Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: What the F@%&?! And more feminist outrage...
The BUST Lounge > Forums > The F-Word
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33
missladyj
you do need a fire arm owner identification card or FIOD but are not required to take a class in safety. in the US at least.
candycane_girl
Exactly. I mean, would I ever trust myself to even hold a gun? Fuck no. And I'm sure that most people with long guns will just use them for hunting. I think they argue that most gun violence happens with handguns and I'm sure that's true. But Marc Lepine (the killer) walked into a school with huge, military grade weapons when he killed all of those women (14 in total). It is always possible that some crazy person will get access to a gun whether it's a handgun or a long gun and use it to kill someone! At the very least, there should be some way to let the cops know who the guns belong to.
missladyj
QUOTE(missladyj @ Nov 14 2009, 05:37 PM) *
you do need a fire arm owner identification card or FIOD but are not required to take a class in safety. in the US at least.

angie_21
I agree, how fucking hard is it to register your gun? How is that an infringment of your rights? You're still allowed to have a gun, you just shouldn't be allowed to go around with a lethal weapon unless the police could trace it to you if you did actually hurt someone with it. Whatever, I know you can kill someone with a lot of other things that aren't registered, but none of those things are as fast and deadly as a gun.

I'm pretty sure in Alberta you legally have to keep all firearms unloaded and locked in a secure cabinet. Technically you can't legally have a working rifle mounted on your wall, for example. Not that anyone checks up on that.
candycane_girl
angie, when I was looking for more info on the bill, I actually came across a website that said this "requiring licences for possession of property means the government owns the firearms and citizens are really just renting them for a fee". All I could think was "Oh, fuck offff!"
zoya
QUOTE(candycane_girl @ Nov 14 2009, 11:50 AM) *
angie, when I was looking for more info on the bill, I actually came across a website that said this "requiring licences for possession of property means the government owns the firearms and citizens are really just renting them for a fee". All I could think was "Oh, fuck offff!"



.... I suppose that means that the government actually owns your car and that you're just renting it for a fee. You can kill someone with a car, so why shouldn't you have to register a gun? morons.
angie_21
That kind of bogus government conspiracy crap is so pathetic. I can't imagine that the people who say it even believe it. yeah, that's right, the government is trying to steal your little gun. because it's just that valuable. if you're not planning on shooting any people with it or doing other illegal things, registering it doesn't affect you in any way. I imagine there's a fee, but guess what, I had to pay a fee for my license plate & vehicle registration. I guess that means the government is infringing on my right to drive and they would take away my car if they could!
ChingusKhan
People, I have a question for you. It's actually a series of questions, perhaps to some not related to feminism but to me, directly related.

I'm talking about Elizabeth Lambert, the New Mexico Lobos soccer player, immortalized on this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNmPybFK2_o

To me, an ex-athlete at a Div. 1 school, male, and someone who played soccer - or football, depending on your continent - this is a woman I want on my team. She's a hard-ass defender who's clearly pissed when she loses and is not afraid of contact.

Two things I'm interested in hearing from you, the loyal Bust audience:

1.) In my opinion, this is a total double standard. If she were a he, no one would say a word. Trust me when I say this, what she's did is small beer in the men's game. What do you think?

2.) This is the tricky one: The men I know that have seen the clip take the attitude, for the most part, that she was playing on the edge - went over it, no question - but, a game's a game and she's a competitor trying to win. Frankly, those of us that coach women and girls (And I'm one.) were saying we'd want her on our team. You can't teach that aggression.

