|
|
 |
|
Getting Through : Music and Songs
Here's a song for you guys! | from Samuel - Sunday, October 15, 2006
accessed 5174 times I know I'm not putting this in the right place, but it's meant for you guys that have been working so hard lately with the media trying to get the truth out about The Family. I wish I had the guts you have.
I woke up this morning thinking about this song. I think it's kind of fitting for you guys. You might not care for it, or maybe you'll love it! Maybe it'll remind you of the music you didn't get to listen to in The Family (in which case, sorry for bringing that memory back). I remember crying the first time I heard it on the radio back in the 90's. It's called "The Light In Your Eyes" and it's sung by LeAnn Rimes.
Maybe 90's country isn't your style of music, but if this will make one person's day a little brighter, than in my opinion it's worth it.
This is a link to a WAV of the song so you can hear her sing it if you wish to.http://www.angelfire.com/la3/sk_lar3sk/LeAnnRimes_TheLightInYourEye.wav Life can take your dreams and turn them upside down,
Friends will talk about you when you're not around,
Reality can really cut you down to size,
But don't ever lose that light in your eyes.
Don't ever lose that light in your eyes.
People make you promises they'll never keep,
Soon you'll know why people say talk is cheap,
And life resembles on big compromise,
But don't ever lose that light in your eyes.
Chorus:Keep on shining, Keep on smiling,
Don't lose faith and don't lose heart.
When you're crying, just keep trying
to remind yourself You're a shining star, Yes you are.
Some where down the line you'll face the judgment day.
When the angels look at you, what will you say?
They've got a way of knowing who qualifies.
Just let 'em see that light in your eyes.
Don't ever lose that light in your eyes.
Chorus: Keep on shining, Keep on smiling,
Don't lose faith and don't lose heart.
When you're crying ,just keep trying
to remind yourself You're a shining star, Yes you are.
Don't ever lose that light in your eyes.
Don't ever lose that light in your eyes.
|
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from Baxter
Monday, October 23, 2006 - 07:17
(Agree/Disagree?)
You know what song fits my mind perfectly right now (just for the sake of saying it?)
Joss Stone singing 'Right to be Wrong' ; me to a T.
(reply to this comment)
| from exister
Thursday, October 19, 2006 - 08:50
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Turns out Samuel really is the mindless, mouth breathing, drawling, tobacco chewing, country bumpkin, red state ass hole I have always suspected he was.
Congratulations Samuel, you fucking ignorant rube!
(reply to this comment)
|  From Samuel
Thursday, October 19, 2006, 18:53
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Rube: (noun) an unsophisticated country person
Either you didn't know what that word means, or you don't know where I live. I do not live in the country. Unsophisticated people do not graduate high school with GPA above 3.0, and in most cases do not get accepted into college. The fact that I am doing well in college, maintaining a GPA above 2.5 should show that I "have aquired worldly knowledge (That's right, Zerby!), or refinement, and lack natural simplicity or naivete".
As far as "country" is concerned, I live in the city in Florida. Many people don't consider Florida to even be part of "the South". That I don't understand, it would appear that Florida is about as far South as you can get. Now, would you like to explain what drawling means?
I do have a mind, and it's much freer than it ever was in The Family.
Of course I breath with my mouth! Where do you breath from, your eyes?
I have never chewed tobacco. Can't stand to even look at the stuff.
While I am awkward, I'm not unsphisticated, so it seems like your "bumpkin" insult was a bit off. We're ALL awkward and different in our own ways. That's why we left The Family.
Don't be so sure about Florida being a red state. We're pretty much even here. That's why the President visited the state so often in 2004. Whoever wins Florida gets a lot of electoral votes.
I hope you're not just calling me a mindless, mouthbreathing, drawling, tobacco chewing, country bumpkin, red state (guy) just because I'm a Conservative. What does that say about you? You can feel that way about people who think differently than you, I guess, but it's best not to insult them in public. That way you don't hurt your reputation, and you're not viewed as someone who is intolerant. That, by the way, is why I stopped listening to Rush Limbaugh. He makes sweeping statements about people who think differently than him.
And I'm not going to pull myself down to your level by giving your last insult a second thought. Good night. (reply to this comment) |
| | from solemn
Tuesday, October 17, 2006 - 10:08
(Agree/Disagree?)
You should be flogged for this Samuel.
That is all....
(reply to this comment)
| From Samuel
Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 11:07
(Agree/Disagree?)
I'm going to repeat this one more time.
Maybe 90's country isn't your style of music, but if this will make one person's day a little brighter, than in my opinion it's worth it.
These days, I prefer New Country (except the Dixie Chicks), Contemporary Christian and Praise, and a little bit of soft Pop music. I'll give anything a try though, Rythym and Blues isn't all that bad. It's more about the words in the song than the style of music. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Shaka
Tuesday, December 12, 2006, 13:36
(Agree/Disagree?)
Sar, listen well. If you don't want premature gray hair and you'd like to keep yourself from slamming your forehead repeatedly into a brick wall, do not, I repeat DO NOT get into a debate with Sammy. Or get a rubber chicken or something else you can choke and keep it right next to you at all times while discussing any subject and I do mean ANY subject. Music, religion, politics, or the fucking mating habits of Kodiak bears, it really doesn't matter. No offense Sam my man but during the last thread it was only with herculean effort that I did not pick up my M249 and empty a 200 round drum into this unsuspecting computer.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Oddman
Tuesday, December 12, 2006, 21:50
(Agree/Disagree?)
Medal of Respect
Citations:
Shaka distinguished himself by conspicuous judgement and self restraint while debating with a exasperating force. Exersizing intense self restraint, Shaka averted the use of even the minimal expense of force, even as the situation warranted a multiple precision bombing with 3000 pound AGM-86Cs. Shaka's extraordinary discipline and iron willpower are in the highest traditions of the Vandari service, and reflect great credit upon himself, his compatriots, and Moving On.
:)(reply to this comment) |
| | From sar
Tuesday, December 12, 2006, 16:37
(Agree/Disagree?)
Thank you kindly for the advice Shaka. You sound as if you speak from experience. I like discussing things with people with differing views, but it would be easier, I thought, to do so in chat where points can more easily be taken sentence by sentence. I think debating with Samuel would be a challenge. ... if only I could find a bare thread of common ground.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From Samuel
Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 11:38
(Agree/Disagree?)
For starters, Natalie and the girls flew to England to say something she didn't have the guts to say here. She said she was ashamed that the President was from Texas. That probably didn't go over very well in Texas, a Red state that Bush carried in 2000 and 2004.
Then they went on TV and all of them apologised for something that only Natalie had said. That sounded a bit odd to me.
Then they tried to claim sales of their latest CD called "Home" were down because of they were being targeted unfairly. I'll tell you why I didn't buy their new CD. I listened to some of it as school and their new CD sucked! It had nothing to do with being unfairly targeted or anything Natalie had said.
Now, they're making their comeback. And Natalie wants to take back her apology and says the President "deserves no respect". Maybe if Natalie can make up her mind, and if the Dixie Chicks can put out some decent music again like "There's Your Trouble" or "Cowboy Take Me Away", I'll consider buying their music. And it would be nice if she would pay the President at least some respect, because after all, he is the President. I'm NOT saying she has to agree with him. I don't agree with the President on everything either. I didn't like Clinton, but at least I did pay him a certain respect because he was President.
Plus if I understand correctly, they don't play their own instruments on their CDs anymore. That's something I always thought was cool about them. The joke in the music world is that singers aren't musicians because they don't play instruments. You couldn't say that about the Dixie Chicks before. (reply to this comment) |
| | From AnnaH
Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 22:07
(Agree/Disagree?)
So, let me make sure I've got this straight before I get all indignant...you don't like the Dixie Chicks because of their political beliefs, and not because their music sucks? Or is it both?
Why would they say that stuff in Texas? I wouldn't say how much I hate Bush in the middle of a bunch of rednecks. However, they shouldn't have been so stupid to think that what they said in Britain wouldn't get back to the US. They should have stuck behind their views and said screw you to all the rednecks who would be so pathetic to base their musical preference on their political position. Anyone in Texas that is proud of Bush is an idiot and if I was the Dixie Chicks I would sooner starve on the street then kiss those people's asses.
But who am I to talk? I hate country music less because it's utter crap and the lyrics are always sappy, and more because of their political beliefs and basically everything they represent(i.e.: the Bible Belt).
Don't even get me started on that stupid Toby Keith 9/11 song. God! Everytime I hear that I think of Mark Ames article "Gas Middle America." (reply to this comment) |
| | From Samuel
Wednesday, October 18, 2006, 05:15
(Agree/Disagree?)
It has more to do with the fact that lately, I think their music sucks. Then, I liked them better when they played their own instruments. Natalie actually played the violin, and she was very good at it. I used to play the violin also. Finally, Natalie should stop the charade and make up her mind about how she feels.
And I do disagree with her saying the President "deserves no respect". Any President deserves respect, even if only for taking on the hardest job in the country. I can assure you, they don't do it for the pay. And their "Not ready to make nice" comeback doesn't speak very well for them if you ask me.
Don't worry Anna H, I have no intention of getting you started on Toby Keith's 9/11 song. But I do enjoy his song "Beer For My Horses". Sometimes when I think about Zerby and Kelly, I think about the chorus to that song.
"You know justice is the one thing you should always find,
You gotta saddle up your boys, you've gotta draw a hard line,
When the gunsmoke settles we'll sing a victory tune,
and we'll all meet back at the local saloon.
We'll raise up our glasses against eveil forces singing,
'Whiskey for my men, and beer for my horses'. "
By the way, if Zerby and Kelly are ever arrested, I wil gladly buy the arresting officer a drink. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Samuel
Wednesday, October 18, 2006, 18:06
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Are you sure that wasn't one of Karen Zerby's songs? : o )
Yes, it obviously had to do with the incident. Just like when Toby Keith got on Natalie's case for that and she wore a shirt to a Dixie Chicks concert that said "FUTK". Come on, what else is the audience supposed to think? She won't say "F--k you, Toby Keith!" out in public, but she said it with her shirt. Maybe it's because I was raised in The Family, but I still believe that a woman should act like a lady in public. It was distasteful for her to attack a fellow singer of the same genre like that. And all these things I've mentioned put together tell me that the new Dixie Chicks CD is probably not worth buying. But from the comments left on this article, it seems that most of you already know that : o )
It looks like I'm ready, ready, ready- ready to run on out of here so I will see you guys later. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Ex-member
Thursday, October 19, 2006, 09:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
Wait, let me see if I understand you correctly:
A)Toby Keith, who I am assuming is a "singer in the same genre" (I don't listen to country and was not aware that the DC, besides being famous for that comment, were country) "got on her case for that," aka. "attacked" Natalie for a coment she made. And this is cool because...he is a guy?
But her responding to this attack in kind was unladylike and distasteful.
