WORDWORLD:


Of course Lesbianism is not a feminist agenda and not all feminist are lesbians as long as this is not based on being A POLITICAL STATEMENT it is true. (It is one thing to read a book, it is another thing to be able to comprehend the message it is passing. This art of comprehension is lacking in most of us because our education teaches us mainly how to read and write and not how to THINK and most especially HOLISTICALLY) I hope you get it! Or can you tell me that there are no MALES who call themselves FEMINIST due to where they stand politically on the issue? Now, tell us! What have you been able to come up with about the homophile organisation THE DAUGHTERS OF BILITIS?

Thank you very much for this, sir. It takes character to retract a statement. I understand that your pride needs to cushion itself on some of the unnecessary words you have typed after the highlighted . But still, thank you; for saying what needed to be said.


I don't know anything about the Daughters of Biltis. But it looks like something worth knowing something about, so I'll look it up. Thanks for the pointer.

MissWrite:



Thank you very much for this, sir. It takes character to retract a statement. I understand that your pride needs to cushion itself on some of the unnecessary words you have typed after the highlighted . But still, thank you; for saying what needed to be said.


I don't know anything about the Daughters of Biltis. But it looks like something worth knowing something about, so I'll look it up. Thanks for the pointer.

lmao

Proudgorgeousga:


lmao

My dear when will you stop hiding behind another lady's intelligence. Have you nothing to offer? lol. Did you read what donstan wrote about people of your mindset. The hightlighted is nothing but a distracttion from the topic and such distraction is what amazes you because you dont have anything to offer.

WORDWORLD:
proudgorgeousga read the comment below. Does it reflect your kind?! Why do most of you hide behind another lady's, (misswrite knownledge about feminism) and be forming FEMINIST? You have not thrown any light to the subject..Hehehe LETS HEAR FROM YOU TOO. Abi you no wan dash us from your sense?

you don't have sense. so no need to waste my time. also you write dumb senseless long epistles.

thank God you have finally admitted you were wrong. feminism is not a lesbian agenda neither is lesbianism the focus of the feminist movement.

MissWrite:



Thank you very much for this, sir. It takes character to retract a statement. I understand that your pride needs to cushion itself on some of the unnecessary words you have typed after the highlighted . But still, thank you; for saying what needed to be said.


I don't know anything about the Daughters of Biltis. But it looks like something worth knowing something about, so I'll look it up. Thanks for the pointer.

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!

Proudgorgeousga:


you don't have sense. so no need to waste my time. also you write dumb senseless long epistles.

thank God you have finally admitted you were wrong. feminism is not a lesbian agenda neither is lesbianism the focus of the feminist movement.

Your lack of comprehension did not still make you understand misswrite's post. How is that a retract? Kindly read what is above you.

MissWrite:



Thank you very much for this, sir. It takes character to retract a statement. I understand that your pride needs to cushion itself on some of the unnecessary words you have typed after the highlighted . But still, thank you; for saying what needed to be said.


I don't know anything about the Daughters of Biltis. But it looks like something worth knowing something about, so I'll look it up. Thanks for the pointer.

MissWrite are you a writer or linguist by profession? Your write-ups are always coherent and on point. Please what do you do? Questions from a curious mind

Bbbbbbbbbbbb:


Miss.Write are you a writer or linguist by profession? Your write-ups are always coherent and on point. Please what do you do? Questions from a curious mind

Thank you, dear. Writing is a hobby for me. I'm not a linguist, lol.

Miss intelligent feminist why are you avoiding my threads? because I saw you viewing and you refused to comment, you ran away... it seems you're only intelligent on this thread..... the feminism you're practicing is backwards, I'm not surprised though everything about Africa is usually backwards... when civilized countries are practicing it to the north, Africans would practice it to the south

how many times have you seen Beyonce, Oprah Winfrey and other influential feminists coming out to shame, insult anti feminists ladies of being sex starved, single and suffering from Stockholm syndrome?? dumb head claiming feminist

Wordworld

nwannem I respect you

I think you are right

I just read about the daughter of blitis and I suspect it was a big part of feminism from the beginning


I salute you for this revelation

MissWrite:


Thank you, dear. Writing is a hobby for me. I'm not a linguist, lol.

