What kind of moron doesn't understand the extremely tactil relationship between moms and babies.

Oral expressions of love are not only normal but sing song type games like this can help with speech deveopment.

There's a whole bunch of stuff you do with babies that might be sexual if you did it with an adult but is just playing with children.

Catching their fingers and putting them in your mouth, or letting them put your fingers in their mouth.

Kissing their necks to make them giggle.

Blowing in their ears or even kissing their ears to make them ticklish.

Tickling their bellies and toes and behind the knees and necks and underarms.

Lip-to-lip kisses.

Massaging or rubbing backs and bellies.

Pretending to "eat" or nibble parts of their body like their nose, ears, hands, feet, bellies, backs. That sounds like what this woman was doing to her baby except with their lips - and lots of kids just do that because they don't know the significance of touching lips. It's just another neat tactile sensation.

All of those things are things that lovers might do during foreplay but that babies and toddlers do for fun and human contact with mommy and daddy. And yes, babies do get physical pleasure out of it. It feels strange and shivery to ANYONE when they get their ear nibbled, and kids love it.

My son and I play a game where one of us says, "I have a secret to tell you!" Then we pretend to whisper (without words, just sh-ss-psst-swswsws) directly into the other person's ear so that the blowing air and slight contact will tickle or feel shivery. Very tactile, very sensuous, but certainly not sexual. Whereas on the other hand, when his father used to blow in my ear and kiss it, it definitely had a sexual aspect.

I, however, am fully grown, and by the time I got to the tickling details ...

[ October 31, 2002: Message edited by: Rundler ]

quote:

---

Jan. 31, 2000 | Picture this: A photo of a boy and girl -- unmistakably naked, posed and giggling -- holding two very large sausages (Italian?). The boy is maybe 8, the girl maybe 6. They are not touching each another, nor does the camera seem especially interested in their genitals. What catches the eye are those sausages, but not that they are involved in anything you or I would call, right off, sexual: They are not being licked, stroked or inserted. They are more atmospheric, I guess you could say.

Is this child pornography? Well, if you are a photo lab manager in Burbank, Calif., you follow the in-store policy and ask the store manager. The store manager, noticing the nudity and the meat, follows what he takes to be the law and calls the Burbank police. The police send two undercover cops out with instructions to nab the photographer. The cops then order the photo lab manager to phone the customer, tell him his prints are ready and instruct him to come pick them up right away.

The customer agrees to drop everything and run over, but then doesn't show, forcing the undercover police to cool their heels for six hours before giving up. Later the cops do nab the suspect, who says the photos were taken by the kids' uncle who thought the children's play with the sausages was "funny." The Burbank police decide to let it go with a warning laced with disgust: There's nothing "funny" about photos like these, photos that are indecent, degenerate and, next time, criminal....

There are about 10 cases in the last dozen years that have emerged in the press. Some are worthy of mention here, mostly because they weren't worthy of attention when they occurred:

William Kelly was arrested in Maryland in 1987 after dropping off a roll of film that included shots his 10-year-old daughter and younger children had taken of each other nude.

David Urban in 1989 took photos of his wife and 15-month-old grandson, both nude, as she was giving him a bath. Kmart turned him in and he was convicted by a Missouri court (later overturned).

A gay adult couple in Florida decided to shave their bodies and snap their lovemaking, convincing a Walgreens clerk that one of them was a child. They are suing the Fort Lauderdale police.

More recently, Cynthia Stewart turned in bath-time pictures of her 8-year-old daughter to a Fuji film processing lab in Oberlin, Ohio. The lab contacted the local police, who found the pictures "over the line" and arrested the mother for, among other things, snapping in the same frame with her daughter a showerhead, which the prosecution apparently planned to relate somehow to hints of masturbation.

---

[ October 31, 2002: Message edited by: 'lance ]

I have bathtime pictures of my son naked! And it used to be quite common to take the "naked baby on the bear skin rug" pictures of your kids. There was even a billboard ad a while back, of a naked baby cradled in the very muscular forearm of a man whose naked torso could also be seen.

