₦airaland Forum

Lol .......I can relate to this. As the Architect, I'm the team leader of the group of consultants on my site. But, in the beginning, contractors seemed more at ease with the engineers giving instructions (which still need to be corroborated by an AI). For a while I resorted to simply writing instructions and doing emails where required; citing the contractor's obligation to comply. It was frustrating. I thought I should try to be firmer and more "no nonsense", but then I thought that it would only play into the stereotype and antagonize them further. And I had to handle the situation; I couldn't tell my boss that I couldn't get the contractors to take me seriously; and I didn't want to hide behind the structural guy. So, instead of imposing myself and being an authoritative leader, I decided to be more collaborative. There's less resistance that way, if every man is allowed to contribute his opinion and be part of the process. But the final decision is still mine.

Monkey see, monkey do Why should the young people looking up to him be influenced by his sexual orientation? Does his choice in food affect them too?

Let people be. Just be you. Inspire people by being yourself; don't live your life to inspire people. You only live once.

I would return it.

TheUpsetGirl:
trash.. stop swaying from the topic

answer our questions
how are anti feminist ladies sex starved, single and suffering from Stockholm syndrome?

Lol!...........You are really challenged. That's what I meant by "operating on a different frequency".

TheUpsetGirl:
madam this isn't the post I'm talking about, even greiboy knows that. I couldn't locate the comment I'm sure you deleted it. the post where you said greiboy needs to be educated but he has to open up his brain for you to educate him and greiboi replied by saying you've allowed friendship and emotions to cloud your sense of reasoning he once admired (GREIBOY I'm I lying?) keep deceiving your delusional self that you're a feminist. feminist indeed

That's this one. from page 24. Point out the claims.

What's going on, dear? You're so much better than this. I know most people argue to win and not for logic to win, or mutual enlightenment; so they're only interested in shutting the other person up by whatever means necessary. Even if it means deliberately misunderstanding their comment, asking them to keep repeating themselves, and forgetting what's been said (by either party) or the point of the argument. But after employing all of these tactics you cannot go and claim that it's the other person who lacks mental proficiency.

Shay expatiated one[/b] of those points I made to you: that [b]SOME women who do not support feminism are stockholmed. And she's right, violence isn't needed after a while (it's required initially). The situation is like having your foot on a dogs head for so long that when you're finally ready to lift your foot, the dog comes and puts his head under your foot. Even though, the dog is "de-caninazed" by the act, it's an injustice he's become accustomed to. People are generally reluctant to change; some more than others. It's the same concept that sees prisoners "institutionalized" to the point that they cannot function in society after they've been released. A lot of them re-offend to get incarcerated again. After the physical chains are broken, counseling is required to free the mind as well.

I know you might have known this already, or maybe Shay's pushed in the direction to know it now. You and donstan (and probably some other guys here) seem to be more interested in beating down the issue than arguing it. Which is why you are testing our individual understanding of feminism as though we were in your class. And anyone who impresses you gets a cookie and is sent on her merry way. But we aren't here to impress you. We want to enlighten you. But we can only do that if you open yourself up to be educated on the issue. It's your prerogative though.

TheUpsetGirl:
miss write just forget about that stuff and stop saying this thing. shaybaby referenced you, you deny posting it yet she referenced you, na ur ghost she refere to? stop bringing up the topic or else I'm going to disgrace you, you don't know what feminism is about.



kindly tell us how anti feminist ladies are sex starved, single and suffering from Stockholm syndrome and stop swaying off the line.

Where is the quote?



If you don't have it, and Shay referenced it, what context do you have to even make sense of that comment?


I posted if for you and you picked that moment to run away.


Well, here it is again.......read it. I will explain any sentences you do not understand

Lol. I don't think so. Like you said, this is just for the fun of it.


I don't think that women who oppose feminism are sex-starved. And only because I am convinced that a woman's self-love and self-respect (an a man's empathy) are expressed in active feminism, I believe that women who oppose it fall into any of these categories.

1. Religious women who believe that self-denial and self-sacrifice are a virtue.

2. Conservative women who just are reluctant to change. And are, therefore, unwilling to evaluate the change. They're stuck.