B) Toby Keiths (of 9/11 song infamy) fans came back with t-shirts of their own (What's with country music fans and t-shirts?)...on which either you or they appear to have inverted the initials of the Dixie Chicks (DC), as opposed to Chicks Dixie (CD). Again, this was cool because; 1) Natalie "started that conversation" (???I thot TK had)
2) They looked better in their t-shirts. (ok so I've seen photos of the DC and they are large but this seems like a random attack on fatties out of left field...I thot we were discussing sucky music!...I'm confused.)
Why don't you just admit that, despite the 9/11 song, you love TK nd want to have his babies?(reply to this comment) |
| | From Samuel
Thursday, October 19, 2006, 19:13
(Agree/Disagree?)
Natalie started the arguement. All Toby Keith did was call her bluff- in a respectful manner. Which is what a gentleman should do. This should not be mistaken for an "attack" as you suggested. That's okay, you don't know Country music- so it's easy for you to mistake something like that.
Bingo! Toby Keith is indeed a "singer in the same genre"
Natalie did not respond likewise. A lady would have had called Toby Keith and made plans for a debate of some sort where they could sort out their differences. Natalie chose the trashy route, and wore a shirt with a message that could only be understood as "F--k you, Toby Keith"
I was referring to the fans looking better in their T-shirts. Perhaps I should have said they looked "good" in their T-shirts, my apologies. I've never been to Dixie Chicks concert and have never gotten a close look at the crowds. I'm assuming there are also women, and probably guys (as most of their fans are women, and would enjoy seeing good looking guys dance)
I don't know what is with Country Music fans and T-shirts. What is with rap fans and loose pants and gold chains? Don't most of them also wear T-shirts?
There is nothing wrong with "fatties out of left field", but they may get annoyed when if you call them that.
I want nothing to do with having Toby Keith, or anyone else's babies. So it's a good thing I was born a man.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Samuel
Thursday, October 19, 2006, 05:07
(Agree/Disagree?)
No Rainchild. The media pointed out that it definately said FUTK. Toby Keith fans, by the way, responded with shirts that said "FUCD" or "F--k you, Dixie Chicks!", which I thought was rather funny. They didn't start the controversy after all, Natalie did. It looked good on the girl wearing it too. But you know how they do concerts, they find the good looking people and put them up in front of the stage so the cameras can get a shot of pretty girls and handsome guys dancing to the music for the fans at home.
That must have been the one where Dan Rather interviewd him.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From -_(u_u)_- Clueless Apeman
Wednesday, October 18, 2006, 22:44
(Agree/Disagree?)
Do "women" need to act "ladylike" nowadays? Until feminists come up with a new "gentleperson" or "personlike" manner book, nobody knows what good manners is. The other day I gave some woman my bus seat, and got a scowl like you would not believe. Got a similar scowl when I stood by the cab door so a friend's gf could get in. If being a gentleman is considered being sexist, being ladylike must be outdated too.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Samuel
Thursday, October 19, 2006, 05:13
(Agree/Disagree?)
I agree with you on that. What did they want you to do, sandwich the girl between you and her boyfriend? You were just trying to be nice. And I'm assuming your friend trusts you so he wasn't thinking you were trying to sit in between them. Some people are just weird.
Being a gentleman is not considered sexist, nor is it outdated. Some people just choose not to act in a polite manner.
That was one thing you can credit The Family for, they definitely taught us manners. I remember an Uncle making a big deal about kids putting their elbows on the table when they ate!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Rain Child
Thursday, October 19, 2006, 00:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
If a man offers me his seat for no other reason than that I am a woman, I smile at him and say, "That's very nice of you, but I'm sure you're just as tired as I am, and you were there first. I'll be fine, but thanks for the thought." However, if a person who needs a seat more than I do for any reason at all gets on the bus, I will immediately give them my seat if there are none available. I'm very big on social courtesy, I just don't think it should be misplaced. Women don't need seats just because we're women. We do need respect and safety though.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Rain Child
Thursday, October 19, 2006, 14:39
(Agree/Disagree?)
Shit, Vixen, I can't believe I started this and then went to bed and left you to carry it all on your own. Nobody was here when I finally went to bed tonight.
Okay, here is the reason I do not accept old-fashioned "Chivalry" very often:
historically this notion of chivalry, has, believe it or not, been a tool used to keep women in thier place. Women were treated as softer, more delicate creatures in much the way we care for our children, or even our posessions. Think about it. Why weren't women given the same rights as men for so long? Because it was "unfeminine". The actually used to say that if women began to read, our uteruses would dry up! It is also interesting to note that 'chivalry' was only ever extended to ladies of class, and poor women worked themselves to death, were kicked into gutters, used and abused in every conceivable way, including working in mines, often jobs men would not do because they were too difficult. Now, if women were such delicate flowers that needed such delicate care and shouldn't exert themselves, don't you think that would have applied to women across all stratas of social life? Not just the upper- (and most repressed of all,) the middle classes?
Of course I know that the man who is offering me his seat has kind intentions, I know he's just doing what is traditionally considered polite. But if you want a better world, you have to help educate it, right? Is that same man giving his seat to an elderly man? Because that's a lot more important. Will he get up for a mother with a small child, or just for a single girl because he wants her to notice him. These are things you have to think about. I have often been sitting when plenty of men are also sitting, a pregnant woman gets on the bus, and I would be the only one to give her my seat. So much for chivalry.
But you know what? That's fine, because I'm just as able-bodied as they are.
So, boys, if you really want to be a gentleman, keep your eyes out for people who actually need your help. That's what impresses me.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Oddman
Monday, October 23, 2006, 03:44
(Agree/Disagree?)
I occasionally offer my seat to women on public transport. My reasons for this is fairly simple.
1. A woman standing on a bus in stilettos just looks plain painful.
2. Women generally seem to be carrying a hell of a lot more than us men.
3. Big problem in Japan with molesting on public transport. Being seated provides the lady with less exposure.
4. The fatass next to me just smells. It would seem strange if I leave the seat for no reason. Ok, I'm an asshole.
5. I'm getting off at the next stop anyway, and might as well give my seat to someone else.
6. If I offer my seat to a dude I just look gay.
7. Every now and then, someone appreciates it. When they do, I feel pretty good about it.
Quite naturally, I would only offer my seat to the cute single woman if there are no senior citizens, pregnant women, children, or physically impaired on the bus. Regardless of who you offer the seat to, there is a 50/50 chance they will not accept the seat. The older gentleman will say, thank you, but I'm not that old yet sonny. A man with a crutch or prosthetic may have difficulty standing up once he sits on the low bus seats. It all depends on the situation, and a moment of silent observing will generally tell you whether you should or not. For the men who complain they can't see the subtle hints, I'd suggest not taking a seat to begin with.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Baxter
Monday, October 23, 2006, 07:39
(Agree/Disagree?)
Giving your seat to a woman is like saying you fancy her. That is the most likely interpretation from her point of view. Most women in England would be marginally suspicious of a man offering their seat. If you tried your offer would most likely be declined. I only ever give up my seat to the elderly - young women have legs as good as any to stand on. Of course, in the common event that the person next to me is a stinking fat fuck, (as is common in the nation with the worst obesity problem in Europe) I just get up and stand -fuck cares if the the pie-gobbling bastard is offended. It's better than me just saying 'you gonna die on the toilet, and 20 children in central Africa could live for a year on one day's worth of your snack food allowance, ASSHOLE!' (sorry, I have an issue with those who are, shall I say, fat by political disposition. The days of the lean, reserved Englishmen do appear to be numbered! AND WHY ARE THE 'POOR' STUDENTS SO FUCKING FAT? )
And as far as wearing stilletos, if a woman is dumb enough to endure the pain and damage of wearing those GOD - awful things about, let' em suffer. I don't get why anyone would wear something that uncomfortable just to supposedly look good. Why don't we bring back corsets, or start binding feet while we're at it. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From vixie
Monday, October 23, 2006, 08:26
(Agree/Disagree?)
'Giving your seat to a woman is like saying you fancy her. That is the most likely interpretation from her point of view. Most women in England would be marginally suspicious of a man offering their seat.'
I don't mind that underlying reason, really - I'm not afraid to admit that being sexually attractive is important to me and I get a little thrill out of knowing that someone might fancy me.
'And as far as wearing stilletos, if a woman is dumb enough to endure the pain and damage of wearing those GOD - awful things about, let' em suffer.'
Hear, hear! Suffer for your 'beauty and poise' if you must, but don't expect any sympathy from me on account of your self-inflicted pain!
Someone should find my 'off' button and press it ;-)
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Ne Oublie
Thursday, October 19, 2006, 10:40
(Agree/Disagree?)
While that is not the cause of the problem it is one of the symptoms. Good manners have always been built on the premise of putting others' feelings and well-being above your own. Like one of my favourite quotes "Treat others with respect not because they are gentlemen, but because you are one."
The attitude evidenced through your comments on this thread is, in fact, the polar opposite of politeness or manners, in that it is focused on the impact on yourself rather than others. So what if the guy is a misogynistic bigot or his motivation is less than 'pure' (whatever that is)? That should be entirely irrelevant to how you choose to conduct yourself.
This discussion is reminding me of a TV show I saw a while back "My Fair Kerry", which very clearly showed what what differentiates a gentleman or lady from the rest is that they take others' feelings into consideration when chosing a course of action - regardless of the behaviour of the 'recipient'.
I hate using a word like this, but really what it boils down to is unselfishness.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Ne Oublie
Thursday, October 19, 2006, 11:06
(Agree/Disagree?)
Sorry, but this is a topic on which I - like you - have strong views. You may be looking at it as simply refusing a seat (and to be fair it wasn't you that penned the pontificating refusal - which may perhaps be appropriate in other cultures, but it most certainly would be little short of a slap in the face in this country), but this steady erosion of 'good manners' that as I already said is symptomatic of the problems that modern society is facing.
As you noted, I'm speaking in the broader context, and that is because individual actions or should be driven by that principle. I mean, why do anything 'polite' if not for that motivation? Politeness is not about misogyny or oppressing women, it's about an approach to life that puts others feelings above your own, and especially - but not exclusively - those of individuals who are less able to fend for themselves. Yes, women are now far better able to fend for themselves and defend their own rights, but that doesn't mean we need to stop being polite to each other.(reply to this comment) |
| | From AnnaH
Thursday, October 19, 2006, 21:21
(Agree/Disagree?)
Here, here! I agree with you completely and lament the fact that common good manners and social etiquette are fading from our society.
Perhaps Rainchild is right that manners were once used to keep women down(which seems like a bit of a stretch), but I find it hard to believe those are the ulterior motives which men have when they give up their seat for women.
You have to ask yourself what is wrong with anyone who find offense in kindness? Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes a man gives up his seat or holds a door open because that's the way he was raised, to be respectful.