I've heard this before too - that if you take pictures of your kid naked and get them developed, they'll call the cops on you. I guess we got lucky - the bath picture and the "naked baby on a blanket" picture my husband and I took of our son were developed at Costco, but there was no problem.

Now I've noticed at Costco, though, that there are notices up telling people that if any naked pictures of anyone come through, they will call the police.

[ October 31, 2002: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

One little quibble, Smith. Babies are sexual.

---

It never occurred to me that someone might sexualize a picture of me and my 4 month old daughter taking a bath together. The very idea is obscene.

quote:

---

If any of the cases cited above had turned out to be a child-pornography ring, a cult or an abusive parent, and the photo lab hadn’t alerted the police, or, being alerted, the police had not followed it up, we’d scream bloody murder about their negligence

---

Why?

So that we can allow incurable and incorrigible pedophiles to wander around loose because they've "served their time". Or, better yet, after they're convicted of sexually assaulting a minor, stick them in a halfway house where they can come and go as they please.

quote:

---

Now many parents often don't take certain photos of their own child that they would like to, for fear of how they could be perceived by another.

---

(Boy, was I cute, too. Really fat. I didn't have arms or legs, just successive rounds of fat at four corners. Think of the Michelin Man.)

But imagine. A good Alberta Tory family, too. And bringing in an outsider. The horror, the horror.

Challanging perception is a valid function of art, useful and good when there is a complacent norm to question. In our present turmoil, challanging people's perceptions on this subject is maybe not such a hot idea.

[ November 04, 2002: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

I've even got a semi-nude of me breastfeeding the younger one when she was about 9 mos old. I love that photo.

I agree that the police were bone heads in this instance, and that nude pictures of babies in the bath are not child porn, no more than Paul Peel's "After the Bath" is child porn. (but after saying so-- that painting does bother me, for some reason)

quote:

---

But on the other hand, the whole idea of reading more into a photo than what meets the eye is the sacred balliwick of some in the women's movement. It sounds like what went around has maybe come around.

---

My money is on the family values Christian types on Maplethorpe, but I wouldn't count out the feminists objecting to Betty Page. It would come down to whose elbows were sharper at the phone booth.

quote:

---

I'm just amused. It would have been great fun to run a Maplethorpe exhibition, and a Betty Page retrospective along side the work of Lyle Rye's, just to see which group of objectors would have called the cops first.
My money is on the family values Christian types on Maplethorpe, but I wouldn't count out the feminists objecting to Betty Page. It would come down to whose elbows were sharper at the phone booth.

As always, it all depends on whose Ox is being gored, in the end.

---

quote:

---

Why is it that the majority of your posts here have some dig directed at women?

---

See, I've run up against this with some of the art film/multimedia projects I've been involved in. I know a multimedia grad student who got marks docked and was heavily criticized for using a model who was "too good-looking" to do a nude study, hence the represenation was patriarchal... Nothing patriarchal about it from our view. The model was over 30 and had had 2 babies, so it wasn't like she sought out a Kate Moss double or the like. (And the look of the model was their only reason. They admitted it.) I have no trouble believing that these women would have a conniption at a Betty Page exhibition.

I know of several young women who were questioned on their choice of imagery in art projects (airbrushed, idealized, young silicon boobed women). In one case the artist wanted to talk about the prevalence of these images in popular culture and used the idealized images in her work. It was a bit of a parody and you had to look beyond the obvious use of the imagery to see the message, which was a critique of patriarchal, corporate culture. I’ve also seen a woman use the idealized images of women in art projects in a celebratory fashion. She was questioned on her intent and she responded with the simplistic answer that it was okay because she was a woman.

One must look at the intent of the artist before jumping to conclusions. I’ve been questioned on using female nudes in some of my artwork (the most strident from a fellow male artist) but whenever I’ve explained my intent it hasn’t been a problem.