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

"Nature is always RATIONAL. Every answer you pry from nature is severely logical. When the wind turns into a tornado it does so NOT BY IRRATIONAL MADNESS, but by a mathematically precise process. It seems paradoxical that, that which has NO MIND should be unfailingly rational. The slang expression "MENTAL" for the INSANE points to the fact that IRRATIONALITY has its source in the mind; THAT IT IS A REACTION AGAINST THE INTELLECT." (Eric Hoffer, Reflections On The Human Conditions)

You can imagine how people come here to argue based on IGNORANCE. This platform will be more productive if it is incline towards the will to learn and discover, a mutual understanding that will make us grow in intellect and wisdom, making us to see the world with precision. I am calmly waiting for misswrite to come here and say otherwise. A judgement of who truely is suffering from pride.     

greiboy:
Wordworld

nwannem I respect you

I think you are right

I just read about the daughter of blitis and I suspect it is was a big part of feminism from the beginning  

I salute you for this revelation  

Thanks for the compliment. I believe you know that i have always have great respect for people whose gift of Intellectual prowess is aimed mainly at EXPOSING THE TRUTH. And indeed of this mindset you belong! Salute to you to. My salutation to you is based on the TRUTH you have confirmed and not merely as it is done here which people unnecessary support each other even when they are wrong as if they belong to a cult . Do have a splendid day as I wait calmly to see if misswrite will say otherwise and not retract her insinuations.
IT IS INFACT SIMPLE COMMON SENSE THAT EVEN IF NOT A POLITICAL STATEMENT LESBIANISM IS A PROVE OF EXCLUSIVE FEMINISM BY SEXUALITY. I will be off for now until hopeful later in the night.

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.

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.

RuthDaniels:
Typical reaction of a shallow,feeble and twisted minded being :"Build an illusion when reality hurts". I asked simple questions (who are you? and what do you stand for ) our rich and experienced married wife chose to ignore,obviously those questions are mount everest to her.

Not that i expected more from a woman who thinks being a feminist forbids you from praising or referencing a man.And to think She is married makes one wonder if she did for love,money or just to shut society up. Why would you marry a gender you dislike? Ma, you are confused.


Amarabae,Marriage isn't the sole purpose of existence .The purpose of living is to make an impact in Life,To write your name in the sand of time, engraving in the hearts of people.To put a smile on the face of another .Marriage is just an accomplishment not a purpose to live for. Get that into your close to empty cranium!

I hope to see you on Tv, newspaper,social media networks fighting for equality and human rights. I hope to see you help a raped lady file a law suit against the rapist.To see you stand against any form of domestic violence no matter who the offender is, I hope to see rich Amara donate to orphanages,Feed the hungry, create/sponsor women empowering programmes etc. Until i see these things, You remain a Nairaland feminist joke!

Wow!
Just wow
Why so furious, it's Nairaland, remember?

By the way, I noticed your cutting of the elm. It's very sad .

blackjack21:


Wow!
Just wow
Why so furious, it's Nairaland, remember?

By the way, I noticed your cutting of the elm. It's very sad .

Lol, yes its just nairaland,but it shouldn't be InsanityLand either!



Sorry about that.... been busy. I will get to you.

RuthDaniels:
Lol, yes its just nairaland,but it shouldn't be InsanityLand either!



Sorry about that.... been busy. I will get to you.

You're doing a great job sanitizing the mind of people here, but some people prefer it in wonderland. That's why Walt Disney had it so great.

You don't have to apologize, Ruth, I understand. I guess I probably shouldn't bug you anymore.
Cheers

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

MissWrite:

It’s a subjective statement.

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.

WORDWORLD:


Of course Lesbianism is not a feminist agenda and not all feminist are lesbians as long as this is not based on being A POLITICAL STATEMENT it is true. 

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.

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) DEPEND 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 to 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 she had written such claims. Wikipidea made references to the books that captured such details below their article. For the fact that I haven't been privileged to read where she 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 my 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.

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.

MissWrite:

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).

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? . 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 they were lesbians as well as feminist). 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 subjective if we must base our arguement on the root of the word? So that as to Del Martins claim, " the Daughters of Bilitis was a feminist organisation from the beginning" is as well subjective since the word feminism is subjective. For in TRUTH what qualifies a feminist is not solely by being a female alone. Misswrite are there no males who are as well feminist? Are they any less feminist if there fight is against the oppression of women by men all because of their gender? GOODMORNING. What does it really mean A FEMINIST?

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.

MissWrite:


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



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.

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

MissWrite:

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).

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.

Please o!! Not all feminst r lesbians!! I dont subcribe to such ideology!! I think this thread has lasted enough

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.

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.

yes it is!! Whether they admit it or not!!! Ladies who say i can fight for women's right n not be a feminist r plainly decieving themselves!! Please naw e do!!!

People are having intellectual discussions, yet one lady who doesn't understand the meaning of independent women decided to join in

Wonders shall never end

Shugavee:
yes it is!! Whether they admit it or not!!! Ladies who say i can fight for women's right n not be a feminist r plainly decieving themselves!! Please naw e do!!!

The question is to misswrite and for a reason.

WORDWORLD:

The question is to misswrite and for a reason.

i answered it anyways!

MissWrite:





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.

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

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.