I believe in Love

[blue]

being too independant - to a fault. That and pride. Which is why it's so amazing to me that I have this man that I love enough to better my personality and try to improve in things like communication.

It's funny how often independence and pride are 'faults that need fixing' in women, isn't it?

None of my business, of course. I think this thread has gotten a little too publicly-personal the past couple of days, which is probably my fault, so I shall withdraw.

and just so you know, I meant 'bitch' as in I will kick someone's ass if need be, not the slap-around bitch. hehe

I really, really detest that word. As I'm sure the regulars around here are only too aware. I several times went to considerable lengths on the old CQD board to explain to male members who'd used it in posts - in the context that men invariably use it, to describe a female whose sexual conduct they personally disliked - how mysoginistic it is, how loaded with genderistic prejudice and hatred. How words express the attitudes behind them, and how those attitudes help to create a world where the consequences for a woman of simply being a woman can be anything from unfair treatment at work to violence in the home to being found raped and murdered in a ditch. I went to all that trouble repeatedly, and made myself highly unpopular with the largely male readership there in the process, because I feel passionately about how the consequences of physical prejudice can devastate people's lives - men, women and children.

I hate to hear women using that word, too. They tend not to use it in the same context as men, but to see them taking that mysoginistic characterisation and turning it on themselves and each other is something that saddens me a lot. I've raised my own daughter to regard it as the highly unnattractive and damaging thing it really is, but I've noticed she seems to be the exception among her friends and peers. I'm truly astonished sometimes at their attitudes to themselves, to being women.

Anyway. Been here, done this.

You're an individual, Tiffany. A human being. When you kick ass, it's cos you're a person in a mood to kick ass, that's all.

[blue]

i see falling in love and love can be compared, of all things, to..... the space shuttle! : I let me try and explain - if you see 'real' love as the shuttle itself, you know it can't get into orbit without the big f*ck-off rocket it sits on - that's the 'brightly burning' falling in love bit.

No honestly, I love that - 'the big fuck-off rocket'. Fantastic analogy all round.

the psychologist and writer M.Scott Peck proposed that a successful marriage is never the meeting of two halves becoming a whole, rather two complete individuals coming together to create a mysterious (in a positive sense) but tangible third 'enitity'

You know it's funny Duncan, I've been talking to Dave recently about all this and I'm sure I actually used that exact word - 'entity' - in the context of realising what marriage is. That statement makes complete sense to me, it's quite reassuring to see the concept written down like that.

i really believe in that and think that is the ideal worth aiming for - and elizabeth, you sort of back that up in what you say - i think resisting subsumation is totally correct and healthy. it's somehow about creation and not merging. y'know what i'm trying to get at?

Yes, that's exactly the thing I'm trying to find my way through, at the moment. Because I thought it would be a given - a natural thing, you know. And it isn't, at all.

anyhow, is the barrier more with the word 'marriage' than anything else?

If only.

No, it's the entire conceptual basis behind it, but that's a bloody long discussion and one that's probably better conducted privately, between the relevant parties.

Thanks though, for the insight. Much appreciated.

[x31eq]

Oh, I don't mean a whole Donna Reed thing, just that my 'prime impulse' was being too independant - to a fault. That and pride. Which is why it's so amazing to me that I have this man that I love enough to better my personality and try to improve in things like communication.

I looked up Donna Reed and ... I still don't know what you're talking about.

[ruth1998]

looked up Donna Reed and ... I still don't know what you're talking about.

Never seen the show, huh? She's kind of like thestereotypical ideal or "perfect" wife/mother back then: always cooking and serving and cleaning...the way men wanted their women back then (maybe now too in most of cultures). It's all very degrading for the female gender. You'll have to either watch the episode of Gilmore Girls that's about it or watch the show. "Damn That Donna Reed" is the name of it, I think it's the first season.

[ruth1998]

I really, really detest that word. ......

You're an individual, Tiffany. A human being. When you kick ass, it's cos you're a person in a mood to kick ass, that's all.

Haha, fine. I'm an individual. It's just funny to me, because I hear and use the word everyday to refer to any female that, in my/my friends' eyes, deserve it. I use it to refer to anyone that is unjust, annoying, mean for no reason...any woman I don't like (i use the word so much I'm struggling to thing of synonyms!! That's horrible). I use it to describe myself quite often as well. Not that I don't like myself. When I use it toward myself I'm usually proud of it or admitting a wrong.