Sally Mann is a photographer who has used her own children in her artwork. Sometimes the children are nude. Of course, her work has been very controversial. She stopped when her children didn’t want to be involved anymore. I personally would be hesitant to put images of my children out into the public, but Sally Mann’s photos have a certain honesty that goes beyond the “Hallmark, Disneyfied image of motherhood that is so prevalent in our culture.

quote:

---

Zoot , the instructor was definitely overzealous. Do you think the instructors would go as far as shutting down a Betty Page exhibition? Objecting to the use of certain imagery is one thing but advocating censorship is another thing altogether. I agree that there are extremists in every movement but IMO people that focus only on the extremists are just trying to discredit entire movements.

---

I don't think there's much to be gained from focussing on extremists from any ideology -- that's generally what they're after. I prefer to just ignore them most of the time.

As to the instructor for my friend's thesis project... I don't know if she would censor (they might), but I do know that imagery a la Betty Page would cause a furor in that community. And I've found the attitude to be quite common among artists in the academic sphere. It makes me a little worried about going back for my MFA, which is a long-term goal of mine.

I like that your friend defended her work simply by stating that she, as a female, was entitled to use those sort of images. Unfortunately, in my friend's case, even though she is a woman, not a media-typical beauty and is in her mid-40s, the message was still not acceptable because the images she used were "too beautiful". Isn't art supposed to have an element of beauty? Anyway, it did not go so well for her, but she says she'd do it the same way again.

quote:

---

One must look at the intent of the artist before jumping to conclusions. I’ve been questioned on using female nudes in some of my artwork (the most strident from a fellow male artist) but whenever I’ve explained my intent it hasn’t been a problem.

---

quote:

---

but the fact is that you often put females down. The thing is I don’t even know if you’re aware.

---

First it was the majority of times, now it's "often".

Taking exception to certain notions of some people in a movement-- whether my perceptions are right or wrong-- do not constitute "putting women down." I do not use terminology like "all you women" or "all you feminists".

And, you might take note that in all but the minutia of some aspects of the women's movement, I find little or nothing to be critical of.

Being critical of some ideas no more makes me mysogynistic than does taking issue with Isreali policy makes me anti-semetic, and I find this kind of debating tactic childish, offensive, and in the end and insult to the otherwise capable intellect of the issuer.

quote:

---

I don't think there's much to be gained from focussing on extremists from any ideology -- that's generally what they're after. I prefer to just ignore them most of the time.

---

I’ve never been to Saskatchewan but I can’t imagine benign imagery causing a furore out here-questioned perhaps. School is an environment all to itself. Some students come in and expect to follow the corporate model of art and become rich and famous. They are surprised when they receive flak for trying to act like corporate drones. The corporate film world is full of exploiters who figure that you need explosions, sex, violence and car chases to make money. I wish they had to go through a fraction of the flak that artists receive for their choices.

Zoot I wouldn’t worry about what imagery you use if you go for your MFA. As long as you know why you chose to use specific imagery and can back it up. Especially if it is a personal story.

quote:

---

Isn't art supposed to have an element of beauty?

---

quote:

---

I’ve never been to Saskatchewan but I can’t imagine benign imagery causing a furore out here-questioned perhaps. School is an environment all to itself.

---

Oh, certainly it would be questioned. I don't really know if there would be any active censorship... But I know that sort of imagery would be actively disapproved of by a few. Most of us would just get a kick out of it. There is a surprisingly strong artistic community in Saskatchewan, and we're most of us fairly sophisticated.

quote:

---

The corporate film world is full of exploiters who figure that you need explosions, sex, violence and car chases to make money. I wish they had to go through a fraction of the flak that artists receive for their choices.

---

Yes, the commercial boys. 'Cause they are predominantly boys, of all ages.

