Why do SJWs think I'm obligated to kiss their ass?

Page 11 of 13 [ 194 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next

L_Holmes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jul 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,468
Location: Twin Falls, ID

12 Jul 2016, 10:41 pm

As far as triggering, the reason I think misusing the word hurts people with PTSD is because some people use it in a way that renders the word meaningless. So people with legitimate PTSD are less likely to be recognized.

Also, even though it makes sense to avoid triggers to a certain extent, any decent psychologist will tell you that the best way to treat that sort of thing is actually to face what triggers you, starting with mild things and working up to bigger things so you become better able to handle it when it arises. With some time, and depending on the severity, many people can overcome their PTSD.


_________________
"It has long been an axiom of mine that the little things are infinitely the most important."

- Sherlock Holmes


ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,218
Location: Long Island, New York

13 Jul 2016, 12:05 am

For PTSD this is true. Long before PTSD was commonly reconized the term "triggers" has been used in addiction treatment as something to avoid. Addiction to bieng offended probably requires facing triggers.


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity

“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman


mr_bigmouth_502
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Dec 2013
Age: 31
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 7,028
Location: Alberta, Canada

13 Jul 2016, 4:38 am

I feel like an idiot for posting that infographic now. Gah. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't somewhat of an advocate for social justice myself, but I do think the PC movement tends to take things too far, and in doing so they become just like the people they speak out against.

I think it's time we stop conflating social justice with the PC brigade.


_________________
Every day is exactly the same...


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 29,473
Location: Right over your left shoulder

13 Jul 2016, 10:04 am

mr_bigmouth_502 wrote:
I feel like an idiot for posting that infographic now. Gah. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't somewhat of an advocate for social justice myself, but I do think the PC movement tends to take things too far, and in doing so they become just like the people they speak out against.

I think it's time we stop conflating social justice with the PC brigade.


Political correctness isn't a trait confined to any specific part of the political spectrum though. As much as throwing the term around is more typical of the right, they have their own brand of political correctness to peddle.

You are right, we do need to stop conflating social justice with the PC brigade, but that has plenty to do with reactionaries insisting advocating for social justice is 'enforcing political correctness' and not just treating people with equal dignity. Pointing out how society treats people based on various demographic identities offends their sense of political correctness, for example.


_________________
I was ashamed of myself when I realised life was a costume party and I attended with my real face
"Many of us like to ask ourselves, What would I do if I was alive during slavery? Or the Jim Crow South? Or apartheid? What would I do if my country was committing genocide?' The answer is, you're doing it. Right now." —Former U.S. Airman (Air Force) Aaron Bushnell


YippySkippy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,986

13 Jul 2016, 2:18 pm

Quote:
It's not mansplaining. I would be saying the same thing to you regardless of your sex, because I disagree with what you're saying. How can you prove that the reason a man is being condescending is because he's sexist, without him saying so or making it explicitly obvious? He could just be condescending to this particular woman because he doesn't like her, or maybe he legitimately believes she doesn't understand and is just trying to clarify his idea, and unintentionally came across as rude.


I didn't accuse you of mansplaining, so I'm not sure what the first couple sentences of this response are about.
And yes, it is sometimes difficult to prove intent, and sometimes men may appear to be mansplaining when they are not. That doesn't mean mansplaining never happens.

Quote:
But whatever the case may be, according to your logic, a man should never try to explain anything to a woman, regardless of the reason he is doing so, otherwise he is mansplaining.


Well, if the only reason you ever explain anything to a woman is because she's a woman, then yes. But that's not what I said.



mr_bigmouth_502
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Dec 2013
Age: 31
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 7,028
Location: Alberta, Canada

13 Jul 2016, 9:48 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
mr_bigmouth_502 wrote:
I feel like an idiot for posting that infographic now. Gah. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't somewhat of an advocate for social justice myself, but I do think the PC movement tends to take things too far, and in doing so they become just like the people they speak out against.

I think it's time we stop conflating social justice with the PC brigade.


