09-03-2011, 05:39 PM | #161 | |
Member
How Do You Identify?:
Redheaded Bellydancing Femme Preferred Pronoun?:
She Relationship Status:
Very married Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Posts: 215
Thanks: 84
Thanked 778 Times in 171 Posts
Rep Power: 15100835 |
Quote:
__________________
Change the voices in your head Make them like you instead |
|
The Following User Says Thank You to SecretAgentMa'am For This Useful Post: |
09-03-2011, 05:57 PM | #162 |
Member
How Do You Identify?:
Butch Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Seattle area
Posts: 147
Thanks: 41
Thanked 796 Times in 129 Posts
Rep Power: 14631968 |
I am also of the opinion that government should not be in the marriage business. Marriage should fall exclusively within the domain of the culture, community, or faith of those who are entering into the marriage. Government should care about households and not concern itself with the precise nature of the relationships of those living in the household. It should concern itself with the social benefits that family units and households of any structure create.
I know someone who has lived for well over a decade with her old college roommate. They are not gay. Theirs is not a sexual or romantic relationship. My friend wanted a child but not a husband. Her old roommate has medical issues that limit her ability to work. Together they have maintained a highly functional and supportive household that generates just as much social good as a married household. They should have access to the benefits that are currently reserved for married couples. --Slater |
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Slater For This Useful Post: |
09-04-2011, 02:05 AM | #163 | |
Senior Member
How Do You Identify?:
feminine dolly dyke Preferred Pronoun?:
Your Grace Relationship Status:
I put my own care first Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: In a gauze of mystery
Posts: 1,776
Thanks: 2,426
Thanked 9,726 Times in 1,613 Posts
Rep Power: 21474852 |
Quote:
I think that should be extended to multi-adult (more than two) households, but one step at a time. |
|
The Following User Says Thank You to imperfect_cupcake For This Useful Post: |
09-04-2011, 08:17 AM | #164 | |
Power Femme
How Do You Identify?:
Cinnamon spiced, caramel colored, power-femme Preferred Pronoun?:
She Relationship Status:
Married to a wonderful horse girl Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Lat: 45.60 Lon: -122.60
Posts: 1,733
Thanks: 1,132
Thanked 6,848 Times in 1,493 Posts
Rep Power: 21474851 |
Quote:
I'm sorry but I have to beg to differ with you. The highlighted passage above does not say ANYTHING about holding religion accountable nor does it say anything about wanting the hate mongers gone. What you said is that WHEN Benny Hinn is no longer no TV--without any explanation as to why he is no longer on TV--then and only then can queer people be considered to have been accepted by society. You said that WHEN Oral Roberts and Liberty and Bob Jones are no longer able to stay open for lack of enrollment THEN and only then can queer people be considered to be accepted by society. You did not qualify your comments nor did you explain what you meant so in the absence of your explaining how, precisely, we get rid of those universities or that preacher (or any like them) it is *entirely* reasonable to interpret the above to mean that religion--or at least the religion you disapprove of--has to go. I see Secret Agent Ma'am's interpretation as being a rather straightforward reading of your words in the absence of explanation or qualification. And given that, at present, approximately a third of the *species* practices some variant of Christianity that means it is likely to be around in some form for a very, very long time. As far as the relative popularity of various positions here or elsewhere, so what? I keep going back to how do you get people who might not agree with your vision of how society *should* be to go along with it? Again, I do not necessarily disagree with you that perhaps government should get out of business of designating certain types of households as being significant. Perhaps that is the case but as Citybutch pointed out a couple of pages back, getting rid of marriage would undo hundreds of years of Western common law. I don't think that we should overturn a legal tradition *simply* because someone thinks we should. There are reforms I would like to see but complete overhauls require a great deal of consideration because there are *always* unintended consequences. I am not, in fact, making an argument in favor of marriage as it is currently understood. I'm trying to understand how you expect to convince people to go along with your scheme. I have yet to hear a particularly compelling argument, even a hypothetical argument, put forth as to how you convince people who may not share your particular political or religious world view to uproot and overhaul an entire social system. That may seem like being a wet blanket but as I've said a couple of times now, history is littered with the bodies of people who were broken on the altar of this or that utopian vision espoused by some group of people who said to the rest of society "Civilization. You're going it wrong." I've even gone so far as to stipulate that your vision of how human beings should organize themselves is the correct one so we don't get lost in the weeds but you've still to explain how you get buy-in from the rest of society. Or is that just not a particularly important question and I think that it is because I am tied up in some old-fashioned idea about the consent of the majority to be governed counting for something. Cheers Aj