We're gearing up for a scrap with the local funder/film commission because they've cancelled two major emerging producer/director/writer programs and shifted the money into an equity fund that only established companies have a remote hope of accessing. Pisses me off to no end. Build an $11 million sound stage that only two companies can afford to use and cut off funding for the indies...

quote:

---

As soon as someone says "art must follow this rule" someone will question the rule and break it. Some artists work is specifically anti-beauty.

---

quote:

---

We're gearing up for a scrap with the local funder/film commission because they've cancelled two major emerging producer/director/writer programs and shifted the money into an equity fund that only established companies have a remote hope of accessing. Pisses me off to no end. Build an $11 million sound stage that only two companies can afford to use and cut off funding for the indies...

---

That's so pathetic. More resources for the corporate community. I'm old enought o remember when Canadian content was brought in for radios. The outrage of many people at having to listen to 30 percent of music by Canadians was unbelievable. And it was pretty grim for awhile-lots of Anne Murray and the Guess Who-but look at the Canadian music industry now-it's thriving partly because they developed the industry.

I get so pissed at the neo-con attitude that all culture must pay its way. Art has been commissioned for centuries. We'll get more American crap film and the small Canadian stories will be left to fend for themselves.

You can tap into NFB for short drama out here, but it varies from region to region. They'd consider Ontario and the Vancouver area to be well-developed for drama, so they don't fund them there.

The Canadian stories are really fending for themselves, and us with it. Even worse a "regional" story... Couldn't possibly interest the rest of Canadians, even. And they want you to get distribution for outside Canada, too. That's not easy to do.

*looks around*

Ha! Thought so

Terry, when you tell a male babbler that he always/often puts down women, you don't really need to call him a misogynist, do you? It's pretty well implied.

I know Tommy pretty well - certainly a helluva lot better than anyone in here - and I can say quite honestly that he likes women more genuinely than most of men I know. That he has issues with his ex is no surprise - you don't live with someone for a couple decades without a fair bit of baggage - but that's entirely separate from his critique of the women's movement, and equating one with the other is a pretty cheap dig.

I've seen some pretty twisted shit come out of the feminist movement in the almost two decades that I've participated in that, and in the social justice movement in general, and not all of that twisted shit has come from the radical fringes. And it was definitely tied into a vast matching set of luggage. Remember when wearing makeup, shaving your legs and sleeping with men made you a pariah among "real" feminists? That's not so common now (though Zoot has had some truck with that level of criticism), but veterans of the movement, if they're at all capable of self-critique, will remember that particular sentiment with some degree of wry embarassment.

No movement for vast social change is without its problems, internal struggle, political blunders and controversy. And I'm not talking about any "radical fringe". And perhaps it's not for men to criticize the women's movement any more than it is the place for whites to criticize the anti-racist movement. But at the very least, when you hear criticism you need the ability to honestly determine whether it's valid before you launch into a knee-jerk personal attack.

Equating raising his daughters with dog training methods and calling women heartless bunches are some of the comments that come to mind that made me wonder. So it's not a big surprise that someone will have issues with what he has to say.

Whenever I bother to read anyone going on about someone, especially an ex I always wonder what the other side of the story is. There's always at least two sides to a story. So I usually take such comments with a grain of salt.

Zoot, off the top of my head I can think of artists who stay away from portraying beauty. Goya comes to mind with his witchcraft etchings or Saturn Devouring his Children. Also what about Marcel Duchamp with his urinal or his Dust Breeding piece. Gilbert and George had a series where they used pictures of shit in their artwork.

[ November 08, 2002: Message edited by: Pat ]

quote:

---

Yes, but I'll bet that shit had line to it...

---

It was pretty much the standard log.

[QUOTE] I'm just saying that an artist should not be condemned for creating something beautiful.

I too am guilty of having kiddie porn, naked son and daughter in the bath tub together, they are only 20 months apart in age - one shot of naked son with naked father in the tub having a water fight -- is that like a fore runner of naked t shirt contests or something equally sexual?

