Deleted threads

Don't ask me, Bob, patriarchy, matriarchy, men, women, misandry, feminism meh! Most human beings are shite imo. I should say that this is a joke, but, truth be told, it's near the mark.

Well: short answer yes, he is. Do a quick search on his posting and it is more than obvious.
I'm sure he'll find it in his heart to reply to you though. Personally I have decided an absolute no-engagement rule.

You didn't even engage with Catina's point. Didn't try to examine or analyse. Just an immediate whinge. To me that proves her point.
Who gives a fuck. Stay. Go. Feel sorry for yourself cos after all these centuries of injustice, it's you who's the victim.

Why are you even here, Bob? What about this sentence dont you get:

On a feminist forum, which is basically for women, you are one of the loudest, most persistent voices. This is weird.

I can't think how to put it more simply. I mean, maybe you make valuable contributions but all I ever read is you moaning and dominating threads, making them all about you. I dont care if you say it's because you need to keep defending/explaining yourself; you don't. I personally would like it if you'd just stop posting.

Can anyone else (not you Bob) explain to me if Bob is deliberately derailing threads or if I've just happened to see one or on which it seems like it? Please let me know.

on many threads. None of them mine. Apologies.

Wamster/Bob/Edd: the fact you are a woman or man has no relevance to the debate. I have to say that most things all of you posts (over the last couple of weeks) appear to willfully misunderstand and misrepresent what feminism is. This might be because you haven't actually understood what feminism is about and are genuinely confused; but your contributions tend to read as is you have decided that feminism is daft and it is your mission to show us deluded souls the error of our ways. On my threads now we have discussed issues from a feminist perspective and explained why we find xyz offensive. It has been clear that you don't accept this arguments or believe them even worth considering. And if this is the case, I really don't understand why you keep hanging around. If it had been genuine interest and you have decided we are bunch of loons, there is no point to your staying. I can respect you not agreeing. But since you stay, the only explanation appears to be that you are actually here with the aim of playing "bait the feminist" for your own personal kicks. I find this deeply offensive and indicative that you have no respect for my opinions or those of other feminists.
For all of these reasons I am deeply suspicious of you and your intentions. I also refuse to play ball with you anymore. I don't see why I should have, this being a public forum and all.

OK, I haven't read the entire thread, just had a quick skim, but is there any reason why every time I open a thread on the feminist section, fucking BobfuckingBanana seems to be on it? And seems to be on it quite a lot?

slug - i read the language one by her in my youth, loved it.

^ What Chickens said.

Oh FFS.

Patriarchy = institutionalised social, economic and political system of power and privilege that oppresses women globally.

Feminists chewing the fat and requesting not to be constantly interrupted = not comparable to the above in any way shape or form to anyone with their brain engaged.

'Tis intellectual dishonesty to argue otherwise.

I know I'm probably gonna get a lot of hate for this but:

Or is a starving man in Africa more 'privileged' than an affluent woman in the West?

Actually, in the terms that we're discussing (patriarchal priviledge), yes he kinda is. His status in his city/ town/ village will always be higher than the equivilent female. His word would be believed over a woman.

We were discussing male priviledge rather than financial priviledge. In almost all cultures from Africa to London, men have more status because of their gender. There are plenty of interpretations of priviledge.

For anyone who is interested Dale Spender I particularly recommend 'The Schooling Scandal' (which is what the lecture was about and 'Man Made Language'

An oft repeated tale but none the less....

Many years ago I attended a lecture by Dale Spender, a noted feminist academic. She announced at the very beginning that she would take questions afterwards, but the way she would answer them was based on the research she was discussing. She then proceeded to give a very entertaining and enlightening lecture about the gender inbalance in the amount of attention given to girls and boys in schools. She qupted a lot of research and facts and figures about how, without realising, teachers even self identified feminists give more attention to boys, allow them to speak more, allow them to overrule girls and generally reinforce the male=active, female=passive paradigm.

She then took questions from the floor. Except, she reversed the male/female ratios from the research. So she only took the occasional comment from a male, she allowed the women to contradict anything said by a male without comment or censure. Any man who was noisy, assertive or physically imposing himself was ignored or asked to leave etc. She was very clear before she started that this was what she was going to do and that she was doing it to illustrate a point.

If anything it was even more entertaining than the lecture. The men in the audience, despite knowing what the rules were, got more and more angry and aggressive. The tantrums from grown men and academics was, frankly, hillarious to watch as they struggled to make themselves be heard over the voices of the women.

Whenever I hear the "what about the menz" argument I remember that lecture and smile at the memory of the brutal awakening of some of the male audience as to the daily experience of women.

This whole fucking section is eating itself. It's horribly fascinating to watch, but a bloody shame.

Wamster you don't understand the basic premise of feminism then - I believe this has been explained to you on a number of occasions on this board, so forgive me if I don't take up my time by explaining it to you again.

You are talking about intersectionality. A quick google or about 3 minutes on feminism 101 will answer your query.

You have to compare like with like is the basic rule of thumb.

Rich black people have economic privilege - that doesn't mean that racism doesn't exist and that the whole of white supremacy had gone up in a puff of wishful thinking smoke.

There ya go, Bob, this section of the site should be reserved for women only-unless of the 'm' word variety. Give you a clue: has 'ina' on the end. Obviously, the patriarchy will now be totally justified in telling women to keep out of their spaces, because, after all, that is what women are happy to do to them.

I repeat: make of it what you will. you will anyway.

Nothing I can do about how you choose to interpret stuff.

Bob, it is not a spurious argument, it is generally accepted tenet of minority debate that the "majority" cannot claim to be victims of the minority because they are, for once, not being accorded their usual default entitlement to general societal deference.

Yeah Hully I remember you spreading that particular brand of Hully love when you wished that dittany could become a happier person .

I read it with a face like this .

Well, I am a woman (or a 'black person' in your analogy) and I welcome men's views here.

'Privileged group' there are only two sets of people that I can think this ^really* applies to in life- the rich and the poor.

Or is a starving man in Africa more 'privileged' than an affluent woman in the West? .

No, not today perhaps Bob. Most of us here have memories longer than a goldfish however.

THIS ISN'T ALL ABOUT YOU ANYWAY ACTUALLY.

I was talking in GENERAL.

You dismissing me discussing feminism from a feminist angle with a commonly held feminist argument in a feminist space with other feminists as 'spurious' is dudely behaviour BTW.

Ah so actually forget what I said in the first line.