The people that really, really slag her and demand she be banned for life, etc. tend to be other women! I've seen this in reactions to the clip and on countless message boards all over the internet. Why is that? Why do women more that men take seem to be more offended by Ms. Lambert's actions?
angie_21
QUOTE(ChingusKhan @ Nov 14 2009, 09:43 PM) *
2.) This is the tricky one: The men I know that have seen the clip take the attitude, for the most part, that she was playing on the edge - went over it, no question - but, a game's a game and she's a competitor trying to win. Frankly, those of us that coach women and girls (And I'm one.) were saying we'd want her on our team. You can't teach that aggression.


having never watched mens or women's soccer, I can't really make any comment on how she compares to men in terms of cheating/voilence. I've always found that part of sports distasteful and it's the reason I don't watch hockey. Taking into account that gloves-off fist-fights are pretty much encouraged in men's hockey, though, I don't doubt that her moves would also be seen very differently in men's soccer. I happen to feel that in any game, kicking someone in the head or snapping their head back by their hair hard enough to possibly give them a concussion should always be punishable by removal from the game, whether they be men or women. First, it's cheating, and second, people shouldn't treat eachother that way, no matter what the game is. That's why men have died and been paralysed playing something as silly as spectator sports. Sure women should have the right to treat eachother badly without being judged if men do as well, but really no one should be doing it.

I can say they the clips they showed sure made her look purposefully malicious, and not just aggressive. I'd never judge from a TV clip though, you never know exactly what you're seeing. Here's the thing: you can teach that agression, you see it all time when little kids playing little-league hockey get bullied and coached into being agressive. they learn agression from hockey parents that get into verbal and physical fights over their own kids. I mean, people have been sent to the hospital from these fights. And in this world, men are still taught that agression much more than women are, hence men being less judgemental of the agression, whether they're seeing it in men or in women.
candycane_girl
One last thing on the dismantling of bill C 68, it really feels like a slap in the face. Like I said, the bill came to pass after the horror of Polytechnique. People finally realized that we need better gun control laws and now it's like a big "fuck you" to anyone who is concerned about gun violence.
speedy
Chingus, if I were on her team, I think I'd be worried that she could do something dumb that could result in a penalty that could cost us the game. Hard play is fine, but a red-card move like hers right in front of a field judge or ref? Dumb! I see this all the time in the NFL: some little punk-ass cornerback "gets even" on downfield pass coverage. Flag, automatic first down, 50 dollars of my hard-earned money is shot to hell because now somebody's going to score and beat the spread.
On the other hand, Ms. Lambert would make one hell of a state trooper.

QUOTE(ChingusKhan @ Nov 15 2009, 04:43 AM) *
People, I have a question for you. It's actually a series of questions, perhaps to some not related to feminism but to me, directly related.

I'm talking about Elizabeth Lambert, the New Mexico Lobos soccer player, immortalized on this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNmPybFK2_o

To me, an ex-athlete at a Div. 1 school, male, and someone who played soccer - or football, depending on your continent - this is a woman I want on my team. She's a hard-ass defender who's clearly pissed when she loses and is not afraid of contact.

Two things I'm interested in hearing from you, the loyal Bust audience:

1.) In my opinion, this is a total double standard. If she were a he, no one would say a word. Trust me when I say this, what she's did is small beer in the men's game. What do you think?

2.) This is the tricky one: The men I know that have seen the clip take the attitude, for the most part, that she was playing on the edge - went over it, no question - but, a game's a game and she's a competitor trying to win. Frankly, those of us that coach women and girls (And I'm one.) were saying we'd want her on our team. You can't teach that aggression.

The people that really, really slag her and demand she be banned for life, etc. tend to be other women! I've seen this in reactions to the clip and on countless message boards all over the internet. Why is that? Why do women more that men take seem to be more offended by Ms. Lambert's actions?

ketto
Candycane, what a wonderful gift on the 20th anniversary of such a tragedy, eh? I'm actually writing an article about the 20th anniversary of the Montreal Massacre and I'm hoping to include some pieces about the long gun registry, but I only have a max of 900 words to work with so I hope I can squeeze it in. There's a lot of material to cover.

Chingus, I'm a female soccer player in a Div 4 women's league. Pretty much everyone in my league is there for fun and it's mostly recreational. The ref's do not stand for ANY rough play and you can easily get a yellow or red card. I've watched the Div. 1 women's teams play and a few of the men's teams and I find there's very little tolerance for rough play. I think Elizabeth Lambert was really out of line in at least 3 of her plays (slapping the other player in the face as she went down, punching one player in the back, but especially pulling the players ponytail and dragging her to the ground).