Reminded of an advise column I read once where this twit wrote in asking "I was baby sitting my 2 year old nephew and while we are watching a movie he asked if he lie on top of me to watch like he did with mommy? I was so shocked to discover my sister has been sexually molesting her son? Should I report her?" The columnist responded by urging her to report the pervert immediately as the child was in imminent and constant danger --

Yah okay, its these kind of people who need professional intervention - amazing what kind of filth and perversion lives in some peoples minds that they can see a photo of a laughing naked baby as pornographic.

quote:

---

Equating raising his daughters with dog training methods and calling women heartless bitches are some of the comments that come to mind that made me wonder.

---

That's an outrageous slander.

I expect it to be withdrawn.

quote:

---

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this discussion board to post any material that is knowingly false and/or defamatory. You agree to avoid personal insults, attacks and mischievous antagonism (otherwise known as trolling). You will not post material that is inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy or otherwise violative of any law. You understand that racist, sexist, homophobic and other excluding language is not appropriate on babble.

---

[ November 07, 2002: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]

quote:

---

That's an outrageous slander.
I expect it to be withdrawn.

---

quote:

---

Reminded of an advise column I read once where this twit wrote in asking "I was baby sitting my 2 year old nephew and while we are watching a movie he asked if he lie on top of me to watch like he did with mommy? I was so shocked to discover my sister has been sexually molesting her son? Should I report her?" The columnist responded by urging her to report the pervert immediately as the child was in imminent and constant danger

---

Huh? Could he lie on top of her to watch? What, were they both naked? Did he expect to rub himself against her or something?

quote:

---

Everyone who's never had ex-relationship baggage, raise their hands.
*looks around*
Ha! Thought so

---

Everyone who complains profusely about their ex-relationship to mostly strangers on the internet, and acts surprised that people will them what they think, raise their hands.
*looks around*
Ha! Thought so

quote:

---

Terry, when you tell a male babbler that he always/often puts down women, you don't really need to call him a misogynist, do you? It's pretty well implied.

---

mi·sog·y·nist

(m-sj-nst)
n.
One who hates women.

adj.
Of or characterized by a hatred of women.
Rebecca saying that someone takes digs at women is a huge leap in logic from calling someone a misogynist. Perhaps this is the sacred balliwick both you and Tommy share. Reading more into a statement than is there.

quote:

---

know Tommy pretty well - certainly a helluva lot better than anyone in here - and I can say quite honestly that he likes women more genuinely than most of men I know. That he has issues with his ex is no surprise - you don't live with someone for a couple decades without a fair bit of baggage - but that's entirely separate from his critique of the women's movement, and equating one with the other is a pretty cheap dig.

---

I never equated his marriage with Tommy’s critique of the feminist movement. I was talking about his many put downs of women. It’s nice that you’ve come to his defence but often people closest to someone aren’t always the most objective. All I have to go by is what he writes and the fact is Tommy takes lots of digs at women. Given the level of denial going on I won’t hold my breath waiting for a change.

quote:

---

I've seen some pretty twisted shit come out of the feminist movement in the almost two decades that I've participated in that, and in the social justice movement in general, and not all of that twisted shit has come from the radical fringes. And it was definitely tied into a vast matching set of luggage. Remember when wearing makeup, shaving your legs and sleeping with men made you a pariah among "real" feminists? That's not so common now (though Zoot has had some truck with that level of criticism), but veterans of the movement, if they're at all capable of self-critique, will remember that particular sentiment with some degree of wry embarassment.

No movement for vast social change is without its problems, internal struggle, political blunders and controversy. And I'm not talking about any "radical fringe". And perhaps it's not for men to criticize the women's movement any more than it is the place for whites to criticize the anti-racist movement. But at the very least, when you hear criticism you need the ability to honestly determine whether it's valid before you launch into a knee-jerk personal attack.
Any movement incapable of self-criticism is doomed to struggle year after year without significant gain.