Political correctness isn't a trait confined to any specific part of the political spectrum though. As much as throwing the term around is more typical of the right, they have their own brand of political correctness to peddle.

You are right, we do need to stop conflating social justice with the PC brigade, but that has plenty to do with reactionaries insisting advocating for social justice is 'enforcing political correctness' and not just treating people with equal dignity. Pointing out how society treats people based on various demographic identities offends their sense of political correctness, for example.

The right wing "version" of political correctness is commonly known as "family values", but I agree, political correctness is something that isn't exclusive to any one part of the political spectrum. "Political correctness" and "family values" are basically the same thing from different perspectives.

You made a good observation in stating that identifying issues of social justice is often seen as being politically incorrect. Certain demographics are affected by various things more than others, and people don't like to admit this. Dignity for all people is something society should be striving for... but unfortunately discrimination is something that seems to be encoded into our DNA as human beings. That doesn't mean it's right, but how else are you supposed to explain where discrimination comes from in the first place? It has been argued that people don't start off discriminating against others, and that it's a learned behavior, but I don't think this is entirely true. It's not entirely false, but again, how else are you supposed to explain how it became a thing in the first place?


_________________
Every day is exactly the same...


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

14 Jul 2016, 2:28 am

L_Holmes wrote:
Mansplaining is a ridiculous idea. A female can be just as condescending to a male or another female, and people can be condescending for many reasons other than sexism. It's called being an as*hole; we don't need a special word for when a man does it to a woman, because that implies that it's always motivated by sexism, when it's not.

Triggering is a legitimate term, but it's used WAY too loosely by a lot of SJWs for anything that makes them a little bit upset. Most of the SJWs who say it were never diagnosed with PTSD, and by using the term incorrectly they are hurting people with real PTSD.


I agree about the mansplaining, I've had the same thing done to me enough times by loud personalities of either sex to conclude that it's neither a behavior exclusive to men, nor a faux pas only directed at women, it's just an annoying thing that some people do. I often see this sort of persecution complex in feminist writing, reading bigoted motivations into simple rudeness that is simply not supported by any evidence other than anecdote.

Triggering is an excellent example of the language of academic feminism seeping out to a broader audience that doesn't really understand the underlying concepts, and simply tries to use those ideas as blunt implements against their ideological foes. Privilege would be the real poster child, a pretty good concept so twisted and weaponized that it's no longer recognizable, or even useful in any way.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


L_Holmes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jul 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,468
Location: Twin Falls, ID

14 Jul 2016, 7:32 am

YippySkippy wrote:
Quote:
It's not mansplaining. I would be saying the same thing to you regardless of your sex, because I disagree with what you're saying. How can you prove that the reason a man is being condescending is because he's sexist, without him saying so or making it explicitly obvious? He could just be condescending to this particular woman because he doesn't like her, or maybe he legitimately believes she doesn't understand and is just trying to clarify his idea, and unintentionally came across as rude.


I didn't accuse you of mansplaining, so I'm not sure what the first couple sentences of this response are about.
And yes, it is sometimes difficult to prove intent, and sometimes men may appear to be mansplaining when they are not. That doesn't mean mansplaining never happens.

Quote:
But whatever the case may be, according to your logic, a man should never try to explain anything to a woman, regardless of the reason he is doing so, otherwise he is mansplaining.


Well, if the only reason you ever explain anything to a woman is because she's a woman, then yes. But that's not what I said.

I read, "Yes, and that's not mansplaining" as a sarcastic comment which implied that my original response was just me "mansplaining". You were just saying what I described was not mansplaining. My bad.

I just think it's silly to have such a specific and basically pointless word. If I'm correct on what your definition is (I say that because I have heard various definitions), it means when a man condescendingly explains something to woman, because he is a sexist. Why can't you just say that what he is saying is sexist, or even simply call him a sexist? Just from a language standpoint that's kind of awkward, since it can only be used accurately in a very specific set of circumstances.