Maybe it's the generation. Maybe it's personal experiences. But it's a good idea to widen the horizons of my vocabulary, so I'll try not to use the "b" word around here for your happiness
Peace!

[gerryuk]

I don have a current love, so I cant join in [help]

[gerryuk]

Well there is Annie Hardy but she want return my e-mails

[sound world]

Hi folks.I'm still in the same relatonship,we recently celebrated eleven years since making a (non-official) vow.
Getting better all the time!

[blue]

It's just funny to me, because I hear and use the word everyday to refer to any female that, in my/my friends' eyes, deserve it.

Mm, I think that's pretty much par for the course with a lot of young women these days, as I mentioned above. But do you ever think about why you use it? And why women, particularly, 'deserve' it? I think more than anything this is what I find sad nowadays, really - the level of unquestioning acceptance of these mysoginistic terms and attitudes. I mean, I daresay some men are just as annoying, horrible etc as some women, but we don't seem to feel the need to apply the same terminology to them. Do you never wonder why that is? It really surprises me how little people seem to question things nowadays, but then I guess that applies to most of the world's ills. Much easier not to think and question and challenge.

Maybe it's the generation. Maybe it's personal experiences. But it's a good idea to widen the horizons of my vocabulary, so I'll try not to use the "b" word around here for your happiness
Peace!

Oh I think there's definitely a generational aspect to it, which in one sense gives me a bit of hope because things tend to be cyclical, don't they - maybe a couple of generations down the line there'll be a return to questioning and trying to change attitudes, as there was for my generation. Maybe even as women your age get older and experience a bit more of how these stereotypes actually impact personally on people's lives, they'll go searching back to see what previous generations thought about it. I think part of the problem at the moment is that people your age have come up in a time when it's been fashionable to diss anything 'feminist', including all the issues of basic fairness, respect and justice that have been conveniently lumped under that term in order to provide people with an excuse not to tackle them. I'd like to think that might change with future generations, one can always hope for a more courageous, evolved understanding of the issues and what's at stake.

Incidentally, I really appreciate the last bit of your post - we could all improve our vocabulary - but I'm not in the business of trying to dictate what can and can't be said on this board or anywhere else for that matter. I had this argument several times with my old mate Spook on the CQD board, but I'm not sure I ever got it through to him that I don't like any brand of fascism. We're all perfectly free to say what we like, it's a basic right for all human beings. I simply put forward my take on things when other people put forward theirs. I believe in challenging these attitudes, speaking up, articulating another point of view. I feel it's important to do so.

[blue]

Getting better all the time!

Good to hear.

[ruth1998]

But do you ever think about why you use it?

I'll tell you exactly why I use it.

The word bitch refers to a pregnant female dog, which in itself wouldn't be insulting. Then it goes into how defensive and moody and annoying those dogs are...so that you want to kick them in the face. Now I apply that to the woman I am saying it about. There you have it.

Do not assume that I at all jump on the bandwagon of anything. One thing I always do is question why. (That's why I'm not Catholic). Unlike too many of my generation, I have a reason and logic behind all I do and love and ablsolutely refuse to adopt others' opinion as my own. I'm more prone to reject than accept. There's part of my stubborness but it's a good kind. I think for myself, even though it's so cliche to even say so these days. But I assure you in this case it's genuine and true. That's all I'll say.

[blue]

I'll tell you exactly why I use it.

The word bitch refers to a pregnant female dog, which in itself wouldn't be insulting.

You don't think it's insulting to equate a human being with a dog?

For me, that's the very thing that's so dangerous and damaging about it - lowering the status of a human being to that of an animal is what 'permits' violence against them. It's how the Nazis were able to consign millions of people to grisly deaths back in the 30s and 40s; it's facilitated every incident of genocide in the decades since. If an individual is perceived to be 'not human', merely an animal, it becomes suddenly easier to ride roughshod over that individual's rights, feelings and needs, even their right to live. If you seek to control, dominate, subjugate, exterminate individuals, first de-humanise them.

Then it goes into how defensive and moody and annoying those dogs are...so that you want to kick them in the face. Now I apply that to the woman I am saying it about. There you have it.