If women think they are being treated unfairly, then instead of complaining about other people's courtesy they should start giving up their seats for men and holding their doors open. That's equality for you!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Oddman
Monday, October 23, 2006, 03:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
If a child offers his seat to an older person, he/she wants to do the right thing and feel the satisfaction that comes from doing so. I think the right thing would be to accept the kind offer, and thank the child for being so considerate and well mannered. It isn't likely that his/her parents have taught him to offer his seat to perfectly able bodied young men and women anyway. I think appreciating good conduct from a child encourages one to stay the course. Just so when you and the child are much older, you won't be standing on a bus and groaning to yourself, "god do none of these young people have the simple manners to offer me a god damned seat?".(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Friday, October 20, 2006, 06:04
(Agree/Disagree?)
Vixie, I know I promised you that reply, which I will still write, although probably in this forum instead of by email now. I've just had too much to do so far this morning. In the meantime however, briefly:
Rain Child, you are missing the fundamental principle of courtesy which is that someone else is always more deserving than yourself. THAT is the underlying premise (not the 'keeping women subjugated' line that you've obviously been sold), once that has been established it is just a matter of deciding to whom you will make the offer. That is where simple assumptions come into play, based on the relative statistical & cultural probabilities. And at the end of the day, is it REALLY that bad to be nice "just for its own sake?"
Secondly, the reasons for ACCEPTING a courteous offer are not related to the reasons for OFFERING. Although driven by the same underlying motivator, acceptance is primarily a recognition of the other persons' gesture. Of course no one is ever under obligation to accept - just as no one is under obligation to offer - but the courteous response in most cases would be to accept. As I said before, the underlying principle is putting others' feelings/comfort above your own, which when on the receiving end would suggest that allowing someone's ego to be boosted slightly is more important than a public display of your indignance - whether justified or not (and I would venture that in most cases your indignance is not justified).(reply to this comment) |
| | From Rain Child
Friday, October 20, 2006, 17:26
(Agree/Disagree?)
Ne Oublie...I know that fundamental principal of courtesy. I was raised on it. It never got me anywhere. I remember being about five, at the park, and standing aside to let other children go on the slide ahead of me. I was just doing this for the sake of courtesy. I fully expected the next child to come behind me to wait until I'd had my turn, but no, instantly upon stepping aside, the line began rushing by without me, all the children going again & again, until I finally asserted myself and re-entered the line. I have had the self-talk all my life which tells me others are more deserving. It's not a good thing. And there is something wrong with being nice just for its own sake, if that niceness involves not speaking up about your own needs and going unnoticed.
But that is SO not the issue we're discussing here. We are discussing a need for a change in the old code of "Gentlemanly" behaviour, how it needs to evolve into everyday, constant, humanitarian behaviour from able-bodied people of both sexes. I'm just saying gender should no longer be a part of it. Of course women will still get more seats offered to them, because they are more likely to be pregnant or carrying a baby, but as many times as not, it's another woman who thinks to give them a seat, because she knows how it feels to be pregnant or carrying a baby.
And I have never felt indignant at being offered a seat. Appreciative and slightly amused is all. And I let them know I appreciate it and that I'm fine. That does not constitute throwing the gesture back in their face. It's simply helping re-educate our world to make it a little more fair for everyone. Perhaps next time I'll say, "Next time you see someone who needs your help, if you stop and help them, I'll appreciate it as much as if you'd given me your seat."
If you don't understand by now, Ne Oublie, I give up. But would you mind answering the question of how you would feel as an able bodied man if another man got up and offered you his seat?(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Saturday, October 21, 2006, 08:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
Rain Child, you have all but made my point for me here. as your opening paragraph clearly claims courtesy "never got me anywhere", you are therefore looking for a justification of your choice to no longer follow that code.
The amount of inaccuracy and selective amnesia employed in order for you to make your claims yesterday suggest a desperation to manipulate the outcome of your historical analysis and to create negative attributes to what is for all intents and purposes a code of selfless behaviour. Saying that chivalry was a "tool used to keep women in their place" is akin to saying that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child are a "tool used to keep children in their place". It evidences a lack of understanding, not only of the code itself, but more importantly of the motivation behind it.
Firstly, you fail to differentiate between the code itself and it's manipulation and misuse by unscrupulous individuals. You also make the mistake of analysing all of this out of context, by comparing it only to your version of what a modern society should be, rather than acknowledging the simple fact that society and culture has changed massively over the centuries in order to bring us where we are today. However, even by most modern standards the chivalric code stands up exceptionally well - as do the "gentlemanly" and "ladylike" manners as a whole - apart from some necessary cultural updates, if properly followed these would be a safeguard against a lot of the problems modern culture currently experiences.
You say that "gentlemanly" behaviour needs to evolve into "everyday, constant, humanitarian behaviour" - it doesn't! It already IS exactly that! The fact that it hasn't been applied properly doesn't mean that the code needs to be changed, just that it needs to be more widely followed. The reason why I take such exception to your comments is because of their very hypocricy - aside from what I've just said above, you took issue with the fact that you had to be the one to give up your seat for a pregnant woman, while surrounded by seated men, yet your response is to attack the men who DO offer their seats! Given the nature of the environment you were most likely in, I don't think you can claim that the man who offered you his seat was the same one refusing to offer his to a pregnant woman. But even if he was, most likely the reason he DIDN'T offer up his seat is because of your response to him the last time he tried!
You ask me how I would feel if I were offered a seat - I HAVE BEEN, by men and women, and I have sometimes accepted, other times refused the offer. But never once have I questioned the motivation behind the offer, or pontificated at that person for doing so. To be honest, I find it particularly disingenuous for you to so rail on someone who offers their seat up - regardless of to whom - as if it were some evil action, since the end product is that the offeree is forced to endure the remainder of the journey in relative discomfort to that enjoyed by the recipient. This brings be right back to my point above of a desire to find a justification for your decision - while you're sitting comfortably, it's not hard to start feeling guilty as you watch the person who gave up their seat struggle to balance for the rest of their journey. This explanation allows you to demonise him and therefore avoid any guilt.
You also keep saying you are "just as able-bodied" - well tell you what, I will accept that point once every sporting competition has become a unisex event. The fact of the matter is that men and women ARE different physically, and that on average men are the hardier ones. Of course, I say this as a man who could likely have my butt kicked by a majority of women (I make no claims of athletic ability). And not only the averages, but women are also 100% more likely to be in a condition that would make them deserving of the offer - even if not visibly - such as pregnancy or nursing. So the odds are significantly higher that between the man and the woman, the latter will be more deserving of the offer of a seat.
Vixie, thanks for relaying my comment from the chat. It's true, I don't have a problem with people refusing to accept, and you are exactly right, I am not arguing about this single act, which is simply a part of the overall code of manners. I will however, defend this single act on behalf of the whole, on the basis that I quite simply would rather live in a society where people offer up their seats and allow others through the door first, than one where they didn't. Even if once in a while it goes wrong.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Rain Child
Saturday, October 21, 2006, 17:14
(Agree/Disagree?)
"The amount of inaccuracy and selective amnesia employed in order for you to make your claims yesterday suggest a desperation to manipulate the outcome of your historical analysis and to create negative attributes to what is for all intents and purposes a code of selfless behaviour. Saying that chivalry was a "tool used to keep women in their place" is akin to saying that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child are a "tool used to keep children in their place". It evidences a lack of understanding, not only of the code itself, but more importantly of the motivation behind it."
Well, Ne Oublie, I suggest you do a little research, because it is very well documented that this "Gentlemen pampering ladies" thing was only ever extended to White women of middle class or above, and it is well documented that these women were considered too weak to do anything other than what their husbands dictated, it is well documented that women were legally possessions of their husbands, and were cared for and mollycoddles as though they were nothing more than an expensive and fragile baby-making machine. I do not have selective historical amnesia. This is the history behind these customs.
If you tell me you offer your seat because it is traditionally polite, I will tell you where those traditions came from and why I would like to see them changed. I think you're the one having selective amnesia toward my comments. For example, this:
"while you're sitting comfortably, it's not hard to start feeling guilty as you watch the person who gave up their seat struggle to balance for the rest of their journey. This explanation allows you to demonise him and therefore avoid any guilt."
First, I have made it clear that I would not accept the seat, Second, I have made it clear that I would still appreciate the offer. I don't "demonise" people. So that's little scenario would quite simply never happen.
I don't think I said I am "Just as able bodied". I said I am an "able-bodied woman". Of course sometimes something will be to heavy or too hard for me and I will greatly appreciate the help of a strong man if there's one around. I know I have physical limitations. They just don't include an inability to stand. What if you went over to a man in a wheelchair in a restaurant and offered to spoon-feed him? He'd probably punch ya! So I think my kind and gracious refusal with absolutely no resentment behind it should be appreciated for what it is.
Yes, I agree with you that the odds are higher for a woman being the one to need a seat. In fact I said it myself. (I prefer 'need' than 'deserve')
I didn't take issue with the fact that I was the only one to stand for a pregnant woman...just bringing out that men often forget their gentlemanly code when the lady in question is not sexually attractive. In fact, I think I said it was fine, because at least I got up, so at least she did get a seat. I just wish helping people who need it was more automatic to more of us.
Okay, that's enough from me. hope we can still be friends, Ne Oublie, I still haven't managed to meet you in the chat room yet, and I've been frequenting this site a year now. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Saturday, October 21, 2006, 18:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
In your posting on Thursday, October 19, 2006, 14:39 you said:
"But you know what? That's fine, because I'm just as able-bodied as they are."
Read above if you've forgotten.
As for your claims of all these things that are "well documented", please shine a bit of your light of knowledge upon me and let me know just where and how this is documented. The Chivalric Code and courteous behaviour far pre-date the Victorian times, and as I said, were in the context of a very different cultural landscape. Obviously there are some parts which need to be updated, but I think that if you would apply your own analogy of the red & blue aliens to it as a whole you would find yourself thinking that maybe those blue aliens didn't have it quite so bad. Anyhow, I AM offering you my seat, and now I ask you tell me where this tradition came from so I can decide if I agree with you about the need to change it.
I will, however, point out one thing for you to consider in your historical retelling. Throughout history rights have never been 'given' only fought for and earned. The fact that women were by & large left out of this process until recently was because they hadn't specifically been involved in that fight. Prior to the Magna Carta, rights had been earned through combat, if you wanted someone's land you fought him for it and the winner then had the power to pretty much do as he wanted. The Magna Carta was so revolutionary in that it forced a king to listen to his lords, or at least treat them fairly - but again. In time the right to a say in politics was won by a number of social groups, but the point was that each had specifically fought for that right. I agree it was wrong that women had not been included, but the point is that it was not a right which had been taken from them or of which they were 'deprived', rather it was just the way that these rights had filtered down through society from the few to the many.
Of course we can still be friends, Rain Child, I never take my debating personally or hold personal animosity towards anyone with whom I disagree. I enjoy debating - when I find a topic which is of interest to me - and am quite happy that there are people with views other than my own which force me to evaluate exactly why it is I hold the views I do. I think we have chatted briefly a couple times, but I think it's time zones which have worked against us having a proper chat so far - I look forward to finding you in the chatroom sometime soon.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Rain Child
Saturday, October 21, 2006, 18:59
(Agree/Disagree?)