But also, I think it has a huge potential to be used in a way that just creates a ton more problems than it fixes. What is the point of the word? Why is it gender-specific? Women can also be sexist, so if a sexist woman condescendingly explains something to a man, should we call it womansplaining?

It just seems like a really easy way to casually accuse someone of sexism and shut down a discussion, simply because you don't like or agree with what they are saying, or believe they are being rude. I've seen it used in such a way at least once, and I'm sure it's happened many more times than that.


_________________
"It has long been an axiom of mine that the little things are infinitely the most important."

- Sherlock Holmes


OliveOilMom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,447
Location: About 50 miles past the middle of nowhere

14 Jul 2016, 10:49 am

Galymcd wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
CockneyRebel wrote:
What is an SJW?


Decent people, the opposite of Social Injustice Warriors. :wink:


Decent people they are most certainly not. Disagree with them, they find out where you live and send death threats. It's not uncommon to see them find the place of employment of dissenters and get their job revoked. I've seen them talk about how making false rape claims and beating up men is justified because, somehow, men run developed society.

They are dangerous. Most people don't understand that because SJWs rally under feminism, which USED to be about equality. And it's not just a few, it's most of them, all as part of a new wave. This third wave is cancerous, and ineffective in the name of equality seeing as they constantly deny that men have bad s**t happen in their lives because they're men (like custody cases, crime and arrest rates, etc.), though I wish not to imply women necessarily have it easy either.

I myself now identify as egalitarian in gender politics (I am by no means a red-piller, MRI, Meninist, etc., they are no better), along with many pissed off men and women like me.

I'm not saying you have to be an egalitarian, but SJWs are dangerous, as anyone with a big enough victim complex falls into the trap.


The "feminism" of today bears almost no resemblance to the feminism of the 60s and 70s, when women were actually fighting for equality and for respect and equal opportunity in the workplace. Back then it was about women being given the same chance at administrative positions as men have and opening up many traditionally male jobs to women when women could physically do them. It was about giving us the same economic freedom as men by not discriminating on mortgages and credit and women began demanding the same respect and autonomy as men have always been given. I'm old enough to remember want ads in the newspaper divided into Ladies and Men's sections based on the particular type of job. I remember when a single working woman with a good job had almost no chance of getting a loan to buy her own home, and when the idea of a single woman adopting a child was outright ridiculous. I remember when it was common practice to give a job to a man instead of a woman because the man had a family to support and women were expected to accept that, and many times did accept it and agree with it to a point. Now, "feminism" seems to be about whether or not someone committed a cardinal sin and didn't spell it "womyn", or that a tv show cast every secretary or teacher as a female, or panel discussions on why men should be fired, or at least disciplined in the workplace for doing something so terrible as standing up with a lady walks into a room or opening the door for her and thus adamantly proclaiming a victory for the patriarchy, or even how we all need support groups and therapy and reparations because a man looking at us for .025 seconds too long is not just akin to rape but is actual rape and our HMO should pay for therapy for the PTSD that we will no doubt develop because of the horrid experience of a man glancing our way for .025 second too long.

While there still are a few things that aren't fully equal, most of them are and nobody would suggest that the CEO job be only given to a man, or any such thing anymore, todays version of "feminism" is entirely focused on silly, nitpicking things that don't actually matter in any big picture anywhere and are only a topic because of a theory that they might influence x amount of people in a certain way, and even that is conjecture. It's like todays women feel like they have missed out on the struggle and instead of sitting back and enjoying the victory they feel that they can't be fully equal without having burned their bra or marched in protest, so they have to dig up something to protest against. It's really ok to say "We won" and be done with it and simply prevent things from going backwards, but that just isn't good enough for these gals, so the nits will by God be picked.