3. Cowardly women who lack the self-belief to be independent. They would rather have a man as a safety net at whatever cost.

4. Lazy women who don't want the hassle of being responsible for themselves.

5. Brainwashed/numb women who have been "stockholmed" and now seem to enjoy oppression. "What oppression?" They ask.

6. Opportunists (also cowardly, lazy, religious or conservative) who see this as a worthy distinguishing factor to make themselves more desirable to men. It used to be: must cook, must clean, must not talk too much, must know how to shag.............now it's: must not be a feminist. So, they'll shout it from the roof tops: feminism is devilish!........for an engagement ring.

7. Women who do not possess the mental acuity to grasp the meaning of feminism for themselves. So they allow the "smart gender" explain it to them. You can imagine how that goes....


Disclaimer: not an exhaustive list. And it's my opinion; you're free to have your own.

donstan18:
Quote where she said that

Thank you. I've asked for this. She's got nothing.

shaybebaby:
Somebody should please help translate this post to pidgin and all other Nigerian languages because it seems like English comprehension is failing some people.

Lmao!

donstan18:
How is anti feminist ladies suffering from Stockholm syndrome?
And how does that have anything to do with feminism?


Please, help us with the above questions

Donstan, please don't keep this company.....lol

Anyway, the question you should ask me is: how does Stockholm syndrome prevent any woman from supporting feminism? Because, it was one out of seven expandable points that I gave for possibly being anti-feminist.

The women who fall into this category are so accustomed to being dominated (and sometimes even abused) that they grow attached and sympathetic towards their abusers. There are such women in relationships who get beaten and when you try to liberate them from the situation, they fight you over it and keep going back to their abusers. It's a very unhygienic condition for these women.

I said:

The situation is like having your foot on a dogs head for so long that when you're finally ready to lift your foot, the dog comes and puts his head under your foot. Even though, the dog is "de-caninazed" by the act, it's an injustice he's become accustomed to. People are generally reluctant to change; some more than others. It's the same concept that sees prisoners "institutionalized" to the point that they cannot function in society after they've been released. A lot of them re-offend to get incarcerated again. After the physical chains are broken, counseling is required to free the mind as well


Feminism is standing for or advocacy of women's rights. Women who experience this psychological trauma sabotage their own emancipation.

donstan18:
Miss.Write, can you please debunk or back up your claims.

Clarify them and me aswell.

Lol. What claims do you want me to debunk?

shaybebaby:
Preoccupied, dossing and trying to get out my head and act instead. All in good time though, once I overcome the inertia, I'll be up and away.

You?

Lol........ Probably the same thing in a different place. I'm at the office, and I've let the work pile up . But I will persevere. All in good time, as you say.


I wish you luck with overcoming your inertia, sweetie, and a lovey day

shaybebaby:
Politely savage. Now that is pure class.

Babe, if there's a prize for filth, I concede it. That's not my turf.

How have you been, gorgeous?

greiboy:
why didn't you dispute this when shay claimed she referenced you

I was even initially disputing this, but you attacked me instead, rather than correct her

Anyways, it is all in the past now.

I only responded because I saw your mention

Lol.....sorry about the mention. I just needed the context. I'm not disputing shay's point. I told you she expatiated ONE of mine. I didn't limit it to that single point. I didn't even limit it to the seven points I gave, with that disclaimer.

TheUpsetGirl1:
forget about it, I don't argue with people like you.


class is bae.

Lol! .......................You shouldn't ever.

TheUpsetGirl1:
simply put... you justified the post that anti feminist ladies are sex starved by saying they're Stockholmed, yes or no?? btw you haven't answer my question about whether you have seen Oprah Winfrey and other influential feminists coming out to say anti feminist ladies are sex starved and single

simply put?

Smh.

Here is that quote in response to Grei boy from page 4. Read it, and whatever you don't understand I will explain.

greiboy:
shey you take the op serious

She is just trolling

cc miss.write you are needed here

Lol. I don't think so. Like you said, this is just for the fun of it.


I don't think that women who oppose feminism are sex-starved. And only because I am convinced that a woman's self-love and self-respect (an a man's empathy) are expressed in active feminism, I believe that women who oppose it fall into any of these categories.