__________________
Proud member of the reality-based community. "People on the side of The People always ended up disappointed, in any case. They found that The People tended not to be grateful or appreciative or forward-thinking or obedient. The People tended to be small-minded and conservative and not very clever and were even distrustful of cleverness. And so, the children of the revolution were faced with the age-old problem: it wasn’t that you had the wrong kind of government, which was obvious, but that you had the wrong kind of people. As soon as you saw people as things to be measured, they didn’t measure up." (Terry Pratchett) |
|
The Following User Says Thank You to dreadgeek For This Useful Post: |
09-04-2011, 10:03 AM | #165 |
Senior Member
How Do You Identify?:
pervert butch feminist woman Preferred Pronoun?:
see above Relationship Status:
independent entity Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oakland
Posts: 1,826
Thanks: 4,068
Thanked 7,656 Times in 1,522 Posts
Rep Power: 21474852 |
I do not have any idea of any other way to say that hate speech under the guise of religion is wrong. That is not a 'get rid of religion' or 'anti-religion' statement.
There are reasonable hate speech laws across the world. Canada has them, France, Germany etc. We do not have to let those hate mongers preach on TV or anywhere else. We can stop them and we should. Everyone knows what hate speech sounds like. Blaming queers (or blacks or brown or red or immigrants or ______) for 9/11, lack of jobs, a crappy economy, crime, the recent earthquakes and every other frigging disaster is hate speech and incites violence against queers and/or whomever is the flavor of the day. It should be illegal. Fines and/or jail time should be imposed. Religion should not be a free pass for hate speech. Free speech is not limitless....you can't yell 'fire' in a theater. Universities policies that enforce hate and hate speech towards anyone should not be allowed to do that......whether they be public, private or religious. I repeat one more time, hate speech under the guise of religion should not get a free pass. Beating or killing someone while you yell 'faggot' or 'dyke' is considered a hate crime. It looks like hate speech to me. Why should hate speech be different when it comes out of a preacher's mouth? We should not allow so-called therapists to get away with reparative therapy. It is utter bullshit. Queerness is not a disease or a mental illness and should not be treated as such. Since the medical profession has a damn hard time policing it's own, perhaps malpractice or criminal charges should be considered. Why is the government paying for reparative therapy through medicaid/medicare? It's not a legitimate therapy and is not based on good science. This country is also about protecting the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. One of the things I learned from years of negotiating and advocating with big pharma and with our government is to put everything you want on the table. Go for the gold.....you will probably end up with the bronze or maybe the 4th place ribbon. I actually believe most folks in this country are kind, caring and compassionate. Obama would not be POTUS if we weren't. I think most religion does good things. I think most folks in this country believe in live and let live. I think most folks at least tolerate us, as long as we look and act like them. I think, over time, most folks will accept us queers (in all our colors) as just another version of the human spectrum. Sometimes I am incredibly impatient....probably because I am in the last third (maybe a little more) of my life. It would be nice to see acceptance before I die. Tolerance is wearing thin at times. It seems to me we keep settling for and arguing for the current limitations, rather than imagining what can be and fighting for that. That is probably because I do not believe in assimilation.
__________________
We are everywhere We are different I do not care if resistance is futile I will not assimilate |
The Following User Says Thank You to Toughy For This Useful Post: |
09-04-2011, 10:20 AM | #166 | |
Senior Member
How Do You Identify?:
pervert butch feminist woman Preferred Pronoun?:
see above Relationship Status:
independent entity Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oakland
Posts: 1,826
Thanks: 4,068
Thanked 7,656 Times in 1,522 Posts
Rep Power: 21474852 |
Quote:
__________________
We are everywhere We are different I do not care if resistance is futile I will not assimilate |
|
09-04-2011, 10:39 AM | #167 | |
Member
How Do You Identify?:
Genderqueer Butch Preferred Pronoun?:
Masculine ones Relationship Status:
Open to healthy possibilities... Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Michigan
Posts: 554
Thanks: 738
Thanked 1,628 Times in 393 Posts
Rep Power: 21474850 |
Quote:
I do not disagree with the premise of what you say here, however, I think it is a slippery slope to start criminalizing free speech. Who decides what hate speech is? I mean haven't we, for years, allowed hate groups like the KKK to hold there marches and rallies, no matter how distasteful and offensive we found them to preserve "free speech"? There is no Utopian answer, the reality is societal change takes time and tolerance and this issue is no exception. I am a firm believer that if tolerance is what we seek, so we must also be prepared to give it.