I really dislike rough play in sports. I don't like going to hockey games for the fights and I don't like seeing it in soccer. It's pointless and it sends a bad message to kids who might try and emulate what they're favourite players are doing. I have no doubt she's a great player, and I don't think she should be banned for life, but I don't think that kind of play should be tolerated either.

I do think that when women are violent or 'lose it' in sports, there is more media coverage, but I also think that when men do the same there is fairly significant coverage too. It's definitely over-sensationalized when a woman does it. I actually find that when watching professional soccer that the men's teams make a much bigger issue out of injuries, staying down on the field until a ref calls something. Professional female players often seem to get up faster and play on if a call hasn't been immediately made.

I disagree with you that that kind of aggression can't be taught. It definitely can, and I don't want my niece to think that's the way you should be playing sports, especially at a community club fun recreational level.
zoya
QUOTE(ketto @ Nov 16 2009, 08:36 AM) *
I've watched the Div. 1 women's teams play and a few of the men's teams and I find there's very little tolerance for rough play. I think Elizabeth Lambert was really out of line in at least 3 of her plays (slapping the other player in the face as she went down, punching one player in the back, but especially pulling the players ponytail and dragging her to the ground).


I agree. I have actually had a few discussions about her with a few of my male friends who are football mad (I am in the UK, where this story has even made it into the news and is being discussed) and it's pretty much their opinion that male or female, that behaviour is totally out of line and would definitely get media coverage. Pro players are hard core, but full on grabbing someone's hair and pulling them down so hard it could have injured them badly and slapping them as they go down is just completely wrong, no matter who you are and what level you play at. Especially when it's 100% blatant.

culturehandy
Wow. that was totally uncalled for, to pull someone down like that.

I'm pretty sick of the acceptance of thuggery in sports. I remember when there was the whole Todd Bertuzzi Stever Moore affair in hockey, reminder here. Steve Moore's hockey career is over, is this what Elizabeth Lambert wants to accomplish?

Violence should not be tolerated, and it should warrant, at the very least, suspension until the end of the season (should it happen during playoffs, all of the next). Clearly Ms. Lambert is not learning her lesson, kick her out of the league. I feel this way no matter who the person. if you don't learn after the suspension, then the next action should be kicking the person out of the league.
ketto
I agree. Suspension, one more chance, and if the behaviour continues they shouldn't be on the league. Paperboy says he finds the fights in hockey entertaining now. I find them ridiculous. My dad doesn't like watching professional hockey much anymore because of the amount of fighting. I just want to watch the damn game! It's a lot more enjoyable for both players and spectators (IMO) when people are playing fair.
candycane_girl
That girl definitely crossed the line and she did it repeatedly. It reminded me a bit of this and there was a huge backlash when that happened. Now, I don't know what different divisions mean, or if the rules change depending on what division you are in. But based on that clip it looks like that woman was repeatedly playing dirty. There's a difference between nudging someone or kind of checking them but pulling hair, kicking a soccer ball in someone's face and punching someone in the back? Give me a fucking break. I want to watch a game, not UFC.

Also, the most football I have watched was during FIFA 2006 and I don't remember seeing behaviour like that at all.
ChingusKhan
Thanks to everyone for their opinions.

I still believe she was - somewhat - singled out for her play because she was a women, frankly.

I do get and agree with those that stated that the behavior shown - especially the hair pulling - was out of line and she should have been carded. (From appearances, the ref lost control of the game but that's another story.) That being said, the jostling and the punching to get position, well, I see that at every level and, frankly, I have no problem with it.