1. Religious women who believe that self-denial and self-sacrifice are a virtue.

2. Conservative women who just are reluctant to change. And are, therefore, unwilling to evaluate the change. They're stuck.

3. Cowardly women who lack the self-belief to be independent. They would rather have a man as a safety net at whatever cost.

4. Lazy women who don't want the hassle of being responsible for themselves.

5. Brainwashed/numb women who have been "stockholmed" and now seem to enjoy oppression. "What oppression?" They ask.

6. Opportunists (also cowardly, lazy, religious or conservative) who see this as a worthy distinguishing factor to make themselves more desirable to men. It used to be: must cook, must clean, must not talk too much, must know how to shag.............now it's: must not be a feminist. So, they'll shout it from the roof tops: feminism is devilish!........for an engagement ring.

7. Women who do not possess the mental acuity to grasp the meaning of feminism for themselves. So they allow the "smart gender" explain it to them. You can imagine how that goes....


Disclaimer: not an exhaustive list. And it's my opinion; you're free to have your own.

And to your question whether I have seen Oprah or any reputable feminist say that anti-feminist women are sex starved................was I supposed to keep watch for you?

TheUpsetGirl1:
she made reference to your post... don't you see your name there?? you're such an incredible liar, thank you for your time.

Lmao ........I give you attention and you run away? Quote the contentious post. It's on page 4.



This is just baffling. You can't find a quote from me that says what you claim I said? Then what are you so upset about? What was this about?

TheUpsetGirl1:
I couldn't find the original post.. miss you see where you said anti feminist ladies are Stockholmed?

This is not my moniker. The post you're looking for is on page 4, in response to Grei boy

lefulefu:
oh ok..is dat what is pissing off upsetgirl? Either way i still like the way u analysed the feminism ideology when donstain requested of u to explain it. It was well nicely put. Anyway i wonder why the upset babe wan fight u since u not the troublesome type here.

Thank you.

lefulefu:
but wich one u dey pick fight with misswrite. Misswrite never said anti feminist women are sexually starved or suffering from Stockholm syndrome. It was actually the op who that crap. Misswrite's explanation on feminism was very educative i must say.

...... Thank you, Lefu.

But I did say something about Stockholm syndrome in a post on page 4........So for the benefit of the upset girl let me just recap:

greiboy:
shey you take the op serious

She is just trolling

cc miss.write you are needed here

Lol. I don't think so. Like you said, this is just for the fun of it.


I don't think that women who oppose feminism are sex-starved. And only because I am convinced that a woman's self-love and self-respect (an a man's empathy) are expressed in active feminism, I believe that women who oppose it fall into any of these categories.

1. Religious women who believe that self-denial and self-sacrifice are a virtue.

2. Conservative women who just are reluctant to change. And are, therefore, unwilling to evaluate the change. They're stuck.

3. Cowardly women who lack the self-belief to be independent. They would rather have a man as a safety net at whatever cost.

4. Lazy women who don't want the hassle of being responsible for themselves.

5. Brainwashed/numb women who have been "stockholmed" and now seem to enjoy oppression. "What oppression?" They ask.

6. Opportunists (also cowardly, lazy, religious or conservative) who see this as a worthy distinguishing factor to make themselves more desirable to men. It used to be: must cook, must clean, must not talk too much, must know how to shag.............now it's: must not be a feminist. So, they'll shout it from the roof tops: feminism is devilish!........for an engagement ring.

7. Women who do not possess the mental acuity to grasp the meaning of feminism for themselves. So they allow the "smart gender" explain it to them. You can imagine how that goes....


Disclaimer: not an exhaustive list. And it's my opinion; you're free to have your own.

donstan18:
I just LOVE her with no reason


MissWrite, will you marry me

Lol ..........cute. If it isn't you who else?

Ladyhippolyta88:
You are looking for miss.write trouble if she did not want to answer you let her be instead of insulting her it doesn't suit you.

Lol......thank you.

Lol ..........Girl, you just won't let me ignore you in peace.

TheUpsetGirl1:
Miss.Write I don't know why you're scared of replying me...

