I came across this at what about our daughters and laughed my damn ass off, so I thought I would share it with everyone. We could all use a little light heartedness from time to time.
I knew what that was before I even clicked! DAG's Maya Angelou makes me laugh like a hyena.
Renee, I have known you only a little time. I have had to grow really fast in that time and you have helped me. Thank-you. Now, sadly, I feel that I am leaving you behind. But I guess this site was just about your opinion of things. A way to vent at the opposite gender while you condemn them for venting at your gender. (Ours actually)I see you have been a very understanding person for others opinions and added facts, but I can't help but want you to be better. You seemed so fiery at the beginning but you now seem to be joining all the other feminists sites. Feminism is losing it's battle. It is trying to stay afloat by taking on other issues from other groups. If I had a site other than work, I would show all you women the opinions of the women who have been tossed out for not raising their sons as female enough. I would honour the women that fought hard instead of follow an indoctrination that women are weak. Feminists should be empowering but instead want to dis-empower men.You are all in for a shock because payment is due to the elite that actually owns feminism. The ones that back you with money. Yes, women too are just a mere chattel now adays to the corporate powers and banks. No wonder Jesse Jackson cries. He remembers what is important. Can none of you think for yourselves? Canada especially is wanting to reward women who can be inventive. You all just seem to let the sisterhood down. Please show me I am wrong. Please show me that this is more of creating something different instead of being a part of what is old and horrible. You just all seem to have your hand out saying, "I want what you have", even though you say it is the wrong thing to want through your anger at the exact thing you ask for.
Renee, please don't ignore my words. You can ask me to leave your site any time you wish and I would do it with gratitude for what you have done for me. I am seriously not your enemy.
@Julie look I don't know what it is you are searching for to be honest with you. As I have always stated Womanist Musings is about raising awareness on issues that are rarely talked about. In the 6 months that I have writing this blog I have done exactly that with a little bit of lighthearted fun every once and a while. I am never going to take your positions on feminism and if that is what you are hoping for it is a lost cause. I have stated to you more than once that men constitute a privileged class. I have explained that privilege is mitigated by race, class, sexuality etc but never eliminated. It is what it is.I don't understand your denial but I accept it for who you are. You are more than welcome to express your opinion here Julie but don't expect me to ever embrace it. It is not who I am nor what I believe. In the over 500 posts that I have written I feel that I have given a fair account of what my belief system is and I am happy with my accomplishments.
Julie, Even though I don't agree with your point of view, I encourage you to start your own blog. You would have enough content to start just from adapting the responses you've posted here. A simple wordpress or blogspot blog is actually very easy to set up, free, and would not take as much time as you might think. I have one myself. No, you won't get the traffic that Renee does at first, but you'll learn as you go and perhaps you can expand it as you go. I think having your own space on the web would be a more productive use of your time, and Renee's. You obviously have a lot to say, and blogging at one's own site is a good way to work through thoughts and feelings.---And now, back to the post at hand...Thanks for sharing this, Renee, I loved it.
Thanks for the clip Renee, hadn't seen that! Very funny stuff, and yes, a laugh now and then is surely healthy and good.
I'm a Canadian, and as one I've only followed the US election in the last year or so with passing interest, but the Obama campaign has been interesting to watch from the perspective of inter-national comparative politics, a respected branch of political science. It's been interesting to watch what has happened in the past year, not to be negative or judgemental of the US system, but in order to compare and contrast it to the Canadian one. It's been particularly interesting to watch the intersections of race and gender that have gone on. A lot of people seem to feel the election of Obama as US President is remarkable, but is it so remarkable or unexpected, in comparison with Obama's previous political accomplishments? It strikes me as even more remarkable that Obama, a Black senator, managed to win the confidence and trust of voters in a state that is over 95 percent white. How did this happen? It seems to say some interesting things about voter expectations, how voters choose among candidates, and about the tactical effectiveness of the politics of inclusion. There's little doubt that the electoral process in all developed countries is heavily influenced by modern marketing techniques. Most voters choose candidates the way they choose a new car: branding, packaging, and market research and segmentation are all key elements in the electoral process -- for better or worse. But I think there is still an emotional aspect to the process for the average voter, in that voters tend to choose the candidate and politician they can trust to do a good job, to represent their interests, and who makes them feel that their wants, needs, and viewpoints are included. The most interesting political lesson in the Obama campaign seems to be that the effective use of the politics of inclusion works. Obama's election is not all that remarkable, because it's not that unprecedented. He got elected in Illinois, more than once, because he convinced (white) voters there that they could trust him to do a good job. That regardless of race, they could believe in him and trust that racial differences would make no difference in how he performed as an elected official. And as a result, he had the experience, the campaign experience, under his belt to do it again, across the US. In some ways, the US election was decided once the final candidates were selected. In some ways it was a foregone conclusion. The politics of inclusion as a political tactic worked not only in Illinois, but also within the Democratic nomination process. Whether she ever intended it or not, Hillary Clinton's campaign was never about the politics of inclusion. The subtext of her whole campaign seemed to be, "If you have a vagina, you have to vote for me because I have a vagina too; if you don't have a vagina, you have to vote for me because *I* have a vagina and you don't; so, it's our turn." And it didn't work. Perhaps Clinton's greatest sin is that she, her supporters and her campaign team, were smart enough to be able to look to the Obama example and practice the politics of inclusion, but chose not to do so. Couldn't get past their own (perceived) sense of entitlement. Their message to the voter was "I want you to include me" instead of what worked for Obama: "I want to include you". In that sense, her campain was deliberately malevolent. Contrast this with Palin, who with her NASCAR campaign rallies and her "maverick" nonsense, alienated millions of black voters and appalled and embarassed millions of white voters. Clinton practiced the politics of exclusivity because she chose to do so; Palin practiced the politics of exclusivity because she is simply too dumb to know there is any other way. There is one problem with the tactic of 'you have to vote for me because it's our turn'. In every election, whether you are black or female or someone with some other grievance, ultimately every election is first and foremost the voters turn. The privacy of the polling booth is not unlike the privacy of the bedroom: whatever you say you like or will do in public, behind closed drapes everybody ultimately does the thing that gets them off the most. And no politician or aggrieved group gets what they want unless the voter gets what they want. First.
Renee, I like that we question each other. You make me think. I didn't come here searching for anything. That is pretty cool, I think. I am raw as. But I don't take your word on things. I look up many Women's commissions (so to speak) to see their say, their statistics and their goals. You don't speak as an official for Canada, I have noticed. There are hundreds that do on all situations. You feed me. And I like it. I doubt the feminists in powerful positionsare even aware of you. I kinda think they would have a fit if they knew of you. That makes you very special.
OK, number one, that comment from Julie was very weird and made little sense; but...Number two: Very funny clip, I liked it a lot. But you know what's interesting? I saw this clip on Michelle Malkin's blog around a week or two ago and she too found it hilarious...Weird.
@JackOkay I am all freaked out...YUCK Malkin and I have something in common...how am I going to sleep tonight?
Post a Comment