Okay, so I said that, but now that I have qualified what I mean, can we please stop taking it out of context merely for the purpose of trying to find a miniscule detail where I can be said to contradict myself? One more time for the record:
I know I am not as strong as a man, and am not claiming to be anything other than equally able to stand on my two feet. Got it now? And I noticed that in this last quote you included the part which you conveniently left out last time - where I said that it was fine with me if the men didn't get up. (as long as SOMEONE does) Stop picking and choosing. Your case should not have to rest on my errors.
I agree that the reason women had no freedom for thousands of years was because they had not fought for it. Because they had been raised from babyhood to be subservient. It took a hell of a lot of guts for the first suffragettes to ask why they weren't legally considered a person in their own right. If you had been faced with what was up against them, I doubt you or I would have had the courage they had. We women owe them our modern lifestyle, so excuse me for not wanting to respect everything they fought against, and the patriarchal society that kept them oppressed so long.
Got a library nearby? For a great history on this, please read "Sexual Politics" by Kate Millet, and for a glimpse into the kind of world I'm envisioning where gender is not an issue in social customs, please read, "Woman On The Edge of Time" by Marge Piercy. My only other suggestion to get this stuff through your skull would be to live in a woman's body for a year...but I fear it is impossible.
PS I think the women's movement was just as courageous as any other revolution throughout history, only more so, because they were fighting their own families, everything they'd been taught from babyhood, and the way it had always been accepted in cultures across the world. All that was guiding them was their inborn sense of injustice.
Hey, but I treat men with the same level of respect I give women. In my view we're all human. I'm not a man-hater by any stretch of the imagination.
Look at this:
http://www.backlash.com/book/cycle.html
To be treated as equals in school and at work, many women needed to adopt an attitude of confrontation, and demand that men accommodate them. Many men resisted, but many more accepted what was fair and inevitable, and women's legal status is now, in many ways, superior to men's. Conflict could have ended there, to make way for a new era of cooperation and negotiation. Instead, feminist extremists carried the confrontation further to precipitate more and more antagonism toward men. In the muck of this misandristic malice, the seeds of a new misogyny have germinated and are taking root.
Recently, a prominent member of the fathers' rights community began posting articles to the Internet arguing that men are physically, mentally and morally superior to women. On college campuses, male students are now discussing ways to use Title IX to "kick feminism off" their college campuses. And recently, when an ABC TV affiliate produced a show on "deadbeat dads" that was to feature a female fathers' rights lobbyist, an executive of Dads Against Discrimination (DADS), one of the largest fathers' rights organizations in the country, "strongly objected," and persuaded them to replace her with a man who, though far less capable of debating the issues, was preferable solely because he was a man.
The cycle of sexism has come full circle. The misogyny of the fifties and sixties led to the androphobia of today, which in turn will produce an efflorescence of anti-female sentiments tomorrow. Is this backlash inevitable? Is there no way to stop the cycle and find some happy middle ground?
Ending the Cycle
We can end the cycle, but neither men nor women can do it alone -- we must work together.
In Male and Female: The Classic Study of the Sexes, Margaret Mead asserted that once we have identified and analyzed this cycle, "it should be possible to create a climate of opinion in which others, a little less the product of the dark past because they have been reared with a light in the hand that can shine backwards as well as forwards, may in turn take the next step." It is up to us to take that next step. Women must oppose anti-male sexism just as vigorously as we expect men to oppose anti-female sexism.
To the courageous feminists who brought modern sexism to our attention, we owe gratitude and respect. They opened our eyes. But their wise words have drowned beneath a deluge of strident voices all clamoring to be heard, all shrilling one message -- men are to blame and must make restitution for all the misfortunes all women have ever suffered.
Where we heard voices of reason, now we hear only rage and fear as feminist extremists work not to break the cycle of sexism, but to reverse it. This is not what the pioneers of feminism sought. They were less interested in castigating men than in inspiring women to, as Lucretia Mott put it, "be acknowledged...moral, responsible" beings with full civil and political rights. In a nation where women are increasingly afforded the right to fill combat positions in the military while men are denied the right to refuse combat positions, and women, but not men, have the legal right to refuse to become a parent, realization of the feminists' original goals is a historical fact the extremists refuse to acknowledge.
Perhaps this is because few men have participated as men. Those who gained entrance to the cause were male feminists, who, like Ashley Montagu, author of The Natural Superiority of Women, found refuge and feminine approval in the aggrandizement of women and the denigration of men, rather than in advocating a policy of same rights, same responsibilities.
We need neither the conciliatory voices of male feminists, nor the extremists' recriminations, but the strength and integrity of women and men working together to dismantle all the sexist barriers without blame if we are to create a more complete humanity and a finer state of being.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Sunday, October 22, 2006, 09:39
(Agree/Disagree?)
As a point of protocol for future discussions, it would be useful to have fairly early on a list of those comments which one is not allowed to quote you on. As my mind-reading skills are not too hot, I find myself forced to rely on what you have written in your posts when attempting to understand or dispute your views, it's crude, I know, but alas it's the best I've got to work with, unlike you who continually read motive into actions.(reply to this comment) |
| | From vixie
Saturday, October 21, 2006, 09:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
'You also keep saying you are "just as able-bodied" - well tell you what, I will accept that point once every sporting competition has become a unisex event.'
I think that Rain is speaking about this specific context, Dom, where she feels that she is able-bodied enough to stand. Surely you can grasp the difference between that and saying that all women are just as physically able as all men. It is silly to make such a blanket statement, and it is not what Rain is saying at all.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From vixie
Saturday, October 21, 2006, 09:19
(Agree/Disagree?)
You are entitled to that opinion, Dom. It is valid on some levels, certainly, and I have never said anything to the contrary. I don't think that Rain has either. She did outline the historical reasons why she has claimed the position that she holds, but in doing so I don't believe she was in any way accusing every individual who continues those traditions of being complicit in that history. It's just about careful exploration of the underlying cultural messages that *may* be present in such conventions, and trying to find ways of ensuring that those aspects that are unsavoury can hopefully continue to be eradicated, for the good of all.
If nine out of ten women are appreciative of the offer of a seat, then by all means let them accept graciously and I will make absolutely no judgement. I don't attach any distinct politics to the specific gesture, nor to the act of acceptance (on the part of anyone other than myself).
(reply to this comment) |
| | From vixie
Saturday, October 21, 2006, 04:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
Okay, this is the last comment I will make on this issue because like you said, if people don't get it by now (or don't agree), they probably never will.
Rain, I agree with you completely in everything you say. I especially agree with the points you make in the opening paragraph.
'I have had the self-talk all my life which tells me others are more deserving. It's not a good thing. And there is something wrong with being nice just for its own sake, if that niceness involves not speaking up about your own needs and going unnoticed.'
The above is EXACTLY what I was referring to when I said to Sara,
'Well, I'm not happy to leave it at that. I'm busy just now and therefore I can't outline exactly where I think you are espousing a view that has a ridiculously misogynist undercurrent, but trust me, I'll get back to you.'
This referred directly to the following comments by Sara that I take great issue with:
'But why refuse to accept? By you accepting you are showing him kindness for his action, thus; making him feel good inside about being a gentlemen. By accepting his sweet offer, you are encouraging him to continue to be nice and thoughtful to others. People feel great inside when they do nice things for others; so why withhold this feeling from someone? Why is it so hard for some women to just accept courtesy, without feeling undermined in some way? Of course you can stand, and he probably is just as tired, but it is rude to refuse courtesy and will probably make him feel foolish for his thoughtfulness.
We are still women, right?'
It is a dangerous thing to tell yourself that you must, simply because you are a woman, compromise something that is of great importance to you so that a man can have the pleasure of feeling good about himself. No. If a man were truly polite, courteous and selfless, he would offer his seat wanting nothing in return, and he would be perfectly capable of respecting the woman's right to graciously decline if she is so inclined. When I say 'No, thank you' to a man who offers me a seat, I do so not because I feel that the specific gesture undermines me, but because my personal orientation on the issue of gender equality dictates that I decline, wherever possible, to accept preferential treatment purely on account of being female. Sara's clear implication that it is the woman's duty, if she is to be considered truly feminine, to dumb herself down and expressly deny her own principled opinion, is, in my opinion, misogynist, male chauvinist nonsense and does herself and all women a great disservice. If she has come to the conclusion that she is happy with engaging in such 'acts of kindness' as a matter of principle, then I respect her right to that personal orientation. But I take great exception to her implicit assertion that this is integral to being 'all woman'.
If I were a man I would have found Sara's statement incredibly offensive, because it implies that men are weak, insecure beings who must have every whim catered to by demure women who understand that what is required of them is automatic acquiescence in order that the man's ego might be massaged to a sufficient degree. It also implies that men are incapable of perceiving a woman as more than a walking, talking object of their pleasure and gratification, whether physical or emotional. On a wider scale, it implies that men cannot grasp the intricacies that make up the thought process of a woman who has decided that she objects to having the role of victim thrust upon her. It implies that men would find it too difficult to accept a gracious, 'Oh thanks, that's very kind of you but I am fine with standing' and so of course women should, without exception, placate them. What utter rubbish!
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From vixie
Saturday, October 21, 2006, 05:02
(Agree/Disagree?)
Actually, to be fair to Dom, he did qualify in chat the other day that if he were to offer a seat to a woman and be politely rebuffed, he would totally respect her right to make that choice. I don't think Dom was actually arguing that point so much as a general view on manners. I did not feel his points were as problematic as those made by a couple of people who both, incidentally, live in the US. I am sure it is a cultural thing to a certain extent.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From heh
Saturday, October 21, 2006, 11:20
(Agree/Disagree?)
Dude, if you really believed with any substance or depth (other than in a minor situation you control and is not really skin off your nose) that someone else is always more deserving of yourself, or that "the underlying principle is putting others' feelings/comfort above your own", I don't understand why you would be so rabidly against things like paying taxes that could benefit the riff-raff beneath you.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Ne Oublie
Saturday, October 21, 2006, 09:02
(Agree/Disagree?)
If children aren't brought up to offer their seats, then at what point in their life do you think they are suddenly going to start doing so? It's about forming habits - that's how the people who do it regularly started doing so.
Oh, and another factor you seem to want to ignore is that it is RESPECTFUL to do so! And I'm not just talking about for children, even adults. When a man offers his seat to a woman it's a sign of respect.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Rain Child
Thursday, October 19, 2006, 18:44
(Agree/Disagree?)