Maybe because you're scary? . No. I have just one weapon in my arsenal that I'm comfortable with. If the other person operates on a different frequency, it's not a fair fight for me. "Knife to a gun fight" type of situation. I don't like to engage when you have me at a disadvantage.

you visited my feminist enlightening threads but refused to comment

................That's one way to look at it.

because the contents exceed your comprehensive abilities..

You are absolutely on point with this. What I saw there blew me away. In fact, it's so beyond me, I wouldn't even know where to start.

it's like you're only intelligent on this thread..

Thank you. But it follows me around.

dumb head

I know you meant this as bait, but this type of language defines you as well.


So, sweetie, Your opinions are quite frequent these days, and they have been noticed. But you don't really need me to comment on your threads. Just keep doing what you're doing.

WORDWORLD:
And i must tell you i enjoyed every moment.

It's been enlightening.

WORDWORLD:
Am running late already. Misswrite my aim of this discussion is for the sake of education. Will catch you later. greiboy goodmorning to you too.

I know. That's always a noble cause. Have a lovely day.

WORDWORLD:
well here it is talking about the history of the word not the root.

Lol! What do you mean by history? The root is Lesbos.

WORDWORLD:
further more, misswrite do you agree with "most western feminist historians (who) contend that all movements working to obtain women's rights should be considered feminist movement even when they did not (or do not) apply the term to themselves"? I just qouted that from wikipidia about feminism.

Lol , why do I feel like I'm on trial here?

That's a reportage. Do I agree that most western feminist historians argue the fact stated above? That would mean: do I have any cause to doubt the reportage?

Response: I don't think that I have any reason not to take it at face value.

Do I agree with the point of view of these (most) feminist historians? I hold a personal opinion that takes this even a step further: I believe that any ACT in favor of the emancipation of women is a feminist act. Irrespective of the social or political affiliations of the person who carries it out. Not everyone would share this view though.

WORDWORLD:
I did'nt say by dictionary but by the root of the word. You see the lapse in our communication. Even when i said a political statement you agreeed the statement has a political intent

Words have meaning, and meanings should suffice. If you're digging into roots of the word, or how they're derived, then lesbian would mean "native of the isle of Lesbos". Is that what they are? Do for the one what you do for the other.

WORDWORLD:
My dear, you mean to say the statement "ALL FEMINIST ARE LESBIAN" cannot be meant to influence UNITY with the political goal which is "FREEDOM FROM THE OPPRESSION BY MEN", hence a political statement? Let me hear your view misswrite.

Only if it is a figurative statement. A literal claim of that would be antagonistic because it would be false.

And if wikipedia is where you read about the DOB then we are reading the same material which i quote again "The Daughters of Bilitis was a feminist organization from the beginning......" according to Del Martin. I hope you know that the word 'FEMINISM' if use in the context of the very root of the word FEMALE it objetively depicts being FEMININE and not ACTIVISM. Do you agree with me that using the word FEMINISM to decribe activism is then sucjective if we must base our arguement on the root of the word. As to Del Martins claim, it is goes like this "Del Martin has WRITTEN that the Daughters of Bilitis was a feminist organisation from the beginning". Have you been able to read where he wrote so and why is what i meant. GOODMORNING

Here: "Del Martin has written that THE DAUGHTERS OF BILITIS was a FEMINIST ORGANISATION from the beginning, focusing on the problems of female homosexuals HOWEVER, in the mid -1960s FEMINISM became a much higher priority to many of the women in the organisation"

I absolutely agree that feminism (like lesbianism) is a way of life. But by dictionary definition, feminism is the advocacy of women's rights (thats objective, not subjective); which is why feminist movement represents: women's rights movement. Lesbianism, on the other hand, does not mean advocacy of lesbian rights. It means sexual activity between two women. Which is why lesbian rights movement is used to qualify advocacy of lesbian rights, (instead of lesbianism movement, for instance).

Good morning to you too.

WORDWORLD:
Misswrite, you ended your long epistle with this TRUTH about the whole matter as I quote below. 



