Active Now

Malizz
Discussion » Questions » Politics » "Having a vagina is a matter of biology, not a political argument." Agree or disagree?

"Having a vagina is a matter of biology, not a political argument." Agree or disagree?

Consider the following account of Katie Hopkins, a British reporter at Saturday's Women's March on Washington:

Her sign said; 'I am more than my vagina'. I asked her why she was at the Women's March on Washington. She said it was because she wanted to show what democracy really meant.

Another white lady held a placard reminding me that 'white silence = white consent but Black Lives Matter #BLM'. She said she was marching because women own their own bodies.

And a lady, pushing a stroller with two children on board, facing down the secret service, with a sign that made it clear Trump is 'Not My President'.

Even the speakers sounded confused. As I ate a three piece chicken meal with a side of slaw to recover from hearing the Koran read out in Washington Cathedral, I listened to one manic woman yell at the crowd;

'We are women. And you are we. And we are you', gesturing to make her point clear. It wasn't. But the crowd loved it all the same.

Madonna popped up, her eyes inching ever closer to her ears to let us know Good did not win this election. (I didn't even know Good was a candidate.)

In the interests of full disclosure she told the crowd she had considered blowing up the White House'. The tolerant left also get PMS it seems.

Another speaker, short on content but gushing with estrogen shouted: 'We are here'. (She was not wrong, we were). We will not be silenced. We will not play dead'.

To be fair to Trump, I have not heard the silencing of females or women playing dead in his 100 day plan. Perhaps a more suitable venue for this speech would be outside the Saudi embassy, where the silencing of women is all the rage.

A woman whipped into a frenzy by her own brilliance started listing girls' names, 'Emily, Conchita, Malala, Edith, Tonia, Shania (we had all got the point but she carried on regardless) Maria Guadalupe, Kayleigh....we are here to be respected. We are here to be nasty.

I think Madonna had already received this memo.

And fueled by these pearls of wisdom, the women set off for the streets, pussy ears perked, banners aloft, chanting as they went.

'Tell me what democracy looks like?' 'This is what democracy looks like'.

I wanted to point out, respectfully, that democracy is the Electoral College system that saw Trump turn the map from blue to red. But there were a few million of them. And they had pictures of vaginas. So I decided this was not the time.

I thought I heard the women chanting 'Menstrual brew' which had me wondering exactly what this lot were on. But listening more closely it turned out to be 'Pence Sucks Too.'

I was grateful for the clarity. I thought it was just Trump they hated. But it turns out it is all men. Apart from the ones who are transitioning to women.

'What do we want? Equality'. 'When do we want it?' 'NOW'.

I wondered what in their world was not equal, but I guess if you have a massive chip on one shoulder the world is probably a bit askew.

I took a peak at the map to see if any of them actually knew what they were doing, what they were protesting about or where they were going.

I was surprised to see a lactation station, a reunification station marked by fist and a fleet of warming buses before they had reached mile one.

An almighty army of women, gushing, fisting, and lactating their way down the road. Right on, sister.

For all my jibes, there was something truly impressive about the sheer scale of the crowds, the enormous number of women and men, filling the streets of Washington in a noisy bubbling ribbon of pink and placards.

But it is an army lacking a common purpose. Lacking a common cause. Every one of them wielding a placard for a different grudge they bear. Many unable to give a coherent reason for being there. Most at odds with the placards they carried. Many cross a woman didn't win.

But simply being a woman is not enough.

This was a march defined by gender, not purpose - much like Clinton's campaign. And a march where the meaningless drivel of the speakers was matched by the lack of a clear aim of those marching.

No one would argue their hearts were not in it. I found myself smiling at their happiness in each other's company, their relief to be together, reminding each other they are not alone.

But a shared sense of victimhood is not sufficient to make change happen. And at its most fundamental the unifying cause for these collected individuals is that they are not men.

They will not be silenced. That is clear. But they don't know what it is they are shouting about. Anger is not enough.

Feminism has to be better than this. Better than posters telling me your vagina is tough. Or 'this pussy grabs back'. So what? Mine can stash a 24 oz can of Coors Light. Sideways.

Hillary tried to win by doing everything they've just done today - by being a woman, a woman who wants to be the candidate for everyone who feels like a victim, who feels maligned by society. She was the candidate for every cause, but master of none.