That is why I've decided that I'm not going to call myself a feminist anymore, even though I certainly am one. I'm going to use the term we used back in the day, when there was actually something that had to be fought for and was yet to be won. I'm a women's libber. That term, dated and and as 70's as polyester, the shag haircut, and disco, is one that isn't tied to ridiculous theories and demands for protection of our oh so delicate feelings and emotions, but is reminiscent of the issues that were actually fought for, and won, by our mothers and grandmothers. It's about saying we are just as strong emotionally and mentally as men are and we don't need any special protection or to be shielded from something that could hurt our sensibilities lest we get the vapors and be shocked and offended so much that our emotions keep us from functioning like the Victorian ladies did. This fainting couch feminism, that is primarily concerned with policing the words and ideas that could trigger us into an episode of hysteria-like PTSD, has absolutely no place in a philosophy of equality and strength, which is what women's lib fought to have recognized by the rest of the world. You would be hard pressed to even get women the vote by painting us with the delicate flower, ruled by our emotions and unable to function if the slightest bit offended brush that todays "feminists" paint us all with. The ladies that go into hysterics today over a perceived verbal sleight or seeing a female stereotype on screen or in print would be an embarrassment and a burden to the tough ladies who put up with a ton of s**t to prove that we aren't fragile and that our sensibilities aren't a problem for us and we won't be moody and insist on slowing everything down in the business world with our petty complaints and whining, rather than just sucking up whats annoying and bothersome and focusing on getting the job done, you know, like men did at work before we joined the work force - and like we can do and have done for years until our feelings became more important than anything else. And the s**t that those ladies put up with is s**t that we don't have to put up with now, and the focus of the complaints is so many times just petty, I'm not talking about putting up with actual sexual harassment or actual sex discrimination.

So no, I'm not a feminist. Not at all. I'm a women's libber, because fainting couch feminism does nothing more than reinforce all the things that those against women's lib used as justification for keeping things unequal. I don't need the couch, I'm a big girl and I can sit in the big chair even if it is uncomfortable at times. I don't expect anyone to cater to my special feelings and sensitivities because I have a ovaries and not testicles. Just because we don't have testicles doesn't mean we don't have balls, and fainting couch feminism has created a whole generation of castrated feminists but women's libbers still have big brass balls and aren't afraid to let it be known that we do.


_________________
I'm giving it another shot. We will see.
My forum is still there and everyone is welcome to come join as well. There is a private women only subforum there if anyone is interested. Also, there is no CAPTCHA. ;-)

The link to the forum is http://www.rightplanet.proboards.com


AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

14 Jul 2016, 4:08 pm

OliveOilMom wrote:
...So no, I'm not a feminist....

No, you are a victim of right wing tools who have tried to undermine feminism since the beginning. It hasn't changed, it's still about the same thing. Only a coward would give in to this reprehensible negative propaganda.



OliveOilMom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,447
Location: About 50 miles past the middle of nowhere

14 Jul 2016, 4:18 pm

AspE wrote:
OliveOilMom wrote:
...So no, I'm not a feminist....

No, you are a victim of right wing tools who have tried to undermine feminism since the beginning. It hasn't changed, it's still about the same thing. Only a coward would give in to this reprehensible negative propaganda.


I'm not giving in to anything. I'm just simply calling myself something else to distance myself from the nutjobs. Actual feminism is the same as it always was, it's just gotten lost amidst the mixed nuts. It's much easier to just call myself a women's libber than it is to explain that no I'm not one of THOSE kind. People will automatically ask why I use the term women's libber and I'll simply say that third wave loud screechy feminism isn't feminism and I'm old school.

And I'm hardly giving in to anything, and a coward if very, very far from anything that I even remotely resemble. I'm just saving my breath as opposed to the hysterical flowers.


_________________
I'm giving it another shot. We will see.
My forum is still there and everyone is welcome to come join as well. There is a private women only subforum there if anyone is interested. Also, there is no CAPTCHA. ;-)

The link to the forum is http://www.rightplanet.proboards.com


wilburforce
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Sep 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,940

14 Jul 2016, 4:32 pm

OliveOilMom wrote:
AspE wrote:
OliveOilMom wrote:
...So no, I'm not a feminist....

No, you are a victim of right wing tools who have tried to undermine feminism since the beginning. It hasn't changed, it's still about the same thing. Only a coward would give in to this reprehensible negative propaganda.