Now, take note of that word again 'SUBJECTIVE'. Misswrite why did it take you so long to realize that also the statement "ALL FEMINIST ARE LESBIAN" is subjective and not emphatic. Is that not the reason why the statement is decribed as POLITICAL while choosing not the function of SEX as the defining factor for making that statement but the very goal which unites both and which is "FREEDOM FROM THE OPPRESSION OF MEN"? We can as well say "ALL LESBIANS ARE FEMINIST" as long as  "FREEDOM FROM THE OPPRESSION OF MEN" is use as the goal that unites and defines them both. How was it difficult to understand. I made it clear all through, that the appeal is not to sexuality but the very goal which unites both.  I HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND NOW. And if to argue blindly was my aim, I WOULDN'T have said as a response to you.

But you hightlighted what appealed to you while ignoring the SUBJECTIVE PART, which is "AS LONG AS THIS IS NOT BASED ON BEING A POLITICAL STATEMENT". Misswrite, as you have agreed above in that quote, with how you ended your long epistle using the word 'SUBJECTIVE' is the same base line that describes "ALL FEMINIST ARE LESBIANS". It doesn't mean with respect to sucking and licking puccy but to the goal. I hope you are getting me now. What I have written now is not different from what I have written before. I think it is that CONDITIONING which comes with the word LESBIAN, a taboo,  which made you not to think divergently along the perspective that the appeal is to the GOAL "freedom from the oppression of men". Take note, in politics what matters and unites all is their COMMON INTEREST. And the common interest here is "FREEDOM FROM THE OPPRESSION OF MEN." I believe on the bases of your accepting that Ruth Rosen's statement is subjective there is no arguement as to why the statement "ALL FEMINIST ARE LESBIANS" based on subjectivity, can not be a POLITICAL STATEMENT.

The reason I didn't accept your claim: All feminists are lesbians, is because you kept using the wrong qualifier for it. You kept saying 'political statement' when you should have been saying things like: figurative-, metaphorical-, allegorical- statement. If you had said that, I wouldn't have given you the grief of trying to interpret your statement literally. When you conceded that all feminists weren't literally lesbians, we were in agreement. Rosen meant every word literally. "Subjective" just means it's her personal opinion (or feeling) on the issue; it does not mean she is not using words literally. Those were literal words from her perspective. The opposite of that would be "objective" (not emphatic).

A political statement is a communication (normally an action or non-verbal communication) which is intended to influence a political decision or view point. That it is political doesn't qualify whether a statement would be literal or figurative, it simply qualifies its intent. "All feminists are Lesbians" may be used by a lesbian to a feminist to solicit the feminists acceptance by highlighting areas of common interests in the civil rights agenda; or it may be used by a feminist to show solidarity for the lesbian civil rights cause. It may also be used by a detractor to discredit the feminist cause in a homophobic culture. It does not mean that All feminists are lesbians in the literal sense.

Also, the words do not suddenly have ambiguous meanings. Lesbians are still women who sleep with other women. And lesbianism is still exclusively a sexual activity; it's not a rights movement. That would be: activism for lesbian rights. The political intent of the statement (All feminists are lesbians) is to say:we should stand together/ we stand together/ Feminists must share the verdict that befalls lesbians. (Respectively, from the above paragraph). If such a statement was even necessary, it is evident that feminist- and the lesbian- rights movements were separate entities.

It's like saying: "we are all Trayvon Martin". Are we all Trayvon Martin? No. It's meant figuratively to declare our solidarity in standing against police violence (which ended Martin's life). These kinds of statements are used in context not arbitrarily. Because it would make no sense to claim you were Trayvon Martin if the agenda wasn't clear.