The voices today? Just an echo of her mixed messages. And that wasn't, isn't enough.

The left believes it is better than the rest. But it has prejudices of its own.

The same prejudices that saw guests at the Armed Services Inauguration Ball spat at. Or Madonna saying she'd like to blow up the White House. Or the very fact you fell out over what to name the Women's March in case it was divisive. Or for being too white. They even snubbed Hillary Clinton as an honoree for the Women's March on Washington, because she was gracious and attended Trump's inauguration. Imagine how much that day hurt her, and yet they rejected her despite her courage. Shame on them.

These prejudices, these prevarications, this failure to stand for something, not represent everything, are exactly why people turn to Trump. And exactly why they lost and will continue to lose.

They are strong, I watched them today.

But they have to be better than this.

You win if you offer a clear vision supported by this strength to get things done. Not just because you are a woman. 

Posted - January 22, 2017

Responses


  • "An almighty army of women, gushing, fisting, and lactating their way down the road."
    :D
    Sign me up!!!!!!!!!
    This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at May 4, 2017 11:43 AM MDT
      January 22, 2017 7:02 PM MST
    4

  • C'mon, Glis. You're better than that.


    However. I continually fail to see how parading female anatomy in protest is a worthwhile act. To be seen as more than the sum of my literal parts seems at odds with this. 


    Shouldn't the feminist movement be better than this, more than the slogans of genital toughness?
    That's the only decent thing this woman wrote.
      January 23, 2017 12:35 AM MST
    3

  • Actually I was making an absurd joke to poke fun at the absurd nature of the views expressed in the article. So little in this article and this thread is was worth taking seriously here since it's written as a biased attack and the thread maker makes absurd conclusions and generalizations.   I can't take the article seriously because it's filled with so much obvious bias.   Even if there a sprinkling of truths in it,   the over all tone and premise is crap IMHO.  Plus I know of the article author and her ways.

    To be honest,  I personally support the ethos and message of feminism, but a lot of the protest methods used in certain circles of the modern feminist movement does confuse me and feel that often the methods only preach to the choir. If anyone at all.
    The slut walks and standing around topless doesn't make sense to me either.  So you're going to protest sexist pigs and a culture that views women as objects  and women as just a pair of tits and a vagina by assembling in group  and talking about your vagina will standing around topless. Wait, what? How's that supposed to work for having your message heard or change a narrow mind? At the same time though bad methodology by some doesn't negate the virtue of the message by the whole.
    Look I'm all for being a radical,  but being radical just for radical's sake is counter productive and demeans your message.

    I think this why a good number of people who support gender and human equality have a hard time identifying themselves as feminists these days. This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at January 24, 2017 6:59 PM MST
      January 23, 2017 9:31 AM MST
    1

  • 3191
    I am all for equality, but have never been a feminist.  As you said, that is partially due to their methodology which is counter productive, imo, though there are other reasons as well.  One being the 'you will walk/talk/think in lockstep' attitude of many feminists.  That was also in evidence with this march as some pro-life feminist groups that asked to partner in sponsorship of the march were rejected.   
      January 23, 2017 11:21 AM MST
    0

  • Well I'll say this.  I tend to try to stay away from and typically don't identify myself with any ideological labels in speech or discussion.  At least to the best of my abilities.
    The problem with ideological labels is it becomes to easy to create gross over generalizations for and against an idea.  Most often not entirely true or remotely accurate.  People for an idea will create a concrete set of ideas you have to abide by and generalize what it means to support a cause.  With numerous logical errors. Those against an idea will dismiss any ideas because of there gross and inaccurate generalizations about an ideological label.  It starts off any discussion from a purely divisive angle when the objective is supposedly bringing others to your truth and ideas with no wiggle room or internal critical analysis for the validity or commonality of each aspect.  Instead of a promotion and debate of concepts, ideas, and solutions it becomes a debate about the labels themselves and halts progress towards a solution.  In my mind this is true for all societal and political issues.  The ideological group labels are eating the movements and progress  of the ideas themselves.
      January 23, 2017 11:53 AM MST
    0