I've been trying so hard to just clean my house and not come back to this topic...but I can't help myself. I don't think the voice of reason has had enough air-time on this thread. Your views, Ne Oublie, are especially ignorant. This 'gentleman' stuff comes from the Victorian era - a time when women were legally possessions, with no right even to inherit land or conduct business transactions! When a woman married, all her possessions became the property of her husband to do with as he saw fit. Apart from what I mentioned above, women of colour were never afforded any of the social niceties, they were never ladies, only slaves. The whole thing is steeped in hypocrisy. This is what life was like for a working-class white female mine labourer:
"I have a belt around my waist and a chain passing through my legs, and I go on my hands and feet. The road is very steep, and we have to hold by a rope, by anything we can catch hold of...I am very tired when I get home at night; I fall asleep sometimes before I get washed. I am not so strong as I was, and i cannot stand my work so well as I used to. I have worked until the skin has come off me; the belt and chain are worse when we are in the family way. My husband has beaten me many times for not being ready."
Where were the gallant gentlemen when this woman needed them? This existing along side the notion that men must be gentlemen and protect and mollycoddle ladies! The whole idea of "ladies' was to keep women out of politics and business, as stated by this 19th century senator:
"It seems to me as if the god of our race has stamped upon the woman a milder, gentler nature which not only makes them shrink from, but disqualifies them from the turmoil and battle of public life. They have a higer and holier mission. It is to make the character of coming men. ...To assuage the passions of men as they come in from the battle of life, and not themselves by joining in the contest to add fuel to the very flames..."
Sara, this is what our suffragette sisters fought to free us from. And these same "gentlemen" grabbed them and forced liquid food down their nasal passages, imprisoned and tortured them for daring to call them on it. All they were saying is, "Spare us your false pretence of gentlemanliness, and show us some actual consideration in all the areas where you are depriving us of the kind of life and freedom that you have. Treat us as equals."
If you don't think this hypocrisy still goes on today, well, I wouldn't have thought so either, but I saw a documentary on human sexuality. It was in England, and they had an attractive young woman wrestling a ehavy suitcase up some stairs. They filmed this again and again in all sorts of locations. Each time, men rushed to help her. Nine out of ten men stopped. Next they had a heavily pregnant woman, same thing, heavy suitcase, stairs. Only three out of ten men stopped to help. Kinda tells you something about "gentlemen", doesn't it?
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From weegirlie
Thursday, October 19, 2006, 08:41
(Agree/Disagree?)
No I have to say I disagree. The way is see it is this comes from a time where women were some little "weak, fragile beings" who had to be protected by their "big strong men" (probably because they were knocked up half the time) who were thereby considered the superior of the two, sort of master and pet almost. I agree that generally in this day and age it's not always the case and the man is just trying to be a "gentleman" in a non-sexist way, but by allowing a man to give you his seat when you are physically just as capable of standing yourself you are IMO condoning the historical sexism attached to the gesture.
To use another example, take the whole dispute of the veil in western society. Yes, in a free country they are not forced to wear the veil, but the societies where veil wearing is prevalent it is generally forced, together with a plethora of other sexist laws and attitudes. By wearing the veil in a free country, regardless of whether the woman is made to or not, I feel it supporting the repression of women in those not-so-free countries, therefore I am against it.
I suppose that might be looking into it a bit too much, but essentially if we want men to look at as as equals we can't really going around expecting special treatment which were some of the "benefits" of the sexist era. Of course, as has been said, that's no reason not to be polite about refusing. And I disagree with you that refusing would make a man feel foolish. On a few occasions a man has offered and I've refused, but I did it in such a way so he seemed to still felt good about himself that he offered, regardless of my polite refusal. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Nick
Thursday, October 19, 2006, 10:45
(Agree/Disagree?)
I don't think that taking the seat is integral to being a women but I do agree that it's just part of good manners for a man to offer his seat to the woman.
It's not chauvinist or condescending, it's just something that I was taught to do for a lady. Just like opening the door for her, getting her chair for her or walking on the outside of the pavement.
I think that when women take it as far as to say that it’s not letting them liberate themselves or is sexist because they are not the weaker sex, that they are taking it to far.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From weegirlie
Friday, October 20, 2006, 03:25
(Agree/Disagree?)
How about we turn this discussion on its head and as how you would feel if another man offered you (a fully able bodied man) his seat? Wouldn't the first thing you'd think be "What's he trying to imply? That I'm somehow less capable than he is?". Why is it so difficult for people to understand that women might feel the same way? We are just as capable to stand up as men and to accept an offered seat would imply an inferior capability.(reply to this comment) |
| | From vix
Thursday, October 19, 2006, 10:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
So what you are saying is that you can only be a considerate, loving, feminine woman if you blithely respond with awe and gratitude every time someone offers a seat?!? BIG FUCKING DEAL, so you offered me a seat, here's a gold star for you!
I don't care if it is or isn't chauvenistic or condescending, I'm not concerned with the motive of the one who offers it, I simply don't feel the need to accept.
I am getting seriously pissed of at being DICTATED to regarding what seems to be some sacred edict of femininity by a bunch of people who don't even fucking know me, rather than being able to decide for myself whether or not I want to sit down on a fucking bus!!!
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Hmmmmm
Thursday, October 19, 2006, 11:11
(Agree/Disagree?)
I am just curious, since you obviously don’t like to be confined to secular views of femininity, what are your personal views on the subject?
Or would you rather that we just kick the man in the teeth and all men start acting more feminine and all women more butch and we call all be one equal gender of flaming men and carpet munching women?
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Hmmmm
Thursday, October 19, 2006, 11:44
(Agree/Disagree?)
I asked you a very specific question.
I asked you for some of your views on what makes a women feminine. Since you think its wrong for a women to take a seat that’s offered to her in a bus. Give me one example of something that does show a women’s femininity.
Scented panty liners over the normal ones? Being able to take on the Scottish rugby team? Out drinking an Irishman? What?
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From
Friday, October 20, 2006, 08:12
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think tippin your hat to a lady is taking it too far, what we need is balance, nothing to either extreme.
Just depends where you draw the line, vix it seems just draws it further then say , I would as I gladly take a seat offered , what bugged me is that I used to travel on the underground pregnant and then with a carry cot and hardly no one, male or female gave up their seat. I would have to ask.
I perfer the men who give up their set then the ones who won't , even when asked. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From Ne Oublie
Sunday, October 22, 2006, 06:21
(Agree/Disagree?)
No, YOU are the one who doesn't understand. You are far too busy pushing your agenda that you can't comprehend the concept of someone making a kind gesture simply to be nice. Nine times out of ten offering a seat has no such connotation except in the minds of feminists - or others perhaps - trying to find reason to take offence.
Taking offence is something that each individual chooses to do, if you want to read offence into what people say and do, then be my guest, but don't try and claim that that was the original intention, because it simply is not!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Rain Child
Thursday, October 19, 2006, 23:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
* rainchild rises to the bait yet again*
No, what we need is to re-think why we do things. If you were on the train, coming home from work and a man or woman got up and offered you their seat for no apparent reason, what would you think? It's not that you wouldn't like to sit down, it's just that you can see an old lady over there who probably needs to sit down more than you do. So you say, "No thanks, I'll be fine, but I'm sure she could use a seat." We women are able-bodied adults. Of course we appreciate and practice common kindness and courtesy. I don't know why it's so hard to understand that antiquated gentlemanly behaviour has chauvinistic connotations. we don't need to be placed on a pedestal. We do need you to stop ogling, groping, harrassing, and objectifying us. Not saying most men do those things, just that NOT doing those things, or doing the opposite, such as taking us seriously, really listening, and finding out what we really need outside of great-grandmother's ettiquette books is a real mark of a gentleman. An honest one. And any efforts in that direction are much appreciated.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Rain Child
Friday, October 20, 2006, 03:40
(Agree/Disagree?)
http://www.yaerd.org/riskfactors.html
Male drivers involved in fatal motor vehicle crashes are almost twice as likely as female drivers to be intoxicated with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.08% or greater (NHTSA 2004b).
As drivers, men are three times more likely to die than women.
As pedestrians, men are twice as likely to die as women.
As motorcyclists and cyclists, men are twelve times more likely to die but this is partly due to more men riding than women.
http://www.transport.sa.gov.au/rss/content/safer_people/issues/male_and_female.htm
Argue all you want; however you'd be hard-pressed to find documented proof that men are superior to women as drivers. But make no mistake – gender certainly does impact driving habits and insurance industry observers believe that issue manifests in other ways, too. That's a point driven home by insurance executives such as David Snyder, who acknowledges that most car insurance companies take into account a driver's gender in determining policy pricing.
"The weight in pricing varies from company to company and by claims experience over time, but, for example, with all other factors being equal, a female between the ages of 18 and 25 would pay less than her male counterpart because as a rule younger women drivers have fewer accidents and moving violations than males in the same age group,” says Snyder, vice president and assistant general counsel of the American Insurance Association, in Washington, D.C.
The only time gender has a bearing on car insurance rates involves young drivers, says Carolyn Gorman, vice president of the Washington, D.C. office of the Insurance Information Institute (III). Young males, between the ages of 16 to 25, typically pay more than females in their age group, because "many young men are more likely to show daredevil tendencies in their driving because of factors such as emotional immaturity and misplaced feelings of immortality," Gorman pointed out.
http://money.aol.com/insurancecom/insurance/canvas3/_a/are-men-better-drivers-than-women/20061004101809990001(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From vix
Thursday, October 19, 2006, 13:07
(Agree/Disagree?)
I am angry, thanks for noticing ;-)
But I'm not upset by this discussion or anything that anyone has said. I come here and rant when I'm feeling pissy because I am too lazy to join a kick-boxing club. The point of contention actually has very little to do with it, and if you had caught me on another day I could just as well have been arguing for a completely different position (or at least a less 'militant' one). No big deal.
Who is not considering the other person's point of view? Throughout this discussion I have carefully considered others' points of view and articulated my disagreement with those views - just because I don't come round to their way of thinking does not mean I have not looked at it from their perspective.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Nick
Thursday, October 19, 2006, 10:57
(Agree/Disagree?)
I agree.
I mean while I do not at all think that women are the weaker sex, I do believe that a mans and a women’s strengths are different. I believe that one strength that a women possess is her beauty and pose.
Whether you like it or not, society looks better upon cultured women. I know there is the argument that “well just because society said so doesn’t mean it’s right”. While I do see that point as being valid I personally like the civility that society expects from us from both men and women. Even if this means the man offering his seat and the women graciously accepting.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From weegirlie
Monday, October 23, 2006, 02:06
(Agree/Disagree?)
"Whether you like it or not, society looks better upon cultured women"
I'm sorry Nick, but I take great offence at that statement. You are implying that because someone finds certain so called "gentlemanly" gestures patronising they must surely be "uncultured women". I'll have you know I've been told I come across very ladylike and feminine. In fact I doubt I'd be able to work successfully in the field I do if I acted like some sort of brash, butch feminist. Your implication is rather like Bush's famous "you're either with us or against us" nonsense. One can be perfectly ladylike and cultured in a modern, progressive way.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From vixie
Monday, October 23, 2006, 03:59
(Agree/Disagree?)