__________________
"There is a sacredness in tears. They are not the mark of weakness but of power. They are messengers of overwhelming grief and of unspeakable love." ~Washington Irving |
|
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Elijah For This Useful Post: |
09-04-2011, 11:13 AM | #168 |
Member
How Do You Identify?:
Butch Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Seattle area
Posts: 147
Thanks: 41
Thanked 796 Times in 129 Posts
Rep Power: 14631968 |
I'm not convinced this is true. I don't think most of my neighbors would consider reparative therapy to be hate speech. I don't think they would consider preachers decrying the sinfulness of homosexuality to be hate speech. I think they would mostly say everyone is entitled to their own opinion. And I don't live in an especially homophobic place. I've never felt the need to be closeted here (here being a small Navy town just outside of Seattle). My point is I actually think you would find pretty far-ranging ideas about what constitutes hate speech, and that makes what you are proposing extremely risky.
Having said that, I do think that how we define incition to violence could bear a closer examination, or perhaps more rigorous enforcement if laws are already in place. Personally I wouldn't include stuff like blaming queers for earthquakes because no reasonable person is going to take that seriously and you can't really build laws like this based on the perceptions of unreasonable people. On the other hand, I think it would not be a bad thing if someone who publicly said something like "I don't believe in homosexuality. I think they should be elminated. I'd wipe them all out," had a law enforcement officer knocking on their door. To me this is not an accurate parallel. The crime in the first example is the beating/killing. The hate crime aspect does look at motive, but motive is a factor in how many crimes are prosecuted and punished. So to me that seems not be able hate speech but rather the motive for a crime. |
09-04-2011, 12:38 PM | #169 | |
Member
How Do You Identify?:
Redheaded Bellydancing Femme Preferred Pronoun?:
She Relationship Status:
Very married Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Posts: 215
Thanks: 84
Thanked 778 Times in 171 Posts
Rep Power: 15100835 |
Quote:
There is a difference between loudly and publicly not liking a person or group of people and hate speech. If some TV preacher thinks homosexuality is a sin, well, he has a right to think that. He even has a right to preach it to his congregation. I don't believe it becomes hate speech until that preacher begins to incite violence against the group he thinks is sinning. I'll grant you that it's a very, very fine line, but I think the line has to be there. If it isn't, then it's not really stretch for people on their side to claim that everything negative we say about Christians is hate speech. Where does that end?
__________________
Change the voices in your head Make them like you instead |
|
The Following User Says Thank You to SecretAgentMa'am For This Useful Post: |
09-04-2011, 12:57 PM | #170 | ||||||||
Power Femme
How Do You Identify?:
Cinnamon spiced, caramel colored, power-femme Preferred Pronoun?:
She Relationship Status:
Married to a wonderful horse girl Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Lat: 45.60 Lon: -122.60
Posts: 1,733
Thanks: 1,132
Thanked 6,848 Times in 1,493 Posts
Rep Power: 21474851 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It is the difference between: Zoroastrians practice an outmoded, barbaric bronze age religion with as much claim to truth as a Bugs Bunny cartoon. and Zoroastrians practice an outmoded, barbaric bronze age religion that offends society. Let us be done with Zoroastrians once and for all time by offering them the choice of conversion or death. Hey, there's some over there right now. Let's go get them! Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So the question then becomes about what kind of process costs are you willing to countenance. Understand, I'm not saying that what revolution has costs while reform has no costs. I'm saying that while reform makes costs part of the equation, my reading of history and my own experience in Marxist, Trotskyite and anarchist circles has taught me that revolutionaries never really count the costs. Their vision is SO pure and so self-evidently true and beautiful that there can be no costs worth considering. Except that there are *always* costs, Toughy. There's no escaping it. The saying that there's no such thing as a free lunch applies as much to societies as it does to individuals. Quote:
On the other hand, if you live in close proximity of others of your species AND there is a high degree of need for cooperation then norms and mores become important and society then ups the ante for certain types of non-conformity. That is where we find ourselves, Toughy. So no matter WHAT kind of society one builds, there will ALWAYS be a need to assimilate to it. Even a society that claims that there's no need to assimilate at all will find, inexorably, that anyone who believes that there are, for instance, right ways of behaving and wrong ways of behaving, better or worse ways of doing things, is pushed to the margins of society if only because the presence of someone constantly saying "you say everyone can do as they please, but that's not true because *I* can't" spoils the collective illusion of harmony. Cheers Aj
__________________
Proud member of the reality-based community. "People on the side of The People always ended up disappointed, in any case. They found that The People tended not to be grateful or appreciative or forward-thinking or obedient. The People tended to be small-minded and conservative and not very clever and were even distrustful of cleverness. And so, the children of the revolution were faced with the age-old problem: it wasn’t that you had the wrong kind of government, which was obvious, but that you had the wrong kind of people. As soon as you saw people as things to be measured, they didn’t measure up." (Terry Pratchett) |
||||||||
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to dreadgeek For This Useful Post: |
09-04-2011, 04:57 PM | #171 |
Member
How Do You Identify?:
Rainbow femme Preferred Pronoun?:
princess Relationship Status:
Married Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 514
Thanks: 508
Thanked 1,816 Times in 417 Posts
Rep Power: 10345577 |
*puts up hand*
I'm happily getting married, for the second time too!
__________________
It is not worth an intelligent person's time to be in the majority. By definition, there are already enough people to do that. |
09-05-2011, 12:16 AM | #172 |
Senior Member
How Do You Identify?:
pervert butch feminist woman Preferred Pronoun?:
see above Relationship Status:
independent entity Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oakland
Posts: 1,826
Thanks: 4,068
Thanked 7,656 Times in 1,522 Posts
Rep Power: 21474852 |
I wish this conversation was happening on my deck with all the flowers and a nice bowl, fruit, cheese bread and the little fire pit...........and that includes you SecretMa'am and Aj and Slater and HoneyB and Heart and anyone else who wants to have a conversation about imagining a perfect world.
__________________
We are everywhere We are different I do not care if resistance is futile I will not assimilate |
09-05-2011, 08:06 AM | #173 | |
Infamous Member
How Do You Identify?:
Woman Preferred Pronoun?:
HER - SHE Relationship Status:
Relating Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: CA & AZ I'm a Snowbird
Posts: 5,408
Thanks: 11,826
Thanked 10,830 Times in 3,200 Posts
Rep Power: 21474856 |
Quote:
There are many people with views I would love to see restricted from media, yet, there is that "free speech" concept to consider. And it applies to all, even the most vile bigots of our time. It is easy for me to go off on generalizations about fundamentalist Christians, yet, I do try to step back and remember that not all of my assumptions are based upon fact. Just as what those very people assume about me in general, is not true. Frankly, there are many aspects of assimilation (Aj has pointed out some) that are very positive forces for people to actually effect change in society from a personal perspective. And it does NOT have to take away one's individual integrity or ties to racial or ethnic, sexual orienhtation, or gender identity at all. My history as a mid-century Italian and Latin American follows a course much like Aj's. Although, I find it very difficult to discuss this as the racialiazation of Italian immigrants is just not of much interest today in the US that has little sense of US immigration and race outside of African American and Latin American (mainly the plight of mexican Americans) concerns. However, I see the necessity for this (just not the lack of knowledge) because both continue to have levels of structural racism that effect just about every aspect of their economic and social conditions in negative ways. I wonder about the lack of discussion of Native American inequities are not part of discussions, however. There is a process of positive augmentation of what an outsider brings to the assmilation equation that changes the assimilated whole. Therefore, what has been "mainstream" is changed or the variations of more diverse 'cogs" on the societal wheel is increased. |
|
09-05-2011, 09:18 AM | #174 |
Senior Member
How Do You Identify?:
Butch Preferred Pronoun?:
she Relationship Status:
Truly Madly Deeply Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: In My Head
Posts: 2,805
Thanks: 6,326
Thanked 10,618 Times in 2,489 Posts
Rep Power: 21474851 |
I have been reading this thread and it got me to thinking about the ways that I have changed over time. I am sure that my own personal evolution is not unique and if I can be moved to think in different ways so can others.
