the slurs thread. Sitting by rationally and calmly discussing things like old ladies over tea doesn't do anything. Showing people, making people uncomfortable, making people think, that's how you change things. You can do this in many ways. The GLBT community does it by just being out there, and forcing people to accept them. Feminists can't just do that, as their presence doesn't bother people. So, they use anger, and they argue and yell and make people uncomfortable. When people are uncomfortable, they think. Sometimes they backlash and say that their world view clearly was right, even though the words of another shook it or made them uncomfortable. Sometimes they fight back saying their words are wrong, as they're making them uncomfortable. And sometimes, every so often, someone's world view breaks, and the uncomfort disappears as they understand. And you get another ally and another person who's angry

Making people uncomfortable is the only way to get change. If people are uncomfortable ,they won't change. Why should they? they're comfortable. It sucks that you're feeling annoyed that people are telling you that there are problems in the world. But, that's unfortunate. Your uncomfort is more useful to us than your comfort is.

Edit: Damn vampires eating our wimmins ;)
doogly wrote:On a scale of Mr Rogers to Fascism, how mean do you think we're being?
Belial wrote:My goal is to be the best brain infection any of you have ever had.

User avatar
Jebobek
Posts: 2219
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:19 pm UTC
Location: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Geohash graticule

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Jebobek » Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:03 pm UTC

Maybe if all you do is shout, on or off the podium. Slighty different direction here: some people drop the F-bomb in every other sentence. They grab my attention for about 5 minutes, then it just sounds like they're just worried that no one cares what they say. No one in here is "shouting" except for during heightened emotions. I think the inflection is important, and you don't have to show anger 24/7 to maintain discontent.

Things that are done that really bothers me right off the bat is when someone calls someone else "boy," "son," "hun." Ugh that really upsets me for some weird reason.
Image

Monty40xi
Posts: 370
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 2:55 pm UTC
Location: Iowa, USA

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Monty40xi » Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:06 pm UTC

Belial wrote:
Monty40xi wrote:"Anger is the root of all progress"? Oh come on. Compassion has never achieved anything? Love has never achieved anything? Curiosity has never achieved anything? Ambition has never achieved anything? Anger is most certainly NOT the root of all progress. That's just wrong. Anger is the root of more setbacks than of progress.

I have an image in my head of Einstein screaming "Damn you, photons! DAMN YOOOOOOUUU!!"


Lol your meanings of progress.

Social progress, m'boy. Social progress.

What about all the times anger has pushed society backwards rather than forwards? Anger can be part of progress, but anger is also part of brutality and oppression. Because of anger's potential for the negative, it should always be questioned. Doubting or limiting anger does not make someone a traitor to their cause.
Occam's Quandary: any idea can be made to sound like the simpler one.

User avatar
sophyturtle
I'll go put my shirt back on for this kind of shock. No I won't. I'll get my purse.
Posts: 3476
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:19 pm UTC
Location: it's turtles all the way down, even in the suburbs
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby sophyturtle » Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:16 pm UTC

"If you are not outraged you are not paying attention."

For generation people have ignored the problems facing women. People still ignore it. They ask 'why are you so angry?' without listening to the answer. We can try to be calm, and we are still ignored. It is harder to ignore yelling. You have to actively block it out.
Being told over and over to be quiet makes us angry. Being told to wait for justice makes us angry. Sometimes being calm does not work. It has not worked for generations. It is time to get angry.
I want to get to a place where I am neither conforming nor rebelling but simply being.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Belial » Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:27 pm UTC

Monty40xi wrote:What about all the times anger has pushed society backwards rather than forwards? Anger can be part of progress, but anger is also part of brutality and oppression. Because of anger's potential for the negative, it should always be questioned. Doubting or limiting anger does not make someone a traitor to their cause.


Find me the place where I, or anyone else, said "Anger is always good, and if you are angry you are super-right about everything forever".

What we actually said was "Yes, many feminists are angry. And they have every right to be."

So, by "anger....should always be questioned" do you mean to say that you think they don't have every right to be angry? That the movement is baseless, and the oppression it seeks to fight nonexistent or nonproblematic?

If not, what, precisely, are you questioning?
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

Pandercolour
Posts: 914
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:35 pm UTC
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Pandercolour » Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:27 pm UTC

sophyturtle wrote: It is time to get angry.