Somehow I don't think progressiveness is really a mainstay of the cultural milieu in the part of the world where Nick resides, so I suppose it's not his fault that the notion of a modern, feminine woman with progressive values is an alien one to him.
People hear anything that sounds remotely like feminism (I don't even consider myself a feminist as such, rather an 'equalist') and get all freaked out and threatened by it because it means they have to step away from their rigidly defined gender roles and social conventions (which make them feel safe because they always know what to expect from an individual, based on their sex), so instead of listening to what we were actually saying, they heard nothing but what they wanted to hear. Admittedly, I was also very pissed off on that first day and the tone of my comments would have been easily misinterpreted as hostility toward the whole spectrum of good manners and male-female interactions based on traditional values. However, I repeatedly clarified that I was not talking about a right to behave without any regard at all for common courtesy, but did it make any difference? No. People saw an angry woman and immediately thought 'angry feminist who has a chip on her shoulder about being nice to men'. Absolutely untrue. Any comments I made that could have been construed as misandrist were in direct reply to Sara and were meant only to highlight the undertone of what she was saying. If people couldn't deduct that, well, I apologise. I realise I don't make much sense when I am angry.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Nick
Monday, October 23, 2006, 10:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
"Somehow I don't think progressiveness is really a mainstay of the cultural milieu in the part of the world where Nick resides, so I suppose it's not his fault that the notion of a modern, feminine woman with progressive values is an alien one to him."
I am sorry Vic, but that has got to be the most stupid and ignorant thing you have ever sad! You go on and on about how the U.S. can not see beyond their own country thinks their way is the only way, yet you yourself are condemning a culture you know nothing about. You have never even set foot in the U.S., much less Texas so how can you dare to say that progressiveness is something people here know nothing about? Seriously Vic, I want to know where you get your skewed ideas of what it’s like over here in Texas? Did you watch another John Wayne movie? Or did you get it from some internet site you were on? The majority of your experience is taken from text books or the many hrs you spend on the internet not at all from real life.
And as for the comment about me about having any concept of what a modern progressive women is.... well I wont even bother to comment on that BS.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From vixie
Monday, October 23, 2006, 10:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
Heh, Nick I am glad you addressed that because I posted it specifically for the sake of flaming. Of course I realise that I cannot legitimately comment on something I have no firsthand knowledge about. I say things like that all the time about America and esp about Texas and you know not to take me seriously. Goodness, how could you possibly think I was being serious???
That said, I do think that some parts of American culture (from what I've heard, and you can learn a lot from listening to people, though of course it is not the same as firsthand knowledge) would be highly irritating to me. I am not sure I could live in some parts of the US because it would just drive me mad. But I'm sure there are also some great places and I am quite sure that I could find somewhere that would suit me.
I think I am justified in saying that there might be some little bit of truth to the general gist of what I've said in regards to where you live. Maybe not. I'll visit someday and let you know how I find it ;-)
I know you. I don't have a problem with you or your views (Well, maybe a little teenie bit of a problem with some of the things you said in this thread but I don't think they were intentional and I actually do think your view is quite reasonable, except where I'd really have to nitpick and I'm not going to do that because I know that you didn't mean anything by them) or the way you choose to go about your interactions with women and what you expect from them in response to your actions. I've already mentioned a couple of times in the thread that I agree with a lot of what you said.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From vixie
Monday, October 23, 2006, 10:56
(Agree/Disagree?)
'The majority of your experience is taken from text books or the many hrs you spend on the internet, not at all from real life.'
Do you know, I was thinking about this very thing just this morning and yes, you are absolutely correct. It is the reason why I enjoy theorising so much. You can say whatever you want and there is little or no consequence because it really has little or no bearing on real life. I'm well aware of the fact that not much of what I say has much relevance to real life, but I like it that way. Reality sucks and I am not at all well suited to it. In my mind the world is idealised to an extent that there is no way that life as it is could ever be what I need it to be. This is the reason why I prefer to have friends that I cannot meet, lovers that I cannot touch, and experiences that belong to someone else.
Would you please meet me in chat sometime so we can get all this animosity out of the way, I hate it when people are angry with me, even if it is my fault.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From vixie
Monday, October 23, 2006, 09:33
(Agree/Disagree?)
You raise some excellent points, Anna! Thank goodness for people like you who can debate an issue by considering carefully what is said and then calling the person out on it, rather than being so completely unable to appreciate nuance that they are incapable of saying anything in reply than exactly the same thing they said last time! You are right, it does mean the same thing and of course I am perfectly aware of that. I am also not ashamed to be a feminist. But the fact that I am thus aware makes no difference at all when I am engaging with others because I am perceived according to what meanings they invest into the term, and it seems that the majority of people (or at least those who react most fiercely) immediately think 'militantly anti-men, unfeminine, bitter', etc etc etc - You saw it here in this thread, though I admit, yet again, that my hostile tone was obviously going to be prone to misinterpretation. I still maintain that I made a reasonable effort to make it clear that I am not arguing for the right to be anti-social or impolite.
I make the distinction between 'feminist' and 'equalist' purely because of the kind of misconceptions that are so very common when people hear any kind of talk that might come close to challenging 'the way things are done', simply because I feel that it is not my fault if they want to be ignorant about what feminism is, and I am content to humour them if it means they might actually try to listen to and understand what I have said. Feminism may have pure connotations in the minds of those who subscribe to it, but to everyone else it seems to be a loaded term. While it's a shame that one should have to pander to the demands of ignorance, I suppose that I can handle the corruption of the word - After all, words are only words, the ideology exists as its own entity no matter what label is attached to it.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From vixie
Monday, October 23, 2006, 10:02
(Agree/Disagree?)
Hmmmm, upon further thought I wonder if my reluctance to use the term feminist also betrays something of a hesitation on my part to constantly have to fight and struggle with people in order to prove to them that feminism is not about exclusion and emasculation and all the other typical connotations that it conjures up in people's minds. I suppose you could say it is a cowardly position to hold, but believe it or not, I do sometimes get tired of arguing with people and having to defend my position so vehemently. Thinking about it, the best way to tackle the ignorance and misconception would probably be to proudly announce the fact that yes, I am a feminist, and then rely on my actions to do the talking for me. Maybe I'm almost at the point where I can feel confident in doing so.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From AnnaH
Monday, October 23, 2006, 12:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
Those are really excellent points and I debated almost the exact same thing with myself when one of our assigned textbooks was called "Cunt." I was horrified to be seen reading it, even though the entire premise of the book was reclaiming this word on the basis of it's historical use which was in favor of women but along the line had been turned into something derogative. Of course, I know that it's supposed to be positive but how do I explain this to the old people giving me queer looks on the bus as I bust out my reading assignment? It's one thing to know what you mean, but another thing to try to convince others of it.
Before I took that class I wouldn't have called myself a feminist until I realized what it really meant. It's tragic that women often sabotage each other and they're probably as much to blame for these negative connotations as men are. After all, we are fighting for their rights, the rights of all women. I also dislike how some "feminists" scorn other women who choose to be mothers and housewives as if they're setting them back 50 years. Personally, my idea of a being a feminist is being supportive of all women and their rights, even the right to refuse them.
If people like you and me can show a positive view of feminism as reasonable, intelligent women, not necessarily anti-men but pro-equality then we can reclaim this term. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From vixie
Saturday, October 21, 2006, 10:11
(Agree/Disagree?)
OK, I should learn never to say never about posting further comments on a given issue ;-)
Nick: 'I mean while I do not at all think that women are the weaker sex, I do believe that a mans and a women’s strengths are different.'
You misunderstand me completely, Nick, and make the mistake of assuming that by championing equality, I am proposing that men and women should be thought of as being exactly alike. No, that is not what I am saying at all. Equality, as I insist on believing in it, means valuing diversity, celebrating it even, and the positive right to be different rather than the negative right of being 'allowed' to be just like someone else. All women are not one and the same (and should not be expected to be so in order to qualify for womanhood), in the same way that all men are not one and the same (and should not be expected to be so in order to qualify for manhood). By extension, men and women do not have to be exactly alike in order for equality to be achieved. I do not want to be anyone but myself. I reserve the absolute right to be unique to myself.
Sara: 'I love being a women, thus; a lady.'
Sara: 'A strong women doesn't have to be hard and masculine, in order to put herself on a man's level.'
Your views are so gender-biased it's difficult for me to even take you seriously. You offend me. I am a woman and I AM feminine. I am not 'hard or masculine' simply because I do not always behave in the way that you have decided encapsulates femininity. Anger is not a masculine emotion, aggression is not a masculine trait. Being able to fend for oneself is not a masculine attribute. Being capable of nurturing and caring is not an exclusively feminine trait. Valuing togetherness, cuddles and quiet, unrushed lovemaking is not an exclusively female characteristic. All these things are part of the human condition whether one is female or male.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Ne Oublie
Saturday, October 21, 2006, 10:43
(Agree/Disagree?)
I'm sorry that my lack of pulling out quotations has offended you, in order to avoid repeating, I will highlight your statement to which I was responding:
"I reserve the absolute right to be unique to myself."
Such a statement, made in the context of the current discussion, is a clear example of what I was commenting on.
Vixie: "If you will make no effort to grasp what I am saying, I will make no further effort to engage with you."
If you can't tell the difference between grasping what someone is saying and agreeing with it, then I don't see the point of further effort on your part.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Ne Oublie
Saturday, October 21, 2006, 11:24
(Agree/Disagree?)
Again, I have no problem with people declining. What I DO take exception to is declining 'on principle' and turning it into an agenda, and when people do so, I have no qualms about addressing and defending the broader issues which they are attacking.
To borrow a phrase, it is the 'short end of a wedge', and followed to it's logical conclusion would not only stop those despicable men who offer young women a seat, but would also stop a respect of your right to be an individual. After all, if my feelings are more important than anyone else's, then why would I care whether they feel they are 'true to themself' or not?(reply to this comment) |
| | From Rain Child
Saturday, October 21, 2006, 17:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
Can I ask you to please do just a little research into the history of feminism so that you can begin to have an inkling of what the broader issues are? Or just try and take yourself out of the picture, be objective. Imagine a planet with blue and red aliens. Traditionally, the red aliens always give their seats to the blue aliens. wouldn't you wonder why? Then you find out that for years the blue aliens were considered possessions of the red aliens. Wouldn't you think it was ridiculous, and that consideration should revolve around the needs of the individual alien regardless of their colour? That's all I'm saying.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Ne Oublie
Saturday, October 21, 2006, 18:44
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yet to take 'sexual politics' out of the context of the progression of the overall political process would be to ignore the wider issues and reasons why things were the way they were. It doesn't mean they were 'right', but as I said in my last post, the way political power and rights have cascaded down has primarily been driven by those members of society who fought for those rights. Women have recently done so, and I think we are the better for it, but I do not agree with the claims of centuries of victimisation made by some.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From vixie
Saturday, October 21, 2006, 12:26
(Agree/Disagree?)