I used to believe that revolution was the only way to achieve the kind of world I wanted to live in. Tear it all down and start again. I had a favorite fantasy in which oppressed people everywhere would rise up together, throw off their yokes and wrest power from their oppressors. Of course not only is that extremely unlikely to ever happen, but even if by some miracle it did, without some fundamental change in human behavior, before you could say plus ça change, there would be more yokes, and necks aplenty to put them on. Over time I have come to believe it is possible to invoke change by working toward encouraging small shifts in the ways that people think about a particular issue. If you can change the way that the majority of people think about one thing, for example that marriage should only be between one man and one woman, then I believe you have the beginning of cultural change that will translate to systemic change. Though when it comes to human rights it often seems the laws change and then people adjust themselves over time. But I think the perception of majority sentiment needs to be there before the legislature can succeed. Cultural or societal change often happens accidentally or naturally because of a need, an invention, or a discovery, but it certainly can happen by design. Change does not have to depend on awe inspiring acts of bravery or greatness, although often these are the catalysts and it is small numbers of focused and dedicated individuals or even one great leader who plant the seeds of change. But once the idea is planted, I think cultural growth happens over time as a result of the way we choose to live our lives. Living bravely and honorably as we are confronted with challenges and choices in our daily lives, measuring the cost of each choice and its worth, engaging in respectful disagreements (emphasis on respectful) with those who hold ideologically opposing points of view and focusing on common ground rather than differences are all ways I think we can move toward the changes we seek. What am I willing to give up, what will I compromise to achieve my goal? First off I have to figure out exactly what is my goal. Mostly it is that I would like to see a global mind shift to where human life becomes of the ultimate importance. Laws should not be made based on values formed from specific belief systems that are placed above human life. There is nothing of greater value and dignity than human life. If that became a universal belief, I think most everything else would fall into place. It would be like an invisible revolution. Such a transformation of thought would have to result in phenomenal change. What am I willing to give up to get this? A lot. I will relinquish any belief in Utopia, or change through revolution, or violence. I will give up my naïve expectation that if one’s motives are pure the result will be perfect. I will understand that the end will never justify the means and the means must be just whether or not the end is ever reached. I will stop being seduced by the idea that all those who think, believe and act like me are inherently good, and conversely that all those who think, believe, and act differently are inherently evil. I will refuse to accept that it is important to be right at any cost. I will settle for less than I want. I will understand that if I hold out for everything and end up with nothing I may as well go work for the other side. I will put myself in the place of the other and to the best of my ability look at things from that perspective. I will let that vision from the perspective of the other lead me to understanding. And I will allow that understanding to dictate the compromises I need to make. I will use that insight from other perspectives to temper my ideals with compassion. I will try to live so that the truth that there is nothing of greater value and dignity than human life, any and all human life, will be self evident. I used to think one had to live out a 60’s sort of existence, be a radical activist, a revolutionary on the front lines in order to feel that you were working toward changing the world. But now I think it’s as much, if not more, about how I live my life that matters. It is the simple act of living well, of trying to show compassion and kindness to fellow human beings that will create the needed changes in society. I think sometimes revolution can be a solitary inward experience. I think many of us live lives of quiet revolution. |
The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to Cin For This Useful Post: |
09-05-2011, 09:29 AM | #175 | |
Member
How Do You Identify?:
Genderqueer Butch Preferred Pronoun?:
Masculine ones Relationship Status:
Open to healthy possibilities... Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Michigan
Posts: 554
Thanks: 738
Thanked 1,628 Times in 393 Posts
Rep Power: 21474850 |
I have to applaud you Toughy for not taking a defensive position. You had a lot of people who (at least in part) were offering up a contrary position, it would have been easy to get defensive. Thanks for not going down that road.