Misswrite, "How many and deep are the divisions between humanbeings! Not only are there divisions between races, nations, classes, and religions but also an almost total incomprehension between the sexes, the old and the young, the sick and the healthy. THERE WOULD BE NO SOCIETY IF LIVING TOGETHER (DOES NOT) DEPENDED UPON UNDERSTANDING EACH OTHER". (Eric Hoffer, Reflections On The Human Conditions)

It is that lack of the will to understand each other that breeds conflicts and disconnectivity in human affairs. We need to learn to be very patient enough to try and comprehend and understand one another. IT IS NOT EGO THING! Lastly, my reference to the homophile organization DAUGHTERS OF BILITIS is to show you that Lesbians as a group were actually part of the feminist movement. There is no disputing this fact even with your long epistle. As to Del Martin's claims, the best conclusion can only be made if only we are able to read from where he had written such claims. Wikipidea made references to the books that captured such details below. For the fact that I haven't been privileged to read where he wrote so (nor you) . I stand with greiboy with his use of words. "I think" "I suspect". Misswrite thank you for your time. If only the person who actually asked for me evidence could make intelligent constructions or at least be polite. Have a splendid night. I believe by now you understand the basis of that statement and its character. Hence, the problem all along has been lack of comprehension.

Del Martin was a woman.

To this, I feel I should drop my epistle again. Or better still, read it from the source. Del Martin says the group advocated lesbian issues and not women issues (as evidenced by the account on their activities). It's for this reason I made the second paragraph after the blue-highlight in that epistle. A group is defined by its activities. If you're speaking figuratively I might not want to argue with you. But to say that activism for lesbian rights was contained in the feminists right movement at the time................ . Aren't we looking at the same material? But it's your prerogative to make of it whatever you want.

WORDWORLD:
You are welcome misswrite. Now, does this unnecessary words I have typed afterwards include THE DAUGHTERS OF BILITIS you are thanking me about lol?! Or these unnecessary words of mine is only to my pointer of how in context what you quoted from the book is not political statement but sexual.

But Oh! so you could quickly google up about Ruth Rosen's book and even paste just a part that fits your side of conception and understanding about lesbianism on the screen even when i have been saying ALL ALONG, that am not talking partial but holistically a combination of both sexuality and political. You couldn't do the same with The daughters of bilitis, a quick google about a homophile organisation who also have been championing the feminist movement to make clear your insinuation that Ruth Rosen was only trying to make a case for lesbians to be part of the struggle. A struggle which anybody that has really studied what is actually a menance to our society called feminism by *dysfunctinality knows how powerful lesbians (homophile organisations) have been runinng the show. Your lack of knowledge about the daughters of bilitis is reason why you have been narrow minded about how LESBIANISM is not just about sexuality but a political movement akin to feminism. What is there to cushion which you call pride? Am not speaking from ignorance nor arrogance but one who is unselfish and trying to share what he knows. I hope you will gain more insight into what feminism is about or has evolved to if you care to read about the daughters of bilitis. Put in mind that the aim is to dispel your insinuation about Lesbians by sexuality and as a political organisation have not been active participant in the whole show.
Anyway let me help those lazy ones who come online to shout FEMINISIM and have been so doctored to follow only dogma they know nothing about.

"Del Martin has written that THE DAUGHTERS OF BILITIS was a FEMINIST ORGANISATION from the beginning, focusing on the problems of female homosexuals HOWEVER, in the mid -1960s FEMINISM became a much higher priority to many of the women in the organisation".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daughters_of_Bilitis You could research more and thank you for your humility and use of words that are quite mild geared towards mutual understanding.   
Misswrite and as to your pointing to an alternative defination means simply looking at the other side of the coin which is the sexual side. All along i have been talking political. SO, LETS TALK ABOUT THE POLITICAL SIDE OF LESBIANISM AS IT RELATES TO FEMINISM. The book is not misleading!

Okay, so I did some digging today on the subject: Daughters of Bilitis.


Some of the highlights are………

What it was: First lesbian civil and political rights organization (in the US)

Why it was formed: As a social alternative to lesbian bars in order to evade harassment by the authorities.

When it was formed: 1955

How it happened: Del Martin and her lover Phyllis wanted to socialize with other lesbians, so a friend introduced them to another lesbian couple. From there, they had the idea to start a social club. They started the club with four couples (eight women) in attendance.

What they did there: At first, apart from socializing (which was the primary aim for forming the group), they also provided support to closeted lesbians, educated them about their rights and gay history. But afterwards, with increased membership, the focus shifted to advocacy for lesbian rights, and then Homosexual rights in general (after they aligned themselves with their male counterparts – groups like the Mattachine)

Nomenclature: Bilitis was a fictional lesbian character residing on the isle of Lesbos in “The Songs of Bilitis” by Pierre Louys (French poet). The name was chosen for obscurity. They believed that they could use poetry as a cover if anyone got interested in investigating the motive of the club.