---

Frankly, I’m so sick of discussions on feminism deteriorating into discussions of what some hairy legged feminists did 30 years ago. I really don’t give a rat’s ass anymore. Often it is just done to derail a discussion as you can see in this thread. In fact I’ve shared in my criticism of the women’s movement so please don’t make assumptions about me. With so much shit and sexism out there I don’t see what the point is of continually giving the radical fringe all the spotlight. It’s really no different from red baiting. Did we not have this discussion recently? Puleeeze could we fucking MOVE ON.

[ November 08, 2002: Message edited by: Terry J ]

quote:

---

It’s nice that you’ve come to his defence but often people closest to someone aren’t always the most objective.

---

[ November 08, 2002: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]

quote:

---

Put much effort into "catching your daughter red handed" doing something nice, positive and constructive, so that you can respond positively to it.
I learned that, by the way, from owning a German Shepard. Children are not dogs, but training an intelligent dog will train YOU in these fundamentals.

---

quote:

---

Heartless bunch, women.

---

Fron the I have a code thread. Sorry about the typo Tommy.

quote:

---

You know what I call guys at work who announce they are getting married for the second time? "Learning impaired". He, I gotta million of 'em. Now, take my wife.....please......

---

quote:

---

From the Auntie.com thread, Help My 12 Year old Daughter is Driving Me Nuts

---

So, Pat, are we to then understand that anything in our posting history - remarks made humourously, sardonically, ironically, etc - when taken out of context can now be used as ammunition against an individual who makes a statement we don't like? Can you see how truly awful that is?

Maybe I should edit my sardonic comment (above) before someone decides to store it away as future ammunition.

BB: You use men for sex, then brag about it

RW: I do not, take that back

BB: Yes you do. Last year you posted about fucking Tommy...

RW: That was a joke, you're taking it out of...

etc.

Especially ones I know? On babble? Even the ones I know will giggle?

Now I'm off to research all of Skadl's posts to see if I can dig up any heinous crimes...

sigh...

Those quotes were called outrageous slander. So I posted the quotes that Tommy said. Ya absolutely things get taken out of context all the time. My point and I'll say it again is if you put out such comments you can't be surprised that some will interpret them as digs.

I have spent so much of the last year flirting with 'lance and Wingy on the one hand, while teasing rasmus and Mandos as unmercifully as I possibly can on the other.

quote:

---

Those quotes were called outrageous slander

---

So you figure you can do that to someone, and they shouldn't be distressed? Why, I just visited a thread where Tresspasser did the same sort of thing to Trinitty.

This sort of crap ain't misinterpretation. It's a mean-spirited attack. Plain and simple.

[ November 08, 2002: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]

quote:

---

Can I address the SK query? The film festival was showing films that one of the pols got on the band wagon about as being "gay porn" and raised a stink about it - were the films withdrawn from the festival? Hell no. The arts community is Sk is to be admired for their inovation and sheer talent - I cant see any prejudicial or ignorant censoring going on there.

---

Why, thank you!

You're talking about the Queer City Cinema kefuffle a few years ago, right? I wasn't directly involved with the fest, and what actually happened was this -- there was going to be a discussion on gay and lesbian pornography, directed to whether this was a necessary/positive part of their culture. It was to be held in the public library's theatre, which happened to be next to the children's section of the library, in the downstairs area.

Note: No porn was being shown. This was just a discussion. There were people manning the door, so it wasn't like minors were allowed in. But the right wing provincial opposition, the Sask Party, got all het up after a fundy Christian nut started picketing. (Same guy puts hate mail in the mailboxes of some lesbian friends of ours, and all their neighbors down the street. A real winner.)

The film co-op I'm involved in was a sponsor of the festival, and we had to do some hard lobbying to keep the festival running. It was just ridiculous.