I'm not giving in to anything. I'm just simply calling myself something else to distance myself from the nutjobs. Actual feminism is the same as it always was, it's just gotten lost amidst the mixed nuts. It's much easier to just call myself a women's libber than it is to explain that no I'm not one of THOSE kind. People will automatically ask why I use the term women's libber and I'll simply say that third wave loud screechy feminism isn't feminism and I'm old school.

And I'm hardly giving in to anything, and a coward if very, very far from anything that I even remotely resemble. I'm just saving my breath as opposed to the hysterical flowers.


I wonder if you're aware of the irony in your post, calling yourself a true feminist and then using a sexist insult against the women you disagree with by calling them "hysterical flowers"? That's almost like meta-irony. :lol:


_________________
"Ego non immanis, sed mea immanis telum." ~ Ares, God of War

(Note to Moderators: my warning number is wrong on my profile but apparently can't be fixed so I will note here that it is actually 2, not 3--the warning issued to me on Aug 20 2016 was a mistake but I've been told it can't be removed.)


AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

14 Jul 2016, 5:17 pm

OliveOilMom wrote:
...I'm not giving in to anything. I'm just simply calling myself something else to distance myself from the nutjobs. ...

Totally not necessary. I'm still an American, even though the USA is full of nutjobs. I'm also a Democrat, and an atheist, both groups full of same. I'm sure many Republicans are fine with the label even though Michele Bachmann exists.
The nuts are called out by our enemies specifically in order to destroy us. And apparently that works.



OliveOilMom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,447
Location: About 50 miles past the middle of nowhere

14 Jul 2016, 5:47 pm

wilburforce wrote:
OliveOilMom wrote:
AspE wrote:
OliveOilMom wrote:
...So no, I'm not a feminist....

No, you are a victim of right wing tools who have tried to undermine feminism since the beginning. It hasn't changed, it's still about the same thing. Only a coward would give in to this reprehensible negative propaganda.


I'm not giving in to anything. I'm just simply calling myself something else to distance myself from the nutjobs. Actual feminism is the same as it always was, it's just gotten lost amidst the mixed nuts. It's much easier to just call myself a women's libber than it is to explain that no I'm not one of THOSE kind. People will automatically ask why I use the term women's libber and I'll simply say that third wave loud screechy feminism isn't feminism and I'm old school.

And I'm hardly giving in to anything, and a coward if very, very far from anything that I even remotely resemble. I'm just saving my breath as opposed to the hysterical flowers.


I wonder if you're aware of the irony in your post, calling yourself a true feminist and then using a sexist insult against the women you disagree with by calling them "hysterical flowers"? That's almost like meta-irony. :lol:


I call them hysterical flowers because of the way they insist that we be offended by language and comments that aren't directly harassment or threatening, etc. They do exactly what men said women would do when we started fighting to work side by side with them at traditional male only jobs and complain that the way the guys talk offends us. They act like we are delicate flowers whose fragile sensibilities have been offended by the coarse and rough banter of the men, and being overtaken in a fit of hysteria object so strenuously that they shouldn't have to hear things like that because they are offended by it. I call them that because that's exactly how they are acting. Rather than handle a guy telling an off color joke by telling him he's not funny or better still by just ignoring it because it's just a joke, they go on a crusade against that kind of talk in their presence. Not for the same reasons as victorian women did of course, they did it out of feeling that it was improper and forward and immodest and today they couch it in terms of disrespectful and offensive and triggering, but either way it boils down to the same thing - talk that is objected to by a group of women when it's not aimed at them. We aren't so special that our little feelings have to be coddled all the time. They are trying to portray us as victims all over again and weak and in need of protection, which is basically everything that we fought against then. So no, you didn't understand what I was saying at all. My feelings don't need that kind of protection and fainting couch feminism is not my thing. I'll stick with women's lib thank you. Nobody has to have jazz hands or safe rooms or primal scream therapy to be involved in that.