Quote:
__________________
"There is a sacredness in tears. They are not the mark of weakness but of power. They are messengers of overwhelming grief and of unspeakable love." ~Washington Irving |
|
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Elijah For This Useful Post: |
09-06-2011, 11:57 AM | #176 | ||||
Power Femme
How Do You Identify?:
Cinnamon spiced, caramel colored, power-femme Preferred Pronoun?:
She Relationship Status:
Married to a wonderful horse girl Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Lat: 45.60 Lon: -122.60
Posts: 1,733
Thanks: 1,132
Thanked 6,848 Times in 1,493 Posts
Rep Power: 21474851 |
Quote:
The October Revolution of 1917 started out with the best of intentions. They were going to achieve True Socialism in their time. Not only did they fail to do so but in the process that created a regime of stunning, mind-numbing brutality. The Nazis started out with the best of intentions (although, unlike the Russians, there was a core of evil ideology already present) and in 12 short years turned THE jewel of Western Europe into rubble and brought Europe generally to the very brink of barbarism. In the aftermath of the Japanese occupation, the North Koreans started out not trying to make a truly insane totalitarian state. Rather, Kim Il Song started out trying to rebuild what had been the glory of Korea on a socialist principles. Now North Korea is a state so Orwellian that one who might not know better would be forgiven for believing that 1984 was written *about* that nation. The lesson I took away from that reading is that come the revolution, what you end up with is another government that has to, just temporarily mind you, suspend freedoms and put off the promised egalitarian paradise. Meet the old boss, same as the new boss has resonance for a reason. Quote:
I would have *preferred* that it had all happened through legislation but it couldn't so it happened the way it did. Quote:
Quote:
[lots of really fantastic stuff regretfully snipped] Cheers Aj
__________________
Proud member of the reality-based community. "People on the side of The People always ended up disappointed, in any case. They found that The People tended not to be grateful or appreciative or forward-thinking or obedient. The People tended to be small-minded and conservative and not very clever and were even distrustful of cleverness. And so, the children of the revolution were faced with the age-old problem: it wasn’t that you had the wrong kind of government, which was obvious, but that you had the wrong kind of people. As soon as you saw people as things to be measured, they didn’t measure up." (Terry Pratchett) |
||||
09-06-2011, 02:03 PM | #177 | |
Member
How Do You Identify?:
Femme Relationship Status:
rainbows! Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: NY
Posts: 466
Thanks: 303
Thanked 2,531 Times in 412 Posts
Rep Power: 12032609 |
Quote:
This, here, gets so abstract, repetative, and rhetorical after a bit... good thread though... I'm just tired.... <3 |
|
09-16-2011, 04:11 PM | #178 |
Member
How Do You Identify?:
Redheaded Bellydancing Femme Preferred Pronoun?:
She Relationship Status:
Very married Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Posts: 215
Thanks: 84
Thanked 778 Times in 171 Posts
Rep Power: 15100835 |
Is anyone else reading the Gatekeeping thread over in the Red Zone and finding themselves thinking of this thread? I am, and I keep seeing the same thing. Near-perfect illustrations of what's been discussed in this thread. Specifically, the bit where some people in the community seem to think that they can win arguments by setting themselves up as the most oppressed and most victimized and their opponents as the oppressor and victimizer. Is it just me seeing that?
__________________
Change the voices in your head Make them like you instead |
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to SecretAgentMa'am For This Useful Post: |
09-16-2011, 04:15 PM | #179 |
Infamous Member
How Do You Identify?:
Transmasculine/Non-Binary Preferred Pronoun?:
Hy (Pronounced He) Relationship Status:
Married Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 6,589
Thanks: 21,132
Thanked 8,163 Times in 2,006 Posts
Rep Power: 21474857 |
Respectfully, most of us who are posting over in the Gatekeeping thread have also posted in this thread. These discussions taking place both here and in the Red Zone have been discussed for many years, literally, by many people involved in the discussion.
I think the "victim" stance has also been discussed quite a bit and realized by many that the "Oppression Olympics" game is not productive.
__________________
Sometimes you don't realize your own strength until you come face to face with your greatest weakness. - Susan Gale |
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Greyson For This Useful Post: |
09-16-2011, 04:26 PM | #180 | |
Member
How Do You Identify?:
Redheaded Bellydancing Femme Preferred Pronoun?:
She Relationship Status:
Very married Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Posts: 215
Thanks: 84
Thanked 778 Times in 171 Posts
Rep Power: 15100835 |
Quote:
Please don't assume that just because my post count over to the left is low that I don't have any experience with the community.
__________________
Change the voices in your head Make them like you instead |
|
The Following User Says Thank You to SecretAgentMa'am For This Useful Post: |
|
|