I hope, for her sake, that this was an isolated incident and, if it was, I hope she learns from it and I also hope she gets to continue playing.
angie_21
Chingus, unfortunately most of us don't seem to be sports fans, or at least not knowledgeable enough of mens/womens soccer to be able to comment specifically on whether she is judged more harshly than men. I do know that my boyfriend quit community floor hockey not because of the physical aggression, but because of the overall aggressive and unsportman-like attitudes that seems to always prevail (lack of respect for other players, cheating, team members getting in fights when they lose or being rude to the other team when they win, etc.) Still waiting for him to stop watching professional hockey, but he gets very mad at the physical agression there too, especially when players known for causing injury to others (especially injury that might make his team's best players unable to play for months at a time) are allowed to continue to play and simply given 2 minute penalties. So in my experiences men are judged as well. I do agree that women probably do judge agression more harshly than men, and since I imagine they are more likely to watch women's sports, it's probably also more likely that in general women's agression is judged more harshly.. hope that made sense. But I do think it's most often due to learned cultural differences, not innate aggression or lack of it.
raisingirl
Jesus was a feminist.
girltrouble
sorry. i thought this was another thread. wrong topic.
auralpoison
Nevermind, what's bothering me isn't really worth examining, it's somebody's pointless art experiment.
auralpoison
This is just . . . it'a heart-wrenching & angering all at the same time. If you are sensitve in any way, if the vision of what can happen to women in third world countries because of an acid attack freaks you out, do not look at what I am about to post.

Terrorism That's Personal View the photos, read the links (They're right, the link to the St. Pete Times link reduced me to tears) & just think how lucky a lot of us are. Get involved if you can, I know I sure am.
treehugger
Damn. I shouldn't have looked-morbid curiosity. Those poor women. sad.gif
auralpoison
Okay, ya'll, see? Tree is a goddamned champ for looking. I'm not fucking around, THIS IS NO P.T. BARNUM THIS WAY TO THE EGRESS SHIT. If you can't handle it, don't look because it is TRULY AWFUL what happens to these women & what makes it even worse is that they have very little recourse. There is almost absolutely nothing they can do & it's all over what is likely some petty dispute between family, suitors, & horribly enough, OTHER WOMEN.
treehugger
Y'know, as a survivor (and you know, in comparison to those women, I hardly consider myself to be worthy of the term) myself, the worst thing is having reminders of the injury-I, unfortunately think of those women, (none of who I consider "lucky") but the ones best off are probably the ones who were blinded. Ugh.

It is sickening, imagining the life these women have-both before the attacks (living in a society that obviously doesn't value them, if this attack is so common), and the aftermath.

No happy ending there. My heart weeps.
candycane_girl
I don't even know what to say about this. I am very familiar with this problem and I've known about it but I just...I mean, what can we do? This is what I hate, the feeling that we are powerless to do anything against this kind of terrorism and assault. This is a human rights issue. Women are human beings but in most of the world they aren't treated as such.

What really disgusts me is the range of supposed "reasons" that women get attacked such as rejecting a marriage proposal, not being able to pay a dowry, being "immodestly dressed" or, saddest of all, just for being a woman. I don't know what else to say.
kittenb
IGNORE THIS ONE TOO.
auralpoison
QUOTE(treehugger @ Nov 24 2009, 08:11 PM) *
Y'know, as a survivor (and you know, in comparison to those women, I hardly consider myself to be worthy of the term) myself, the worst thing is having reminders of the injury-I, unfortunately think of those women, (none of who I consider "lucky") but the ones best off are probably the ones who were blinded. Ugh.


I know what you mean. I feel like, my bad shit happened & has left me with some scars . . . but nobody completely disfigured me. Any of the residual of the tangible or of the hurt, shame, fear, anger, whatever? Isn't visible like a woman whose face looks like a melted candle all because she spurned the attentions of some pathetic fucking coward or she pissed off her husband's second wife.
crazyoldcatlady
okay, i know this isn't a WTF, but there is an amazingly awesome video from patrick stewart (extra points) talking about how domestic violence affects way more than the immediate circle of those involved. he is heartbreakingly honest and vulnerable about his own experience, and this makes me respect the man even more.

it's on feministing's main site BUT I CAN'T LINK IT 'cos it might be miscarriage pictures or something instead.

go here-->http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPzVUGE3dds

(and ap, i looked at your link. the thing that i can't really understand is *why acid.* meaning, why is the retaliation in such a brutal, barbaric form (not to trivialize other forms of abuse)... is it sort of supposed to be like a warning to others who might dare to be autonomous?)