Then I am sorry that you have not understood anything that I have said, or at least it seems that you do not believe, as I do, that inclusiveness (is that even a word?)and tolerance are positive goals, and a worthwhile agenda. I have never tried to claim that a man who offers a seat is despicable for doing so, and I find it hard to see how you have managed to read that into my stance on the issue.
If I can accept your right to your stance (which is also arrived at 'on principle') and acknowledge the fact that my personal stance is not so much about the motives behind your offer as my own subjective feelings about what my reaction to that offer means to me, then I would have hoped that you could have extended a similar courtesy to me.
I suppose that in a way I can understand why you take offence, if I look at it from the perspective (correct me if I am wrong) that you dislike having a political meaning attached to a behaviour that you engage in out of genuine thoughtfulness.
Have I argued my case in such a muddled fashion that you are unable to accept my assertion that my stance is not about you or your values but about me and something that I consider a core part of my identity - My wish to do what I can, in whatever little ways, to foster a sense of fairness in my expectations of others and in my dealings with them? If so, I admit defeat in one aspect at least, that of making myself and my rather tumultuous relationship with gender issues better understood. I am not afraid to admit, either, that my views on these issues are sometimes rather confused and not that keenly developed yet. They certainly do not remain static for long. I am perfectly capable of understanding that my way is not the only right way. This was never about 'being right', for me.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From vix
Thursday, October 19, 2006, 10:19
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well, I'm not happy to leave it at that. I'm busy just now and therefore I can't outline exactly where I think you are espousing a view that has a ridiculously misogynist undercurrent, but trust me, I'll get back to you.
I should make it clear that I've got no problem with you thinking and behaving in whatever way you like; you are perfectly entitled to your opinion; you are totally free to engage in whatever acts of kindness you can think up, just please don't walk around thinking that your way of interpreting what it is to be a woman is how everyone should be.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From OMFG!
Thursday, October 19, 2006, 10:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
On the contrary, you seem to be taking great offence to her having her own preference:
"I think you are espousing a view that has a ridiculously misogynist undercurrent"
Who made you the authority on ulterior motives behind social graces? To even suggest that every, or any man, would behave in such a manner to denigrate women is ignorant and insulting.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From vix
Thursday, October 19, 2006, 11:08
(Agree/Disagree?)
Of course you are right that my comment can be seen as taking offence, I bloody well do take offence! I am talking about a misogyny that is not necessarily present on the part of the individual but implicit in the surrounding ideology and the limitations of social convention where gender roles are concerned. The CLEAR implication is that the woman must 'know her place' and respond accordingly.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From vixie
Sunday, October 22, 2006, 09:02
(Agree/Disagree?)
Oh my, I am finding it hard to extract myself from this topic, aren't I. I do think that unless a different angle is brought into the discussion, this will be my last post. I might write up an article addressing Nick and Sara's views more specifically, focusing particularly on points with which I agree (because I am not completely opposed to everything that they said, particularly those points brought up by Nick), but I'm not yet sure I want to open that particular can of worms.
Anyway, this one last time, I feel further clarification is necessary. I have already explained this within the thread, but I want to say it again because I've identified what I think is the place where I misrepresented my views shoddily enough that you, Dom, were given completely the wrong impression. Apologies for yet again repeating a whole slew of comments.
I believe the confusion started here:
From vix
Thursday, October 19, 2006, 10:19
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well, I'm not happy to leave it at that. I'm busy just now and therefore I can't outline exactly where I think you are espousing a view that has a ridiculously misogynist undercurrent, but trust me, I'll get back to you.
I should make it clear that I've got no problem with you thinking and behaving in whatever way you like; you are perfectly entitled to your opinion; you are totally free to engage in whatever acts of kindness you can think up, just please don't walk around thinking that your way of interpreting what it is to be a woman is how everyone should be.
From OMFG!
Thursday, October 19, 2006, 10:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
On the contrary, you seem to be taking great offence to her having her own preference:
"I think you are espousing a view that has a ridiculously misogynist undercurrent"
Who made you the authority on ulterior motives behind social graces? To even suggest that every, or any man, would behave in such a manner to denigrate women is ignorant and insulting.
From vix
Thursday, October 19, 2006, 11:08
(Agree/Disagree?)
Of course you are right that my comment can be seen as taking offence, I bloody well do take offence! I am talking about a misogyny that is not necessarily present on the part of the individual but implicit in the surrounding ideology and the limitations of social convention where gender roles are concerned. The CLEAR implication is that the woman must 'know her place' and respond accordingly.
From Ne Oublie
Thursday, October 19, 2006, 11:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
... and through this comment you acknowledge the fact that it is the BROADER CONTEXT that you are addressing - as am I.
At this point in the thread I should have clarified to Dom that in saying 'I am talking about a misogyny that is not necessarily present on the part of the individual but implicit in the surrounding ideology and the limitations of social convention where gender roles are concerned. The CLEAR implication is that the woman must 'know her place' and respond accordingly.' I was not referring anymore to the practice of offering seats or anything to do with manners, I was referring specifically to a comment that was made that implied that it is a feminine woman's duty to sacrifice principle in order to make a man feel good about himself. Like I've said, I already explained this so forgive me for repeating the whole thing, but I couldn't let it go without ensuring that I had properly addressed what I feel is a crucial misrepresentation of my views.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From mia1
Sunday, October 22, 2006, 07:55
(Agree/Disagree?)
you know I open doors for girls, guys, old people, kids, shopping carts, dogs, if they'd let them in, and, I don't consider it sexist. I don't take issues if I have to give my seat to some woman or old person or man. People in general aren't used to commen manners anymore. I don't think ur being judged on ur personal beliefs if u sit down when some guy offers u a seat. Or maybe I'm a dyke if I open the door for a woman...jeeze u people can be so intense sometimes.. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From vixie
Monday, October 23, 2006, 04:17
(Agree/Disagree?)
In my opinion, there's a rather crucial difference between accepting a seat and accepting the holding open of a door (Similar to Rain's point about the seat vs. the tipping of the hat, the latter being nothing more than a greeting). By walking through a door that is held open for me I am simply acknowledging the fact that I, like everyone else, am busy and want to get where I am going as quickly as possible. It is also an action that is performed equally by women and men, toward women and men. I hold doors open for people all the time, and am grateful and polite when the same is done for me. I also make a point of letting people go ahead of me in the queue in the supermarket, if I have many more items than them (I do this whether they are female, male, young or old) simply because I know that I would appreciate it if they did that for me, were the roles reversed.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From vixie
Sunday, October 22, 2006, 08:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
You don't think you're being judged on your personal beliefs when a guy offers a seat, so go ahead and sit. I've got no problem with being offered the seat. I have no problem offering a seat to a man or woman who visibly needs it more than me. If on some occasion I need it more than the person who offers it, I will accept. So far that hasn't happened.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Samuel
Thursday, October 19, 2006, 04:57
(Agree/Disagree?)
I agree with you 100%. People don't seem to have the manners they should have anymore, and when I do make efforts it is nice to hear a "Thank You", but I don't think I've ever gotten a "scowl" before. And I don't care what David Berg said- there is nothing wrong with a woman being smart, powerful, and successful.
It's a lot better than staying at home all day making babies that your oldest girl is going to raise for you. (But that's okay, one more soldier for the Lord's Army, right?)(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | from Removed
Monday, October 16, 2006 - 19:34
(Agree/Disagree?)
[Removed at author's request]
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | From solemn
Thursday, October 19, 2006, 10:06
(Agree/Disagree?)
I remember having the worst recordings of radio music. I spent a year or so, when I was 10, acquiring a small library of crappily recorded tapes. I would get caught with them, and get an ass kicking. But I would find my tapes before they were destroyed and remove the insides and place them in a "Family music" tape, and put the insides containing family music in the old tape. Then I would get caught again when someone would play the newly jacketed tape thinking it was family music. They never realized what I was doing. It was a vicious cycle, but worth every ass kicking.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From solemn
Thursday, October 19, 2006, 10:33
(Agree/Disagree?)
Lucky you! The only thing I could get during my period of musical falling away was Def Leppard and Richard Marx etc.. But Def Leppard and Richard Marx were enough to cause the home shepherds (Sorry, I just threw up in my mouth a little) to "have serious doubts" about my dedication to the lord. Though I did have Inxs and some other cool stuff, there's nothing quite like a Top 40 music collection, heh.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Samuel
Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 11:12
(Agree/Disagree?)
I sure hope you're not still using it. They sue over that now. As if suing you is going to make you want to go out and buy their CD's. Their loss figures are inflated because not everyone who downloads a song is willing to go out and buy the CD- so the music industry really didn't lose anything in that case.
I do credit Napster and Kazaa for chnging the way the music industry does business. Now you can buy single songs just about anywhere online.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Samuel
Friday, October 20, 2006, 05:11
(Agree/Disagree?)
Which is exactly why I only actually bought one of her CD's. Actually, I bought a CD player from a pawn shop and with it came a bunch of free CD coupons. The shop didn't have much country selection so I went over to the newer CD's and saw this one with the picture of a pretty girl in a red dress on her knees. She looked different back then, she still had her innocence. And a million dollar smile on her face (or at least a hal-million dollar smile). I turned the CD on its back and recognized "Sometimes", so I took my Reba McEntire and Britney Spears CDs to the cashier and cashed in my coupons. And that was my introduction to pop music. I'm very picky about my music, and any CD I own probably only has 4 or 5 songs on it that I'll listen to. Britney Spears is no exception.
Of course Miss 96FM doesn't play it anymore! She hasn't put out a new CD in several years. You know, she's been busy making babies and driving around with them in her lap, and choosing a loser husband that thinks he can rap. Changing her hair color so she can "have more privacy", then posing naked for Bazzar with her new hair color. She's a very busy girl lately.
Have you seen Madonna lately? I wouldn't kiss her if they paid me $200,000!
Unless Madonna's doing an act in opera or a theatre, there is no need to speak with a fake British accent. The fact that she feels the need to do that to me shows that she has a low self worth. Britney Spears may have a low self worth also, I'm not entirely sure at the moment. Kevin Federline on the other hand, has a low NET worth! : o ) (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Rain Child
Friday, October 20, 2006, 05:34
(Agree/Disagree?)
I'm laughing so hard I think I might die...somebody get me some water PLEASE!
Well, that was a riveting story about your music shopping...and you are so up-to-date on Britney's life it's amazing!
But, -and I don't know why I'm telling you this - Miss 96 FM is me! That's what my friends nicknamed me when I first left The Family, because they were all kind of alternative emo types and I was so 'mainstream'. 96 FM was a commercial radio station where we lived. So I was listening to chart hits, and they thought that was the funniest, cheesiest thing they'd ever heard of! I invited them to see my collection of mostly RNB music, and they said i was a big cheeseball. Anyway, they started calling me Miss 96 FM. So what I was saying is that even someone like me who's been accused of listening to commercial crappy pop music would never listen to Britney, so it's pretty awful stuff...Oh never mind.