_________________
I'm giving it another shot. We will see.
My forum is still there and everyone is welcome to come join as well. There is a private women only subforum there if anyone is interested. Also, there is no CAPTCHA. ;-)

The link to the forum is http://www.rightplanet.proboards.com


OliveOilMom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,447
Location: About 50 miles past the middle of nowhere

14 Jul 2016, 5:49 pm

AspE wrote:
OliveOilMom wrote:
...I'm not giving in to anything. I'm just simply calling myself something else to distance myself from the nutjobs. ...

Totally not necessary. I'm still an American, even though the USA is full of nutjobs. I'm also a Democrat, and an atheist, both groups full of same. I'm sure many Republicans are fine with the label even though Michele Bachmann exists.
The nuts are called out by our enemies specifically in order to destroy us. And apparently that works.



Think what you want. I explained my reasons to you, and I require neither your understanding nor your approval. It makes no difference to me at all. You do your way and I'll do my way.


_________________
I'm giving it another shot. We will see.
My forum is still there and everyone is welcome to come join as well. There is a private women only subforum there if anyone is interested. Also, there is no CAPTCHA. ;-)

The link to the forum is http://www.rightplanet.proboards.com


wilburforce
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Sep 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,940

14 Jul 2016, 5:49 pm

OliveOilMom wrote:
wilburforce wrote:
OliveOilMom wrote:
AspE wrote:
OliveOilMom wrote:
...So no, I'm not a feminist....

No, you are a victim of right wing tools who have tried to undermine feminism since the beginning. It hasn't changed, it's still about the same thing. Only a coward would give in to this reprehensible negative propaganda.


I'm not giving in to anything. I'm just simply calling myself something else to distance myself from the nutjobs. Actual feminism is the same as it always was, it's just gotten lost amidst the mixed nuts. It's much easier to just call myself a women's libber than it is to explain that no I'm not one of THOSE kind. People will automatically ask why I use the term women's libber and I'll simply say that third wave loud screechy feminism isn't feminism and I'm old school.

And I'm hardly giving in to anything, and a coward if very, very far from anything that I even remotely resemble. I'm just saving my breath as opposed to the hysterical flowers.


I wonder if you're aware of the irony in your post, calling yourself a true feminist and then using a sexist insult against the women you disagree with by calling them "hysterical flowers"? That's almost like meta-irony. :lol:


I call them hysterical flowers because of the way they insist that we be offended by language and comments that aren't directly harassment or threatening, etc. They do exactly what men said women would do when we started fighting to work side by side with them at traditional male only jobs and complain that the way the guys talk offends us. They act like we are delicate flowers whose fragile sensibilities have been offended by the coarse and rough banter of the men, and being overtaken in a fit of hysteria object so strenuously that they shouldn't have to hear things like that because they are offended by it. I call them that because that's exactly how they are acting. Rather than handle a guy telling an off color joke by telling him he's not funny or better still by just ignoring it because it's just a joke, they go on a crusade against that kind of talk in their presence. Not for the same reasons as victorian women did of course, they did it out of feeling that it was improper and forward and immodest and today they couch it in terms of disrespectful and offensive and triggering, but either way it boils down to the same thing - talk that is objected to by a group of women when it's not aimed at them. We aren't so special that our little feelings have to be coddled all the time. They are trying to portray us as victims all over again and weak and in need of protection, which is basically everything that we fought against then. So no, you didn't understand what I was saying at all. My feelings don't need that kind of protection and fainting couch feminism is not my thing. I'll stick with women's lib thank you. Nobody has to have jazz hands or safe rooms or primal scream therapy to be involved in that.


I'll take that as a 'no'--the irony was obviously lost on you. That's my favourite kind of irony!


_________________
"Ego non immanis, sed mea immanis telum." ~ Ares, God of War

(Note to Moderators: my warning number is wrong on my profile but apparently can't be fixed so I will note here that it is actually 2, not 3--the warning issued to me on Aug 20 2016 was a mistake but I've been told it can't be removed.)