eta; can we not do html code either? no italics??
Persiflager
Awesome video, cocl! Shame about some of the dick-headed comments, but I suspect (hope?) most of them to be from trolls.
angie_21
cocl, I think that's exactly it - the attacks are disfiguring for so many reasons; it's so many things at once, pain, humiliation, and it's meant to be permanent. It's a public disfigurement and the woman/girl's life is now ruined as she will never be able to marry or have a normal life. Her family is also being attacked at the same time, because now they must care for her and will never be able to "marry her off." It dishonours the family and humiliates them as well, it's a scarlet letter that either she or someone in her family did something so dishonrable that it was supposedly worthy of such an attack. And it most certainly is a "warning" to anyone else who might try to do the same things. It's also just another, very brutal type of combined humiliation & physical violence tactics that are used to control women in societies that condone controlling and owning women.
go_kayte
a male friend said he thought the women in Bikini Kill's greatest contribution to music was influencing the male musicians they dated. I tried to set him straight and he did the whole thing.. you know the thing.. the defensive white male thing. It's just gross. And of course despite that I very calmly and even warmly pointed out the error in his argument he told me to chill out. Of course! Of course! AHHHHHHH!!!!
nickclick
wha? i don't even know who they dated. but i know 'rebel grrrl you are the queeeeeeeen of my world!'
anarch
Well, less outrage and more, huge eyeroll at the multiple layers of stupidity:

"Apparently, the producers of Dutch Home Improvement show "De Grote Woonwens" (free translation: The Big Wish of Living), thought female presenter Nicolette van Dam could really use some bigger breasts. Instead of using bra fillers, they chose to use computer re-touching of the footage. Sadly, they didn't really do a convincing job of it. In a clip from the program, which was first featured on satirical website "GeenStijl" and later uploaded to YouTube, the viewer sees the breasts of Nicolette van Dam grow spontaneously during the show."
auralpoison
Okay. I admit that as an asshole, I judge the fuck out of this woman. Nine kids. First kid at thirteen. Who knows how many babydaddy. Two kids out of the house, three in the custody of her mother, four with her. Unemployed, on SSI, etc. *Says* she has Hodgkins. Has a fiance that doesn't look like he's gonna marry her ass anytime soon. But what happened to her? Just plain wrong!

Yes, she was/is HIGHLY irresponsible. But NOBODY should be sterilized without their consent.

The more I read about this, though . . . who just gives a patient an IUD to be inserted at the hospital when they give birth? It sounds like fuckery all around.
nickclick
ugh, first the election of a Repub gov. then that Jersey Shore nonsense on MTV. now this. c'mon, NJ.... step it up.
ketto
QUOTE(auralpoison @ Jan 8 2010, 05:03 AM) *
The more I read about this, though . . . who just gives a patient an IUD to be inserted at the hospital when they give birth? It sounds like fuckery all around.


I agree, it's all around fucked up and the kind of thing that terrifies women. I think the woman summed up my feelings pretty well. I would never have the right to tell anyone else ‘because you have this many kids that’s enough,’ ” she said. “That’s no one’s right to say that. It’s my choice. No one has the right to say you’ve had enough.

I think it's actually pretty common to get an IUD right after giving birth. I know a few folks who have had one inserted after/during abortions too.
auralpoison
QUOTE(ketto @ Jan 8 2010, 11:11 AM) *
I think it's actually pretty common to get an IUD right after giving birth. I know a few folks who have had one inserted after/during abortions too.