BTW, I still think you're ok. You just crack me up is all. And sometimes you're so innocent it's amazing, but what's wrong with that? Um...about Madonna, I think she really has picked up the British accent. It's not so much individual words, but her inflections and the rhythm of her speech which has become British. That can happen when you're married to a Pom and in love with him, living over there as well. It's actually pretty catchy. I pick it up every time I talk to one. I really can't help it.
I noticed you've stopped signing all your comments - What's up with that?(reply to this comment) |
| | From Samuel
Friday, October 20, 2006, 06:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
(::throws a water balloon at Rainchild::)
I figure you guys know me well enough to figure out from my writing style who wrote what. Plus altely I try to cut my comments a bit shorter so that you can clearly see my name at the top of my comment when you're reading at the end. It gets a little confusing sometimes to remember who is writing what.
Now I understand what you meant by Miss 96 FM. I figured you meant to be write Mix 96 FM. Well, to each their own.
Cracking people up is my mission on Earth, Rain. I enjoy it. I figure some people get so busy that if it weren't for me coming on this site and making them laugh, they might never get to laugh. We all need to take the time to enjoy the finer things in life.
Unfortunately here in the States, the tabloids all talk about Britney Spears. Since I work in a grocery store, I get to read them for free on my break. This mean, willingly or unwillingly, I become quite aware of Britney Spears' life. Sometimes I feel sorry for her, and I wish the tabloids would just leave her alone. If not for her, for the sake of those kids.
For the life of me, I can't understand how anyone could fall in love with a porn star. Maybe the idea of lonely freaks lusting after their spouse makes them feel special, I don't know.
"Hey there, fair lady. Can I get your telly number? Perhaps we can go out for fish and chips later. "
(reply to this comment) |
| | From openmind
Friday, October 20, 2006, 06:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
"(::throws a water balloon at Rainchild::)"
er we don't throw water balloons at people we smack'm in the head
"I figure some people get so busy that if it weren't for me coming on this site and making them laugh, they might never get to laugh"
... well samuel i'm glad that u feel that way although so far most of your posts on this discussion left me scratching my head wondering abit
"Unfortunately here in the States, the tabloids all talk about Britney Spears. Since I work in a grocery store, I get to read them for free on my break."
- i'm sure in the store there's much more reading material to dig into i.e. product labels, alcohol content, news papers, and more
"I feel sorry for her, and I wish the tabloids would just leave her alone. If not for her, for the sake of those kids."
- uh... the publicity is what celebs want
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Samuel
Saturday, October 21, 2006, 12:40
(Agree/Disagree?)
Rainchild said she was laughing so hard and my comment, and asked for someone to get her some water PLEASE! I, in response, hit her with a water balloon.
She made a joke on me, I made a joke on her. Now we're even. I would never smack Rainchild in the head, I kind of like her. Now, don't anybody read any more into that than is there.
I'm sorry that most of my posts on this disucssion leave you scratching your head. I also like New Country and Contemporary Christian, but I realize it's very unlikely that most of you are familiar with the bands I listen to in those genres. Like Charlie Daniels, Trisha Yearwood, Newsboys, the Marantha Singers, and a band at my church.
I don't like to read product labels, but since I'm on a diet lately, I have been reading them more often. Newspapers are usually in the breakroom, and I could care less about alcohol content.
Do you honestly think celebrities want people following them around wherever they go trying to get pictures of them when they're not looking? That's why the hire publicists, to deal with the media so they don't have to. And regardless of what the parents think, the kids should be able to live their normal lives away from the cameras if they choose to.
I'm not surprised that you would accept $200,000 to kiss Madonna. However, if the offer is made by Kevin Federline, my advice to you is to make sure he has the money first : o )
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Samuel
Saturday, October 21, 2006, 19:03
(Agree/Disagree?)
You can call me Sam, Samuel, Sammy, whatever you like as long as it's nice. Unlike Exister, who called me an asshole earlier.
He still hasn't explained the definition of the word drawling yet so:
The American Heritage College Dictionary says:
drawling- to speak with lengthened or drawn out vowels.
What does that have to do with me, Exister?
So far it seems like the score is:
Samuel- 1 Exister- 0.
Better luck next time, Exister.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Samuel
Saturday, October 21, 2006, 20:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
I've figured that. I assume his anti-social is just as act for the site. But it did upset me a little bit because "the song" (yes, this article was about a song by LeAnn Rimes) was posted by me for the folks who were working so hard in the courts against The Family. Exister qualifies, I believe. Last I checked, he still has his lawsuit against The Family going. So I was a bit disheartened when I tried to do something nice to perhaps cheer someone up, even if only one person, and he responds in that manner.
But he probably didn't realize it was meant for him as well. Therefore, all is well. Especially since it's Saturday night- I can't go to church tomorrow morning if I have a grudge against him! : o )
Well, Rain, I will talk to you later. Ciao Ciao for now. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Samuel
Sunday, October 22, 2006, 05:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
Too bad he can't win an arguement. That would require coming back to see what the other person has answered.
Samuel- 1 , Exister-0 .
Sorry, Jerseygirl, but I like to think the best of people. Until I'm proven wrong, I'm going to continue believing that his anti-social is just a front for this website. When in Kindergarten, the teacher said I was anti-social. Of course, that my first time in public school with 30 little kids all over the place. Compared to traveling as missionaries and always being alone before, it looked like a zoo to me!
Did anyone else have this problem adapting to normal life outside of The Family?
Does anyone know what thesaurus Exister uses to get his words from?(reply to this comment) |
| | From vixie
Sunday, October 22, 2006, 05:57
(Agree/Disagree?)
I really don't think that exister cares much about winning an argument with you.
If it weren't for the fact that I have seen solemn and you in the chat at the same time, I'd be agreeing with placebo that you could well be one and the same. The deadpan way in which you deliver your hilariously dense lines makes me think that you can't possibly be for real.
Roughie, is that you?!?
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Samuel
Sunday, October 22, 2006, 09:44
(Agree/Disagree?)
You thought Solemn and me were one and the same? Is that supposed to be an insult?
I could talk about some really intellectual stuff on this site, but I'm afraid I'd put about half of you to sleep. Did you notice the discussion here about offering a seat on the bus to ladies? I helped start that one.
I don't think my role here is to provide stimulating conversation, I can do that at school or church, or with my Dad who is in Bible college. I prefer the role of the entertainer. I'm still the same person, though. If anyone wants to discuss why Jesus is called our "high priest" in the book of Hebrews, despite the fact that he was not a Levite, e-mail me. Or maybe you'd like to discuss the ramifications for the Democratic party if Michael Steele beats Ben Cardin in the Maryland race for U.S. Senate. Maybe you'd like to discuss why Mike Tyson is backing him.
I prefer to keep things light, though.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From afflick
Sunday, October 22, 2006, 17:44
(Agree/Disagree?)
Sam, Sammy, Samuel you are clearly one of the smartest or THE smartest person on this site. How do I know? You keep telling us. So, while your self-appointed role might not be to provide stimulating conversation on such gems as why Jesus is called "high priest" in the book of Hebrews (which was written before Jesus existed, but I defer) or the implications of the Maryland senate race may be, I am comforted in the knowledge that your witty banter will keep us bravely trudging through our middling, pathetic little existances.
Whew! Just had to get that out of my system. And now back to your brilliance, Sam.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Samuel
Sunday, October 22, 2006, 18:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
I never said I was brilliant, but I'm definitely not unsophisticated as Exister was saying. I've gotten over Exister now. Yes, I realise he's like that with everyone. Some people are like that, I had a boss like that for a few months.
Example: One day, he saw me trying to open up a can of wet wipes for the registers. They can be rather difficult to open sometimes, they have a small hole in the plastic that you're supposed to be able to feed the wet wipes through. It wasn't working. I was just about to get finally get one out when he grabs the container from me and with a straight look on his face goes: "Sammy, look what you've got here! One, two, three, FOUR! Do you know these sheets cost us $.50 a piece? That's $2 you just wasted!" It took about a minute before I figured out he was just joking with me.
I don't consider myself to be an asshole either. If I've done something to offend someone, then please let me know so I can make things right. But from the way Exister put it, it didn't seem like he was upset about anything I'd done to him, so I've decided to ignore what he wrote. The way I see it, if you're not willing to confront someone with something they did, then you need to just let it go for your own sake. And to preserve your sanity.
Please let me know if my witty banter ever fails to keep you bravely trudging through your middling, pathetic life existance. Man, now I feel sorry for you. And I hope your life experience improves soon.
Your name just reminded me of the duck on the insurance commercial that goes "Aflac! Aflac!" I prefer the gheco from the Geico commercials, though.
Trivia Tidbit: The voice of the gheco is done by none other than Kelsey Grammar of "Frasier" and "Cheers" fame.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Samuel
Sunday, October 22, 2006, 11:05
(Agree/Disagree?)
He did?! If you can prove that, Larry Flint is willing to pay you big bucks!
That's one of those movies I ended up watching in The Family when I was in Canada- "The People vs. Larry Flint". The critics raved about it. The problem is: by "critics" I mean "Jesus speaking". He also seemed to like American Pie, another movie that I was quite dissapointed with. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Samuel
Sunday, October 22, 2006, 11:05
(Agree/Disagree?)
He did?! If you can prove that, Larry Flint is willing to pay you big bucks!
That's one of those movies I ended up watching in The Family when I was in Canada- "The People vs. Larry Flint". The critics raved about it. The problem is: by "critics" I mean "Jesus speaking". He also seemed to like American Pie, another movie that I was quite dissapointed (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From A little gift from me to you, Placebo. xxx
Saturday, October 21, 2006, 18:24
(Agree/Disagree?)
Can I get your hand to write on
Just a piece of lead to bite on
What am I to fly my kite on
Do you want to flash your light on
Take a look its on display - for you
Coming down no not today
Did you meet your fortune teller
Get it off with no propellor
Do it up it's always stellar
What a way to finally smell her
Pick it up it's not to strong - for you
Take a piece and pass it on
Fly away on my Zephyr
I feel it more then ever
And in this perfect weather
We'll find a place together
Fly on my wing
Riddlin on liberator
Find a way to be a skater
Rev it up to levitator
Super mainly aviator
Take a look its on display - for you
Coming down no not today
Fly away on my Zephyr
I feel it more then ever
And in this perfect weather
We'll find a place together
In the water where the scent of my emotion
All the world will pass me by
Fly away on my Zephyr
We'll find a place together
Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa - do you
Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah
Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa - won't you
Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah
Fly away on my Zephyr
I feel it more then ever
And in this perfect weather
We'll find a place together
In the water where the scent of my emotion
All the world will pass me by
Fly away on my Zephyr
We're gonna live forever
Forever
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]