Edited to add: There was a lot of fall out after the whole deal was over, too. We were told we would have to have all co-op screenings rated, for which we had to pay a certain amount for each film, plus the shipping, which would have made our free public screenings very cost-prohibitive. We teamed up with a bunch of galleries who have routinely shown video installations and had to put up quite a fight to get out of it. Stupid knee-jerk politicians...

[ November 08, 2002: Message edited by: Zoot Capri ]

quote:

---

OOOOOPS confusing when hubby is on here and doesnt log out LOL I posted the thread contributed to Aviator

---

It happened to me once, and she made me edit the post!!! I thought it reflected well on her , but there's no accounting for taste.... ummm... hey, wait a minute...

Rebecca West, I'm still wiping the tears out of my eyes. For this, you'll do time in The Babble Quote Hall of Fame III

quote:

---

Gosh, you know that explains alot. Ever since I started fucking Tommy, I haven't been able to balance my chequebook.

---

If you back up your claims you're fukked and if you don't back up your claims you're still fukked. Quite a way to have a discussion. There's no winning.

I'm a filmmaker and when I first went to film school I was at first aghast at the comments that were made about the work we saw. People make and says things that they think are the ultimate masterpiece when in fact it's a far way off from that. I came to appreciate the people who told the truth rather than the people who told you what you want to hear.You're not doing anyone a favour by letting them blindly put some crap out in public where they will surely be skewered.

quote:

---

Thanks Rebecca for getting in my head and reading my mind. I'll say it again. If you put out images/words etc. out in the public domain don't be surprised if people read them differently than you intended.

---

It sounds to me, Pat, like you're using the fact that things get misinterpreted as an excuse for your own misinterpretation.

quote:

---

I really think the reaction compared to what was actually said is way out of wack for some perceived slight.

---

Your editing is skillful. The point about leaning to be positive left out the word "gentle". Here I was, imparting how positive reinforcement was better than reacting angrily to situations, and you pervert that to mean something else.

"Children are not dogs." I don't know how much clearer I could have made it.

Your other erroneous claim was that I called women "Heartless bitches".

Clearly, you were wrong, as you pointed out.

I didn't even have to look that up. "Bitch" is not a word I use, verbally or in print.

And, the context of that whole thread was so broadly humourous from the start-- self effacing humour to boot, to suggest that I really meant "women are a heartless bunch" is really twisted.

Not, however, as twisted as taking my attempt at a Henny Youngman/Rodney Dangerfield routine parody and turning turning it into a "dig against women". In fact, I think you edited out "oh, someone did..." Again, self effacing humour-- and attack upon my own foibles and weakness that you twist into an attack on women.

Mean spirited?

quote:

---

Terry, I'd love to respond to your mean-spirited personal attacks in kind, but it's against the rules of engagement here in Babbleland.

---

Rebecca posting statements that are inaccurate are also against the rules of engagement here as well but you and Tommy have no problem slandering me do you? And your comments about mean-spirited personal attacks are quite humourous considering some of the bitchy comments I've seen you make here.

quote:

---

Gosh, you know that explains alot. Ever since I started fucking Tommy, I haven't been able to balance my chequebook.

---

Glad to see you still haven't lost your touch with your huge leaps in logic.

quote:

---

Glad to see you still haven't lost your touch with your huge leaps in logic.

---

I went over the posts in this thread - my posts, yours, Pat's and Tommy's - and discovered something interesting. Out of the four of us, you and Pat are the only people who have made personal attacks. The only digs at women we've seen thus far are your digs at me. You're the only one to use the word "bitch" ("bitchy", to be more precise). Pat's valiant attempt at researching Tommy's pattern of anti-women comments turned up the opposite. Alot of energy was wasted there. Whereas no one's personally attacked you and Pat - just what you've written and your ideas.

In fact, your's and Pat's characterization of Tommy as anti-women, and your characterization of me as an irrational enabler incapable of logical thought, constitute some of the most sexist, vicious character smears I've ever seen here in babble. Your personal comments about me and what you imagine is my warped psychological relationship with Tommy, make Son of Guy Stuff seem a bastion of progressive feminist thought.