  • 3191
    I completely agree, which is why I have always shunned being labeled and why I am not a "joiner".  I find that while I may agree in part with many groups/ideologies, the sum total of my beliefs is unique to me and me alone.
      January 23, 2017 12:00 PM MST
    0

  • True,  in my own mind i consider myself a feminist and egalitarian,  a libertarian,  a this, and a that.  But what an ideological label is defined by me, by you, by him, by her, by them aren't likely to be the same and people are quick to demonize and dismiss ideas( or the person for that matter) based on preconceived notions of how they define said label.
      January 23, 2017 12:37 PM MST
    0

  • 3191
    Exactly.  My shunning being labeled is other people labeling me.  As you said, everyone's definition or understanding of the labels is different, but also because people tend to be so far off the mark...lol.  I have been called damn near everything but what I actually am on various forums over the years.  :)
      January 23, 2017 12:45 PM MST
    1

  • So, do you care about what they think About the way you choose to.identify yourself.
    What does this no labels thing even mean. Aren't we already labeling whatever it is you don't want to label by saying those are the things that belong to the "things with no label" pile?
    Why does it matter that people are going to dismiss and demonize because of preconceived conceptions.
    Just asking, im not trying to dig at you. Just talking.)
      January 29, 2017 2:25 AM MST
    1

  • No, it's not that I care what people think on a personal level or even on a social level.
    What I am saying is when discussing issues or dealing with ideas I tend to choose not to use ideological labels for my arguments or ideas.
    Here's my reasoning and way I don't find it personally useful.   The preconceived notions both real and often more so invented, that people apply to them tends to cause more division than hearing of ones argument.  It happens both ways.   There are those who will dismiss your argument solely based on declaring you're a this or your a that.  The same can happen when you declare yourself a this or that with another person who identifies as one but will deny you because of a slight deviation on one issue.

    The reason I often to choose not to identify with a lot of these labels is they often work as trigger words for people to wright you off and not hear the argument or discussion of the issue.
    What I personally identify as isn't really important for a discussion about topics.  If I'm trying to change someones mind or shed light on them about an issue I find shedding the labels in the discussion keeps more minds open to the actual reasoning why this should happen or that should change.
      January 29, 2017 8:15 AM MST
    0

  • I understand G, im just going to have to.disagree. i ask because I hear this no labels thing popping.up quite frequently as of late. 
    Whatever misconceptions anybody could have.about any of my inclinations ( labels ),is their problem. 
    On the labels, don't they say somewhere that a rose by any name is still arose? Even if we call it the unlabeled flower?
    Thanks G, I appreciate you responding, as always.
      January 29, 2017 8:58 AM MST
    1

  • That's fine.   I just don't find them useful in normal dialogue.  I'm not against them,  I just find using them in a discussion as a cop -out because they aren't reasons in and of themselves to promote or deride a stance on something.

    I know what side I'm on and what I am at heart. ;)
      January 29, 2017 9:04 AM MST
    0

  • What is wrong with feminism, if you don't mind me asking. What is feminism to you.
      January 29, 2017 2:15 AM MST
    1

  • 3191
    Equality is a noble goal, but only equal treatment and equal opportunity are achievable, as true "equality" does not exist in nature.  There should never be any artificial barriers to equal treatment/opportunity, but neither should there be artificial passes given.  

    Many in the feminist movement want artificial passes given, such as lowering physical standards for certain jobs.  They claim to want the freedom to choose...what to do with their lives, their careers, their bodies.  And yet if a woman chooses differently than they, she is belittled.  If women do not agree with every plank in the feminist platform, they are shunned, as the pro-life feminist groups who wished to join in sponsering the march found out.  

    Even if you simply live your life as they claim to be working toward the freedom to do, they may shun you.  That I find truly odd, but have personally experienced it.  