I KNOW it's not uncommon for people to have IUDs inserted right after having a baby. Two birds, one stone. I meant, her doctor just gave her the IUD. In a box. To take with her to the hospital when she went in to give birth. If she wasn't smart enough to not have figured out bc by kid number nine, who is to say she was smart enough to not take it out of the damned box I wear it on a chain around her neck until the time came? Most doctors don't give you medical insertables to just walk around with. THAT is what struck me as odd.
ketto
Oh, I just went back and re-read, I didn't realize that she was the one who brought the IUD. That does seem very strange.
auralpoison
See, now here I was thinking I was bonkers! It is weird, right? WHO DOES THAT? WTF kind of medical professional just hands you an IUD, "Oh, I know you're gonna need this for when you go in, here ya go!" All kinds of fuckery going on here.
angie_21
AP when I had my IUD inserted, my doc gave me a prescription, I had to go to the pharmacy and they gave it to me (in a box, but in a sealed plastic package. I don't think the doctor woulld have inserted it if I had opened the plastic!) then I had to go back to the doctor's office with the IUD to get it inserted. It might be because of health insurance or something that I had to get it at the pharmacy, or maybe conflict of interest or something, I don't really know why.

But that is very fucked up. Never mind the sterilization, tubal ligation is a ssociated with a lot of other irreversible side effects and even hormonal problems in cases where it affects the function of your ovaries. you can't do something like that without permission. But the law is entirely on the woman's side, it's not like the hospital in any way had the legal right to make that decision. Sounds like a big-time, bizarre human error.
nickclick
i dunno.... this Daily Kos blogger is suggesting we sink to teabagger level for results......

Feminism Fail
ketto
That's interesting, angie. It still seems strange that they would make you pick it up and bring it back to the pharmacy but it sounds like it's probably something to do with the insurance. Given that, it doesn't sound so strange that she brought in her own IUD. The whole thing is just scary.
ketto
Nick, I missed your post before. It's an interesting article. I'm in Canada but I have some similar feelings in regards to (in)action to government, especially with our current conservative government. I work at a Women's Centre and we work as a collective (the only one that I know of in our province) and it's interesting and frustrating to see the changes that need to take place. For example, the way we fund raise has changed so much in the last 10 years. Women don't volunteer at Centres or want to be on boards anymore. Young women aren't interested in only volunteering at a Center like ours - they want real world experience and don't realize how valuable this type of volunteering can be. About half our centre is now 24-26 years old and half is 45-55. We all get along well, but it's a weird disconnect of trying to bring the Centre into 2010 when even for us young ones, it's hard to let go of things that worked well 20 years ago. It goes feel like a lot of larger advocacy women's organizations are a bit out of touch with younger women but at the same time younger women have to be willing to put themselves out there in more visible organizations. It ain't easy.

Anyway, I didn't really have anywhere to go with that.
nickclick
ketto, i agree with that dilemma. the conservative PR that riles the teabaggers works on irrational fear. OMG everyone's gonna lose their healthcare and the immigrants are gonna take our jobs and the crackheads are gonna get free healthcare blah blah blah! i'd hate to see feminist organizations bottomfeed like that to raise support. but there is shit to be scared of for sure! especially since here in the US the healthcare discussion is directly discriminating against women and prohibiting abortion coverage. so i dunno either....
auralpoison
QUOTE(toto @ Jan 15 2010, 12:18 AM) *
"(T)he feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." –Pat Robertson

"I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that's the way it is, period." –Pat Robertson
Where is the practicing witchcraft thread?


I know this will fall upon deaf ears, but questions like this are usually posted in the Community Forum. More people will see your question there & you generally will get an answer much more quickly That being said:

The Pagan thread.
futura
Anarch, the sad thing about the Nicolette van Dam is that when she was up-and-coming, she was quite tomboyish. Her moxie (on tv that is, obviously i don't know her) has mostly disappeared. Now she comes across as a more bland, non threatening tv personality.

The boob thing is just one more insult.

auralpoison
No matter how many times I read about this, it still gets me worked all up: Pelvic Exams Done Without Consent. In the name of coochie health, I'd think they'd be able to find women willing to allow this to be done while awake & with consent.
kittenb
According to the article, about 62% of women surveyed said that they would allow a student to do the exam if asked.
ketto
I saw that article a few days ago and it makes me shudder. It freaks me out even more that this is standard practice. But I agree, if someone asked me first, I don't think I would have any problem with students doing an exam, even with multiple or male students in the room. It's the violation of not even being asked, like you're just an anatomy project and not a human. Gross.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.