That all of this came from a criticism of certain historical actions within the feminist movement is very interesting. It would seem that the most virulent internalized sexism and inflexible dogma aren't just the purview of feminism's radical fringe of 30 years ago. It's no bloody wonder the average woman would rather shoot heroin under her eyelid than identify as a feminist.

One step forward, two steps back.

[ November 09, 2002: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]

quote:

---

you're the enabler.

---

Halt! Please! No more!

Please, you guys. I mean, with this we graduate to making medical judgements on one another, when most of us haven't even met.

Could we please have a truce here?

ROTFL, earthmum. And I plead guilty.

Och, the wee ones are being so dear lately. They have finally accepted that the doors will not open again for them till next May, so they are mostly arranged about the house in artful poses that they can hold for four, five hours at a time. No decor is complete without them, I think.

quote:

---

I see that it is still dominated by a group of people whose tactics are childish and nasty. Really people that basically agree on many points are downright vicious to each other.This is exactly what the right wingers used to do-eat their young. Now the left on this site are doing the same thing in public. No wonder we can't get respect.As in other forums the nasties dominate and people leave.

---

At the risk of seeming ungracious, Chris (thanks for the kind words), I really think you're overstating the case. Of course there's nastiness here from time to time -- we're all of us human (or felinoid, of course). And of course people leave sometimes. But by no means do the 'nasties,' dominate, I believe. With rare exceptions, this is the most civil on-line discussion board I know of.

Edited to add:

Re: that last sentence: I grant you, the general standards out there (on line) are not high. If you want true nastiness, check out just about any of the usenet politics discussion forums -- can.politics, say. I gave up on all of those years ago.

[ November 09, 2002: Message edited by: 'lance ]

'lance after re-reading my post, I realised that I responded in complete frustration and didn't accurately say what I wanted to say. I have checked out most of the other online forums and they are dominated by mainly obnoxious idiots. Yes rabble is the best IMO. Excellent balanced points of view are made and people are usually civil to each other. But there is certainly room for improvement.

I said in my previous post that nasties dominate here and that's not entirely accurate. It just seems like it in some threads.I will not name any names here but there are some rather dominating people here (now and in the past) of both genders that are bullies. I'm not talking about someone with just a right wing pov either. The tactics that have been used in the feminism forum in the past to constanty derail the discussion are one example. People that refuse to listen and keep on with the same tactics after repeatedly requests to try something different just are bullies in my opinion.

I actually don't mind reading some well written right wing stuff. I don't agree with most of it but I think if people don't hear different points of view they get very set in their ways.I'm not talking about the rw'ers who just nastily bash the left. I don't even bother with them any more.

I didn't mean the list of people I named in my previous post to be comprehensive, they just immediately came to mind. I'm thinking of some babblers who have left or rarely post anymore wei-chi, Super Gimp, anna_c, to name a few who appear to have grown tired of the bs. I really enjoy jeff house, pat, Terry J,zoot capri and many others here. I hope they stay. They mainly move the discussions in a good way. Even though I may not have agreed with everything they said, I certainly enjoyed reading their viewpoints. I thought they often brought a fresh perspective to babble.

quote:

---

I’ve been treated with the utmost of respect and moderation here at babble... there’s really no comparable discussion board that I’m aware of. (And I play in many).

---

quote:

---

...make Son of Guy Stuff seem a bastion of progressive feminist thought.

---

What the?

We don't even talk about women, never mind feminism, over there.

quote:

---

What the?
We don't even talk about women, never mind feminism, over there.

---

quote:

---

*cocks an ear to the sonic boom as my point whizzes over Arch's head*

---

quote:

---

Gosh, you know that explains alot. Ever since I started fucking Tommy, I haven't been able to balance my chequebook.

---

Oh God yes Rebecca, a lot of us feel that way!