Mission statement: The DOB established the first nationally distributed lesbian publication (in the US) – The Ladder. It started The Ladder because no newspaper agreed to print its adverts. It advertised itself as: A woman’s organization for the purpose of promoting the integration of the homosexual into society.



So……..this was an enlightening read, thank you, World. But, (with reference to the highlighted in your post) to say that the DOB was a feminist group (after the evidence in its mission statement) is an ambitious stretch. The article itself doesn’t even claim that. The DOB did not address women issues, it addressed homosexual women issues. And because homosexual women are a subset of women, you (or Del Martin) claim that lesbian issues are women issues. But that’s misleading. Only in the sense that lesbians, while going through their unique struggle, are also women. Women are a subset of human beings. But to say that women issues are equal to human issues would be misleading. Of course, they’re human issues only because women, while going through them, are human beings.

But if you consider the unique issues that may arise from being a human being, you would say “human as opposed to what?” Animals perhaps? So, you list the issues: can’t walk around naked without getting arrested. If you consider the issues that may arise from being a woman, you would say “woman as opposed to what?” A man. So, you list the issues: Can’t have multiple sexual partners without getting judged for it (don’t trivialize my point). And if you consider the unique issues that may arise from being a lesbian, you would say “Lesbian as opposed to what?” A heterosexual woman. So you list the unique issues: can’t have legitimate sex according to her inclinations. Working backwards: lesbians are women, and are human beings; but lesbian issues aren’t equal to women issues and aren’t equal to human issues. That’s why specific interest groups arise.

The DOB was first aligned with gay groups, because it considered its issues to be more in tandem with homosexual men. In 1966, it started to lose members because some of the women thought that gay women had more in common with heterosexual women than they had with gay men. This identity crisis is evident of the fact that the DOB had no preconceived feminist agenda to align itself naturally with feminism without stumbling around in the dark. To buttress that point, the last editor of The Ladder (driven by commerce) had to take off the tag “A lesbian review” from the cover of the magazine, to open it up to a wider audience. And she started publishing feminist ideals which were more to the sensibilities of feminist women and women in general. If The Ladder had to undergo such transformations to appeal to feminists, that is further evidence that the DOB was not a feminist organization. Neither did it metamorphose into one. Grier (the editor) was only interested in saving the magazine, not DOB when it fell apart in 1970.

This was a bit of a tearjerker for me. I’m awed by these women who refused to have their rights trivialized. I just kept thinking: This has got to be a movie! Lo and behold there it was: Daughters of Club Bilitis (2011). It’s Korean, but I’m still going to have to see it now. Thank you, again, for opening up my world, WordWorld. It was an entertaining and educative way to digress from the point.

But to the point now: The part of the Rosen book I uploaded was the page that contained your quote. It would have been silly to do anything else, when my aim was to give context to your chosen quote. But all the pages are accessible on that site, so feel free to upload any page that suits your purpose. My “insinuation”…………..My aim was to refute your claim that all feminists were lesbians, and that the feminist agenda was lesbianism. Thankfully, we have gotten past that. It is clear (from that book you quoted, and the history of the DOB as well) that because of the heightened homophobic atmosphere after WW2, the feminist movement did not cater to lesbian issues. It did not see such tolerance to be in the interest of the movement’s survival or longevity. So, there were separate women rights groups and lesbian rights groups.

And with that statement, Ruth Rosen was trying to identify points of intersection and common interests that could harmonize both agendas, so that feminists would stop seeing the lesbian rights movement as that weird cousin everyone is embarrassed to speak about. She meant to prove that the sexual independence (from men) which lesbianism achieves, could achieve or (at least) positively influence the social independence (from men) which feminism advocates. It’s a subjective statement and may not deliver on its promises; but that, in any case, was her thought on the matter.

Bbbbbbbbbbbb:
That's nice. I wish I could write like that, I get tired after scribbling like 4 sentences. Have a good day

Lol . You too, sweetie.