    Finally, I find it crude to claim you don't wish to be treated as a sex object and then show up en masse wearing pussy hats.  That makes about as much sense to me as blacks calling each other "nigga".  And yes, I have heard all the rationale about "taking ownership" of slurs being "empowering", I just cannot wrap my mind around it.   
      January 29, 2017 7:31 AM MST
    0

  • I understand, but this is like I was asking Glis, ascribing a whole movement to the inclinations of some.of its.members?
    Feminism is only about Freedom to.choose and about the right to be treated equally. Nothing else. Even if what the woman wants to do is to stay home and raise kids.
    It is not a nice to have.noble goal, it is a born with right.
    About nature not being equal, you are surely not placing animal behaviour as the ideal for us to follow. 
    Did you know that discredit of the term feminism is part of a concerted effort from the right? It is not by accident that so many women think the.way that you do.
    Discredit campaigns of ridicule based on the behaviour of some is not a new thing. Do you not see this?
      January 29, 2017 9:23 AM MST
    0

  • 3191
    You seem to have a problem because I personally do not consider myself a feminist, Lago.  That's fine, but does not change what I consider myself one bit.  I did not come to feel this way from any "concerted effort from the right".  And I realize that women fought many years just to have the rights we have today.  I simply disagree with the attitude and methodology used by feminists today.  I have always believed in equal treatment and opportunity for everyone.  

    Why do you equate my use of the word "nature" with animal behavior.  Do you not consider humans as a part of nature?  I do.  And factually, true equality does not exist in nature.  I wanted to be a singer, but I cannot carry a tune, a center on the basketball team in school, but I barely top 5'3"...wanting to do something and having the ability are two different things.  Any woman should have the opportunity to apply for a position as a firefighter, say, but if she does not meet the physical qualifications, she shouldn't get the job.  Those qualifications should not be lowered.    
      January 29, 2017 11:38 AM MST
    0

  • I understand. 

      January 29, 2017 11:56 AM MST
    0

  • Exactly, this is the thing. I have the same 'please, see sense' attitude towards the Free The Nipplers. You put it better than I.
    By some coincidence I read about thison the morning's paper. An artist has commissioned a 3-D model of the clitoris. It's a complex bit of anatomy, and like a fungus, what you see is only a small proportion of its entiretity.
    Yet it was said that (quote) this parading of a 3 ft unscaled model of said organ was 'the most potent fight against fascism of the modern era. The day will come when clitorises and penis graffitti will share wall space on lavatory walls and that day will be a defining blow for feminism'.
    As a woman of 40 years plus standing I have more hope of rational argument from kindergarten children.
    I agree with every word of yours. This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at January 23, 2017 1:20 PM MST
      January 23, 2017 1:11 PM MST
    1

  • You do?
      January 29, 2017 9:25 AM MST
    0

  • I think your logic is a.little faulty here.
    You mention the Modrn Feminist movement and sort of define it in terms of what the.half nude or women marchers do.
    That would be like saying that what we use to define Christians is the Westboro Church fellows.
    Or to say that those guys you see dressed in leather during gay parades define the Gay movement. 
    These people, like those, let's say extreme feminists are just part of feminism and not it. Sections of the.population certainly do not define the group they belong to. No?
    Some of there group go as far.as saying that men should be relegated to the.role of sperm donors, These women are still feminists, they are not feminism tho.
    It is interesting to me whenever someone says, im all for women rights, but im not a feminist!! A do a double take. What the...
    To me that's like saying, im all for you know peace and all but im not a pacifist.
    Feminism refers to women being able to exercise their choice freely, and to them being equal.
    how can one be.a.humanist without being a feminist.
    Do you think im wrong? It is ok if you do.
      January 29, 2017 2:11 AM MST
    1

  • No, no , no you're not taking the whole scope of what I was saying.

    "Feminism refers to women being able to exercise their choice freely, and to them being equal."
    True, never denied that

    What I am saying, as are you,  is that like any movement or group there is an extreme fringe.  I'm not at all saying that extreme fringes define an ideology or movement. What I was saying is that small extreme fringes often are very noticeable and often become the false face that outsiders collectively start to associate with the whole group and that causes conflicts with the progression and spread of ideas.  I'm not at all saying " the modern feminist movement is this or that".  That is a broad and false premise that I am not willing to make or even believe for that matter. 
      January 29, 2017 8:26 AM MST
    0

  • Are you a feminist?
      January 29, 2017 9:27 AM MST
    0

  • Personally I tend to think so and think most who really know me would as well.
      January 29, 2017 9:34 AM MST
    0

  • You tend to? Come.on dude.
    There are no two ways, you're either a.feminist or a sexist. (I.borrowed that from Rooster)
    I am. 
    Thank you for indulging me. 
      January 29, 2017 9:49 AM MST
    0