Putting aside the complete irrelevance of how an animal behaves when it's pregant - because we're talking about human beings here - the point is this: why is the terminology applied particularly to women who are moody, defensive, annoying? All human beings display those traits at times, men are just as apt to be guilty of them as women, so why isn't the word applied to men as well, if that's all it's about? Why isn't it as ubiquitous and automatic a response to these behaviours in men as in women? The point I'm trying to make is that we don't, generally, feel a need to respond to a man being difficult or annoying etc by de-humanising him. I think it's pretty obvious that, in contrast, there's a reason we think it's not only acceptable, but normal, to do that to women.

Do not assume that I at all jump on the bandwagon of anything.

I haven't assumed anything of the sort, Tiffany - like many women of my age, who grew up in a time when a different kind of thinking was prevalent, I simply see the link between the overt and relentless denigration over the last decade of anything considered to be 'feminist', with the return of some rather prehistoric attitudes in the generation who've grown up during this time.

One thing I always do is question why. (That's why I'm not Catholic).

I'm Catholic, and exceedingly questioning.

So what you're essentially saying is that it's not that you haven't thought about all this, you just think it's *OK* to denigrate the status of a woman to that of a dog if she annoys you? Right, well, in that case there's not really much point in continuing this discussion, is there? I'll always attempt to discuss where it seems there's a lack of awareness at the root, which actually I think is the case with most people, but there's not a great deal to say to someone who makes a conscious choice to go through life with these attitudes. Lack of humanity, empathy, respect are the root causes of so much ill in the personal and wider worlds, but it's down to each individual's conscience whether they contribute to that or try to change it.

Unlike too many of my generation, I have a reason and logic behind all I do and love and ablsolutely refuse to adopt others' opinion as my own.

I'm sorry, but I find that pretty hard to believe coming from someone who freely admits to adopting and employing the patriarchal attitudes and behaviours of the majority, in this day and age. It doesn't wash.


PM me if you want to keep talking about this Tiffany, I suspect it's boring for everyone else reading and I don't want to take up any more of this thread with it, it's not fair to others who might want to contribute to the original topic.

[RobB]

I remember with a smile that Laural & Hardy film 'The Music Box' ...........they're shifting this crated piano up a long flight of steps cut into a hillside.
At the bottom of the steps L & H have an altercation with a nanny......Stan has just kicked her up the arse and she's just broken a babys bottle over a laughing Ollie's head.

She storms off to complain to a nearby copper.

Meanwhile Stan & Ollie have got the crate half way up the steps again when a copper calls up to hthem to come down.

Ollie naturally sends Stan down to see what the copper wants:

Stan: What do you want?

Copper: I don't want you. I want that other monkey.

See,even men get de-humanised..........and by other men too.

[blue]

'Monkey' was notoriously used by whites to de-humanise blacks for a long, long time of course, to take a serious tangent off your comic turn, Rob. This is a good example of what I'm talking about, the way language embodies attitudes that 'permit' all sorts of evils being done to one particular section of humanity by others. This is the core of my argument, that this kind of physical prejudice has very real and horrendous consequences for individuals. And it's very significant that while the civilized world has largely agreed that it is totally unnaccpetable for those racial epithets to be used any longer - it is decidedly NOT OK to denigrate a human being on the basis of the colour of the body they live in - it continues to be perfectly acceptable to do so on the basis of the design of the body they live in. I remember once illustrating this to a fellow CQD-er privately by pointing out that while most decent people, if they saw a man shouting words like 'nigger', 'paki', 'sambo' etc at a black woman in the street would think how disgusting and offensive it was - might even make their feelings known - the same people would think nothing of it if he was shouting 'bitch', 'whore' 'slag' at her instead. They'd walk on by, thinking about what's for dinner. It's not acceptable for him to abuse her on the basis of the colour of her body, but it's fine to abuse her on the basis of the design of her body. S'normal, innit? It don't mean nuffink.

[red]

Ooh, an argument! Can I invoke Godwin's Law to end it?...:

It's how the Nazis were able to consign millions of people to grisly deaths back in the 30s and 40s; it's facilitated every incident of genocide in the decades since.

I always thought 'bastard' was the male equivalent, and bitch became a 'worse' word because of the feminist complaints about it...? (ducks incoming piano)

btw, back on topic - there's no one special in my life, but I love all you..:D