If you don't mind me asking... Why isn't this tribe called "Poly-bi Women?" Aren't any of you all feminists?
Anyway, I'm new and you can call me formless. I am a polyamorous omnisexual male. If you wonder about the "omni" it means I don't think in terms of gender and especially not in terms of only 2 genders but rather find that I base my attraction mostly on peoples' characteristics.
I am from the coastal side of the Santa Ana Mountains in California and I am an animist. (Please do check out the Bio-regional Animism tribe. tribes.tribe.net/bioregionalanimism )
Love to all!
Anyway, I'm new and you can call me formless. I am a polyamorous omnisexual male. If you wonder about the "omni" it means I don't think in terms of gender and especially not in terms of only 2 genders but rather find that I base my attraction mostly on peoples' characteristics.
I am from the coastal side of the Santa Ana Mountains in California and I am an animist. (Please do check out the Bio-regional Animism tribe. tribes.tribe.net/bioregionalanimism )
Love to all!
-
Re: girls?
Thu, October 4, 2007 - 11:06 PMI am a feminist. I don't mind calling myself a girl, especially when I'm feeling playful. I'm pretty much a big kid at heart.
I'm definitely a woman too.
-
Re: girls?
Fri, October 5, 2007 - 12:31 AMI'm a feminist.
I call myself a girl, especially when I'm feeling playful. Which is frequently.
I call myself a woman too. I'm far less hung up on the words themselves than the spirit in which they are offered. -
-
Re: girls?
Sat, October 6, 2007 - 1:19 AMHa! Didn't mean to reply twice. They weren't showing up at first. Oops :-)
-
-
Re: girls?
Sat, October 6, 2007 - 11:48 AMMy academic advisor (an older guy) has the same problem with me calling myself a 'girl'. Since I also call men 'boys' if we're friendly, I don't see the problem. 'Girl' is playful, not demeaning, as far as I am concerned.
-
Re: girls?
Sat, October 6, 2007 - 11:37 PM>Aren't any of you all feminists?
I'm not. I'm more of a, ah, "humanist", and think the world would be a much better place if people would just relate as PEOPLE and stop whining so much and shut the fuck up about gender roles/identities/expectations/assumptions.
But that's just me.
Welcome to the Tribe. -
-
Re: girls?
Sun, October 7, 2007 - 12:11 AMI never know what that means, when folks say people should "just relate as PEOPLE." How could I possibly relate, as a person, to others without acknowledging both similarities *and* the differences in our experiences? It seems disingenous to ignore the cultural (gender or otherwise) factors that play a role in shaping us. And the social scientist in me finds these conversations fascinating on an analytical level as well.
But damn, I'm pretty sure nobody's accused me of being whiny since my mom wouldn't let me have my 6th birthday party at McDonalds ;-) -
-
Re: girls?
Sat, October 27, 2007 - 10:37 PMhumanism is my trip too, and words get so charged, i honestly feel sometimes rigid word boundaries handcuff us and take some subtlety out of the language.
-
-
Re: girls?
Mon, October 8, 2007 - 12:51 AMTo be a feminist IS to be a humanist. You cannot believe in the equality of all humans without being a feminist. It is the manipulation of mass media et. al. that has changed the interpretation of feminism from equality to superiority.
Feminism is simply acknowledging an imbalance and attempting to remedy that imbalance. It has nothing to do with dominance of one over the other. Anyone who believes that feminism is about the "superiority" of women needs to do some more self-educating.
-
-
Re: girls?
Mon, December 24, 2007 - 12:27 PMI count myself more a feminist than a humanist as well. The term "Humanist" white washes over the fact that there is still so much gender inequity in our culture. And while I think the binary of gender itself is becoming increasingly questioned, having grown up a riot grrrl, I like the revolutionary ooomph that the term "feminist" still carries. -
-
Re: girls?
Sat, January 5, 2008 - 7:45 PMI agree, there was a time when I didn't call myself a feminist, but having done some of my homework, and having done my time in a battered women's shelter, I do call myself a feminist now. There is a major link between the early roots of feminism and the fight to end slavery, as well as the whole sufferette movement! Do we realize that black men had the right to vote before white women did,or really any women!!! Think about that in terms of the current election and it turns on whole new light bulb here! And think about all that when you shirk the mantle of Feminism, you also shirk the name of great women like Harriet Tubman and Eleanor Roosevelt. -
-
Re: girls?
Mon, January 7, 2008 - 2:36 PMI love to take my internets and leave.
haha.
-
-
-
-
-
Re: girls?
Mon, October 8, 2007 - 5:43 AMallo!
croft here.
i LOVE that you responded in the spirit of concern and curiosity.
I'm sure the answer to your questions is a mixed bag of "yes, no, maybe, who knows" ...as usual, it depends how you define feminist, and how you associate and identify yourself with that movement.
and without descending in the theory or long-winded prozambulations, I'll only say I don't care either way, really...if its a tribe website, its cool, but if it was my collage professor...i'd be like "bitch, call me a WOMAN!" just kidding but u get my point.
Bio-regional Animism looks awesome. Best of luck to you in ALL things!
love
croft -
-
Re: girls?
Wed, October 10, 2007 - 7:21 AMThanks for all your responses. I'm glad that you all have your own opinions on the subject. I think it is mostly about context. I just wasn't sure how I was supposed to understand the name of the tribe. Now I know. Playfully. :)
-
-
Re: feminists
Thu, October 11, 2007 - 12:20 AMI grew up on a story that my grandfather told. Years and years ago when he was a young doctor in Chicago he was putting in ridiculous hours working at the hospital. He took the train home at the end of one of these very long shifts and was tired and weary with feet that were throbbing. When he got on the train it was nearly empty but filled more and more at each stop until there were no seats left. As women boarded the gentlemen courtesly relinquished thier seats as he often did, but on this particular day he was too exhausted to stand. Shortly a woman boarded and stood in the isle nest to him casting peculiar glances in his direction. She soon said to him, "Aren't you going to offer me your seat?" He pondered for a brief moment with his feet throbbing and said:
"Well, that depends. Are you one of these modern women who support this women's liberation movement where everybody says that men and women should be treated equally?"
The woman gasped slightly and replied back "Well of coarse I support the women's movement. Women have a right to be self sufficient and hold the same degrees and earn the same wages and work. What's wrong with that! And what does it matter if I support it or not?"
My grandfather smiled synically and stated "Well then, its every man for himself. I think I'll keep my seat."
I cant attest as to weather or not I am a feminist, but every time I hear the word I think of that story from my childhood that we all loved so much because my grandfater has such a wonderful way about telling stories and told it as if he had won one over on that woman that wanted his cherished seat.
I like to be a girl sometimes, and other times I really want people to respect me as a woman. I still like doors opened for me and am flattered when someone offers me a seat on a train though I do not expect either. On the other hand, in the workplace I am competitive and dont want to be discriminated against. Guess it is all about what context for me. I have many friends that are cross gendered and can appreciate them as well as I do any of my girl or boy or woman or man friends. -
-
Re: feminists
Fri, October 12, 2007 - 8:45 AM<<I still like doors opened for me and am flattered when someone offers me a seat on a train though I do not expect either.>>
Not to hijack the thread into a discussion of women's lib or anything, but.....
I think the above is a good point. So many people take things to the extreme, and then it becomes annoying and strident. Yeah, I agree, it's nice and polite to offer someone a seat, or open a door for someone. I'm female, and I'll do both. If someone's behind me, I'll open the door for them. If someone is much older than me, or looks exhausted, I'll offer them my seat on the bus/transit. (Side note though: I'd never offer a pregnant woman or a woman with a child my seat! Breeding is a *choice*, and one I don't support).
Politeness is nice. It makes people happy. It makes everyone feel good, it creates positive feelings.
Expectations, however, suck.
Being strident sucks.
(I've often said- If someone is being obnoxious and annoying in trying to push their views on me, I won't agree with or support them. I don't care what the issue is. For example- in downtown SF the security guard union is striking. Yeah, good for them, march around with signs. But recently, they blocked an entire intersection and tied up traffic and had drums and bullhorns and were shouting... at that point, I was like... fuck you people, I hope they fire you all!) -
-
Re: feminists
Fri, October 12, 2007 - 8:49 AM((breeding is *choice* and one i don't support. ))
wow. i never looked at it that way.
i think i'm with you!!!!
-
Re: feminists
Sat, October 27, 2007 - 10:45 PMwow yes breeding is a choice, but i personally support it, at the continued benefit of humankind eh? if nothing else. i happen to like a lot of humans i'm glad their parents mated. and i would always always always offer whatever i could to a pregnant. for a human with child is carrying an extra burden, for which i feel communally we may owe some small debt to someday. -
-
Re: feminists
Sun, October 28, 2007 - 9:57 AMContinued benefit of humankind? How so? The planet is woefully overpopulated as it is. I can't see how breeding more people could possibly ever be a benefit. -
-
Re: feminists
Sun, October 28, 2007 - 11:55 AMi find that opinion general and unsupported. not being able to see how breeding more people could possibly ever be a benefit completely discounts the worth of the individual, the ability to affect change by producing more sensitive, intelligent, and proactive progeny. i am myself a zpger. your extreme position seems to put you in a class i'll call zpr'er (zero population replacer) most likely based on outdated malthusian population models. where malthus missed the mark was in completely underestimating the ability of technology to improve food productivity. the assumption persists in some quarters that there is hunger because there is not enough food, that's not accurate as many know, there is simply not even distribution of such (both in production and consumption) while it would certainly be wonderful to plateau our population development, i theorize that with the right technologies (i.e. cheap renewable energy sources) and more equal access to such a much higher population level could easily be fed and housed. -
-
Re: feminists
Sun, October 28, 2007 - 6:00 PMSure, with better technology, more people can be fed and housed... With genetic engineering of crops to increase yields and artificially stimulate soil that is overworked... And sure, we can warehouse an ever-increasing number of people in vertical mixed-use developments.
And heck, why not just throw our borders wide open so that more people can come suck off our government welfare? Apparently the "if you can't feed them, don't breed them" wisdom is so... Outdated.
Good times. Party at my bunker!! -
-
Re: feminists
Sun, October 28, 2007 - 6:51 PMyou're generalizing based on worst common scenarios of technology. assuming the worst at each turn. i don't understand the counter-cultural fear of technology. granted technology has developed a bit faster than our ethics in dealing with them, but i feel long term a balance will be struck. and the technologies i envision (which are all possible i assure you) land will be returned more and more to it's natural state and housing does not have to be as you describe. if you have been around the world and across america there are still expansive very very sparsely large bits of land. you seem alarmist and extreme.
and for the record, illegal immigrants are not eligible for welfare. and unless you speak navajo or cherokee i think a claim to control borders is on thin moral ground by my values.
and you seem to have missed the point about the "if you can't feed them, don't breed them" we could feed every mouth in the world right now if the production was more locally distributed (which cheap renewable energy). or energy was cheap enough to power shipping to all over the world from where it is currently made. -
-
Re: feminists
Sun, October 28, 2007 - 7:03 PMand further: a broad base of researchers agree that 50-60 per cent of illegal aliens are employed with false social security numbers paying into a system they will never receive benefits from. that puts the government in an odd position of benefitting by the acts of a criminal enterprise. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: feminists
Sun, October 28, 2007 - 8:01 PMHa... I'm wondering what the odds are that any of us will receive our social security benefits? As far as I'm concerned, if you are working illegally then yeah, you don't deserve the benefits. Isn't it enough to come here illegally and make much more money than you could at home, so you can send the money back to your 15 children?
-
-
Re: feminists
Sun, October 28, 2007 - 8:08 PMI am indeed extreme in my anti-breeding viewpoint. Look around! Society is going to hell in a handbasket. I really don't have any faith in society's ability to pull itself out of the black pit of stupidity that most of it has fallen into. That's nice that you are so hopeful about the fate of humanity. Sure, I hope you're right and I don't disagree that it's a nice shiny thing to think about. But I don't operate under any sort of belief that it might be probable. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: feminists
Sun, October 28, 2007 - 8:35 PMsuch gloom and doom, "society is going to hell in a handbasket" do you realize violent crimes per capita have gone down every year since 1945 but two? you live in the information age and you hear about so much about the ills of society,when socially we are in fact more civil and in less distress than times i remember, and many much older than me. what really is going to hell in a handbasket is the global divide between the haves and the have nots. this problem is fostered by petty protectionism such as the brand you ascribe to. the notion that the conquerers of this land the always honest and upstanding european colonizers have some intrinsic right to much more access to income than our neighbors i find frankly quite disgusting and absurdly shortsighted. and i think any program a person pays into they have a right to benefit from it. considering the polarity of the viewpoints and the consistent failure to address specificity of issues, i honestly and respectfully should mention that i see no further point in discussing past any third party responses and commentary.
namaste -
-
Re: feminists
Sun, October 28, 2007 - 10:25 PMI love how you call me disgusting and shortsighted because I don't agree with you... But then end up with a " namaste"!! Too funny. But somehow... So appropriate. *snort* -
-
Re: feminists
Mon, October 29, 2007 - 4:37 AMrespectfully m'aam you have it backwards, i disagree with you because i find your jingoistic narrow minded values to be disgusting. -
-
Re: feminists
Mon, October 29, 2007 - 8:28 AMRight. But somehow, you feel compelled to go all "namaste" on me anyway? Cop-out, or just generic peacemaking hippiespeak with unintentional irony? -
-
Re: feminists
Mon, October 29, 2007 - 9:51 AMthanks for putting an inexorably negative spin on my honest sincere gesture. at the meaining i intended it means "i salute the god(dess) within you. perhaps subtly trying to withdraw from the automatic dialecticism that so pervades our dialogue landscape and imply that there is ground to agree to disagree. -
-
Re: feminists
Mon, October 29, 2007 - 10:08 AMThere is a much better ground to agree to disagree if you don't engage in name-calling. You can't just say whatever you'd like and then think it somehow makes it all better to say 'namaste' at the end of it....
Throughout this dialogue you have been shooting me down and completely disregarding my opinions. I at least agreed that your pie-in-the-sky viewpoint is a nice one, and one that I hope eventually happens, rather than the more realistic viewpoint that I bring to the table.
There is no "goddess" within me. We are all humans, and as such are just wallowing here in the pigpen of modern humanity.
Oink.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: feminists
Mon, November 19, 2007 - 10:56 AM<<If someone is much older than me, or looks exhausted, I'll offer them my seat on the bus/transit. (Side note though: I'd never offer a pregnant woman or a woman with a child my seat! Breeding is a *choice*, and one I don't support).
Breeding IS a choice, so is deciding to continue living and using up resources, or whatrever those exhausted people did that day to make them so exhausted is also a CHOICE, ...your breeding choices and opinions are great for yourself, but if it's the overpopulation that you are concerned about then why not volunteer to give up your place here taking up space and resources on the planet? Not offering an extremely pregnant woman a seat because of your own views on child-baring seems extreme and ridiculous. I am not a mother, but I DO appreciate all of the hardships YOUR mother and MY mother went through to bring us into this world, and the mothers of the many amazing people that are working so hard to help heal this planet... what if no one supported their mothers? *that's* the problem. Children raised with troubled lives with no family community or support is what is dangerous for the future. It is ALL of our duty if we are truly concerned about the wellbeing of the planet, to teach and guide the youth so that they too can be part of the solution, not resent them for being born!
Tamara -
-
Re: feminists
Mon, November 19, 2007 - 11:18 AM>why not volunteer to give up your place here taking up space and resources on the planet?
Are you suggesting that I kill myself to give more babies room?
OMG SOME STRANGER ON THE INTERNETS WANTS ME TO KILL MYSELF. I"M GONNA GO HANG MYSELF IN MY BEDROOM RIGHT NOW TO SAVE THE PLANET.
<gigglesnort>
That's one of my favourite bingos. Right up there with "but who will take care of you when you're old?" and "you must be a mean and bitter person if you don't like children". Thanks, I'll mark it off my breeder bingo card! -
-
Re: feminists
Mon, November 19, 2007 - 4:45 PM*obvious extreem sarcasm*
Not to give more babies room, but to help save the planet from the humans' overpopulation!
Not instructions for suicide, merely pointing out the similarity to the 'no one should ever have babies or they're evil' theory. -
-
Re: feminists
Mon, November 19, 2007 - 5:14 PMThere's a big difference in "not creating more life" and "extinguishing life that's already here" argument, and I hope you're really not naive enough to believe the two are similar.
And I never said people who have babies are evil, thank you. I said it's a choice, and one I don't agree with. -
-
Re: feminists
Tue, November 20, 2007 - 9:39 AMActually, my response was with more regard to your statement that you'd choose to ignore and disregard pregnant mothers and small children because you resent them for reproducing (mothers) and for being born (small children), which are also 'already here,' so at that point if you really feel strongly about your beliefs why not try to directly communicate and help teach them how to be better participants and members of humanity? Ignoring them wont make them go away. -
-
Re: feminists
Tue, November 20, 2007 - 10:03 AM>why not try to directly communicate and help teach them how to be better participants and members of humanity?
Oh, please. And how would you suggest I go about that, even if I was interested (which I am not)?
Frankly, ignoring them works fine for me. I've created a childfree reality for myself in which I don't need to have any contact with small children or pregnant mothers, without any effort on my part besides living in an awesome area and having non-breederfocused friends.
I think you're really blowing this out of proportion here. I don't get the correlation between me not giving up my seat on a bus to a woman-with-spawn, and suddenly needing to save humanity from its breederbeliefs? -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: feminists
Tue, November 20, 2007 - 4:45 PM -
-
Re: feminists
Tue, November 20, 2007 - 5:01 PMAlready a member!
Awesome organization.
-
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
-
-
Re: feminists
Wed, November 28, 2007 - 11:47 AMYou go right on ahead. I'm blissfully happy with my life and my choices. Are you happy? -
-
Re: feminists
Wed, November 28, 2007 - 3:45 PMAbsolutely! Thank you for proving the point about ignorance! You've made my whole day! I find it tough to imagine what it must be like to go through life with such a narrow minded and dour outlook. How sad. What a paradox youpresent. Congrats!
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-