It's past time for anger. In general, violent outbursts have done more to advance social progress than anything else. It's time to start hitting people in the face.

User avatar
Jebobek
Posts: 2219
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:19 pm UTC
Location: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Geohash graticule

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Jebobek » Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:36 pm UTC

I don't think inciting physical violence is what we want to start doing anywhere on the public internet..
Image

Monty40xi
Posts: 370
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 2:55 pm UTC
Location: Iowa, USA

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Monty40xi » Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:38 pm UTC

Belial wrote:
Monty40xi wrote:What about all the times anger has pushed society backwards rather than forwards? Anger can be part of progress, but anger is also part of brutality and oppression. Because of anger's potential for the negative, it should always be questioned. Doubting or limiting anger does not make someone a traitor to their cause.


Find me the place where I, or anyone else, said "Anger is always good, and if you are angry you are super-right about everything forever".

What we actually said was "Yes, many feminists are angry. And they have every right to be."

So, by "anger....should always be questioned" do you mean to say that you think they don't have every right to be angry? That the movement is baseless, and the oppression it seeks to fight nonexistent or nonproblematic?

If not, what, precisely, are you questioning?

I have seen nothing but praise for anger itself, especially from Ms McEwan's quote there. I'd like to see someone acknowledging that anger has a downside. Any acknowledgement at all that it's at least a mixed blessing.
Occam's Quandary: any idea can be made to sound like the simpler one.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Belial » Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:42 pm UTC

Monty40xi wrote:I have seen nothing but praise for anger itself, especially from Ms McEwan's quote there. I'd like to see someone acknowledging that anger has a downside. Any acknowledgement at all that it's at least a mixed blessing.


Anger behind a good cause is good. Anger behind a bad cause is bad. This isn't hard, seriously.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
KingLoser
Obnoxious Distraction
Posts: 458
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:04 pm UTC
Location: Port Láirge, Éire
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby KingLoser » Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:44 pm UTC

Belial wrote:
Monty40xi wrote:I have seen nothing but praise for anger itself, especially from Ms McEwan's quote there. I'd like to see someone acknowledging that anger has a downside. Any acknowledgement at all that it's at least a mixed blessing.


Anger behind a good cause is good. Anger behind a bad cause is bad. This isn't hard, seriously.

You should stick that in red text on the first post of this thread.
Add me on: Last.fm | Facebook | Flickr doodz.
Is minic a gheibhean beal oscailt díog dúnta.

User avatar
Jebobek
Posts: 2219
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:19 pm UTC
Location: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Geohash graticule

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Jebobek » Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:48 pm UTC

Well its also what you do with it. Anger behind words is sometimes good, anger behind a thrown brick is bad.
Image

Mo0man
Posts: 1258
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 4:46 am UTC
Location: 2 weeks ago

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Mo0man » Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:51 pm UTC

Anybody else think that this belongs in SB?
causa major dormuc vulnero ut ovis goatee
I'm number 20075. Remember that. It's important

Monty40xi
Posts: 370
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 2:55 pm UTC
Location: Iowa, USA

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Monty40xi » Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:52 pm UTC

Belial wrote:
Monty40xi wrote:I have seen nothing but praise for anger itself, especially from Ms McEwan's quote there. I'd like to see someone acknowledging that anger has a downside. Any acknowledgement at all that it's at least a mixed blessing.


Anger behind a good cause is good. Anger behind a bad cause is bad. This isn't hard, seriously.

But anger behind a good cause is NOT always 100% good with no drawbacks! Anger always, always, always has at least a few consequences that are at least a little bit less than ideal.
Occam's Quandary: any idea can be made to sound like the simpler one.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26528
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby SecondTalon » Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:53 pm UTC

Mo0man wrote:Anybody else think that this belongs in SB?

Only if you want it to break into a semantic debate on what Susan B. Anthony meant inalienable and her tendency to call people of African descent Negros.

Monty40xi wrote:But anger behind a good cause is NOT always 100% good with no drawbacks! Anger always, always, always has at least a few consequences that are at least a little bit less than ideal.

At this point, any forward progress is better than none?
Last edited by SecondTalon on Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:54 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests