BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

Ladies and Gents: How Ya Gonna Act?

  
  

Page: 1(2)34

 
 
bitchiekittie
13:38 / 27.03.02
and Id think that in order to "join the conversation" youd want to come up with some examples or proof before throwing out empty and rather vicious accusations of a persons character
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
13:41 / 27.03.02
For clarification purposes: BK - 'Jessica Rabbit' was a fictionsuit who posted lo-ong before my time, who did in fact indulge in very 'feminine' sexualised behaviour on the board (as far as I can tell from what others have said - as I said, I wasn't around, so I don't know exactly what said suit posted). Ancient board history which we could easily leave behind...

I think a male poster who talked about sex a lot would probably get laughed at, or asked if someone could put their penis in his ear.

I thought fridgemagnet made an interesting point when s/he talked about separating behaviours from roles. F'rexample, in this thread we seem to be talking about 'taking care of one's appearance' as if it is a feminine trait, whereas a look at the male 'types' or 'roles' of the rakehell, the macaroni, the dandy, the aesthete, should indicate that it is common to both sexes and is by no means locked into the female performative role. I can't think of anyone I know who doesn't care about their appearance, of any gender.
 
 
w1rebaby
14:12 / 27.03.02
I'm wondering whether the point I made wasn't too general, though. I mean, it should be the goal of any system to avoid treating people as roles, and assuming their individual behaviours must be indicative of following a role. That's just "treating people as individuals and not stereotyping".

I wonder if that means I'm saying that some feminists stereotype femme women... probably yes, it does. Not a very revolutionary claim.
 
 
Ierne
14:19 / 27.03.02
in saying hes "with ierne on this", I felt it was quite safe to assume he was agreeing with her statements. again, Im not sure how this could possibly be incorrect – bk

You are incorrect because you assume that when Flux says he agrees with me that he and I have negative opinions concerning yourself and kali. Which is not the case. Also, nowhere in Flux's post was the idea of "she asked for it" mentioned, which is why I asked you to clarify.

While you may be correct in regards to not being in a situation on Barbelith where you have behaved in a sexual manner to win an argument (I repeat, neither Flux nor I ever accused you of that), You consistently argue with your emotions instead of your intellect. You are doing it right here in this very thread, and you've done it with Haus and Ganesh in past Headshop and Switchboard threads. You get so heated on a given subject that you don't listen to what people are actually saying.

I don't know if this is a "stereoptypically feminine" way of dealing with disagreements. But I don't appreciate you flying off the handle with me because you haven't taken the time to read what I've written.
 
 
Ierne
14:24 / 27.03.02
I wanted to clarify one of my sentences above:

You are incorrect because you assume that when Flux says he agrees with me, this automatically means that he and I have negative opinions concerning yourself and kali. Which is not the case.
 
 
bitchiekittie
14:45 / 27.03.02
Im sorry but referring to me as "jessica rabbit" can hardly be seen as anything other than an insult, as well as grouping me in with someone who avoids an argument by batting her eyelashes suggestively. I had no idea that there was ever a suit by that name. and I think it was fairly safe and reasonable for me to assume that the intention was to compare me to the cartoon character as no such clarification was offered

the comment about someone using sexual innuendo or behavior to get out of an argument I never attributed to *you personally* aiming at me - I said that Ive never seen anyone behave that way. and I havent.

I also never suggested that you personally referred to me as "jessica rabbit", only that flux did - its a direct quote. and Im insulted to the degree that yes, Ive gotten rather angry and emotional about it. however, I dont see where my emotions have negated my points in any way.

I believe Ive been sufficiently articulate, and I havent stooped to any name calling or such low behavior. Im not sure how Ive in any way allowed my emotions to get in the way of conversation
 
 
Spatula Clarke
15:20 / 27.03.02
Once again, this is an argument which would probably be better off taken to another thread or, better still, private communication.
 
 
bitchiekittie
16:11 / 27.03.02
and why is that? I feel that the accusations and their source (whether real or not) fit perfectly into cherrys original question. Im perceieved in a specific way because Im a heterosexual female, and my behaviors often challenge my perceieved role. my name would have never got into here, regardless of my actions, were I a man. can you deny that? go on, Id love the chance to defy that notion
 
 
bitchiekittie
16:12 / 27.03.02
damn my spelling sucks
 
 
Ierne
16:32 / 27.03.02
Once again, this is an argument which would probably be better off taken to another thread or, better still, private communication. – E. Randy Dupre

I'm not arguing with anyone here – if bk wants to take issue with what Flux said it's between the two of them and nowt to do with me.

However, I agree that it would be nice to stop discussing specific posters and deal with the issues that have been brought up by Cherry, bk, and applepicker regarding posters who choose to adhere to stereotypical gender behavior, whether or not they are treated differently on barbelith, and if so, is this fair and how should the situation be modified.

I guess when Cherry gets home she'll clarify why she feels her posting style gets treated differently. I still don't see any discrimination on gender lines, but then I haven't really looked for it. It would be interesting to hear from some of the gender theory experts on the matter.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
18:10 / 27.03.02
Yes, the accusations definitely fit into the scope set out by Cherry’s original post and it’d be useful if Flux could explain exactly why he’s identified specific posters. What is it that marks them out as having a more feminine posting style than others? I just can’t help but feel that you’re being overly defensive here, with the risk that the thread’s going to get turned into a personal argument. Which most certainly isn’t what it was intended to be.

Anyway.

A brief history of the Jessica Rabbit episode, because it is of some relevance. JR's posting style was overtly flirtatious, playing the ‘cartoon seductress’, femme fatale role pretty effectively. Each and every post ended with a *smooch*. The situation became fairly pathetic when a couple of male Barb members saw the photo in her profile and began to let out a constant stream of ‘phwoar’s (“Wow. Is that you in the photo?” “When I see an attractive girl I like to compliment her on her looks” etc).

It’s probably true to say that if her posting style had been different, no comment about her physical appearance would have been forthcoming. Eventually, of course, she was revealed as the fiction suit of one of the regular male posters.

I don’t think anyone else who’s ever posted here is really comparable to JR. She was designed as an extreme in order to gain a specific response.

What are the valid ways of performing your gender?

That final question suggests that there are invalid ways to act, as if by acting a certain way you're somehow "letting the side down."

Have we come to any effective definition of 'masculine' or 'feminine' behaviour within this thread yet?
 
 
bitchiekittie
18:27 / 27.03.02
"I just can’t help but feel that you’re being overly defensive here, with the risk that the thread’s going to get turned into a personal argument"

kinda hard not to take things personally when something very definitively insulting has your name attached to it. Im not an unemotional robot, its true - however, I hold no personal grudge against either ierne or flux; I rather like them both, regardless of how vehemently I may argue with them here

"Have we come to any effective definition of 'masculine' or 'feminine' behaviour within this thread yet?"

nope. but I think there are very definite stereotypes. what Im wondering is which have we overcome, and which are so embedded in us (and society to such a degree that it would overcome our better judgement and personal feelings) that we allow it to continue
 
 
Persephone
19:01 / 27.03.02
Lately I've been thinking about "masculine" and "feminine" in the way that [monkeys] was talking about "white"... as notions, they exist and they don't exist. So I'd be pretty shy about a project to define either of these, insofar as these definitions would continue to be hooked into sex or gender at all... and at the same time perceiving bk to be "more girly" than me, and for that matter Ierne as "less girly" than me --both non-pejoratively, by the way. But ideally, I would like to get rid of that word girly & its association with sex and gender.... I've been working with the I-Ching lately, and because I don't speak Chinese & if I concentrate I can visualize "yin" and "yang" as representing a set of qualities independent of maleness or femaleness. But this is my own trick really... because of course those words have their own meanings and associations in Chinese, which I don't know. But so let's say we make up words: say, "glurb" and "blurb" ...now, what can we make those mean? And then does it make sense that "glurb" encompasses one set of characteristics and "blurb" the other set? Can you even talk sensibly about one set and the other set?

Plus bk brings up a good point about sexuality... if sexuality is part of your presentation, then is your intelligence automatically undermined? And I am talking about sexuality talking for itself --perhaps about sex and having sex, as some people do, upfront-- and not about, say, intelligence being sexy to some people.
 
 
alas
20:02 / 27.03.02
[following on to persephone] and is that sexuality asymmetric in its implications for people who manifest what most Anglo Americans would probably recognize as "feminised" or "effeminite" sexuality?

What do I think those terms mean? The commercialized image of woman that still dominates the media: I'm not a Jean Kilbourne fan, because her analysis slides to easily into either/or logic, but she's on target when she notes that the dominant media image of "woman" is innocent, but available, "soft" but not too passive. accommodating to opinions/ space/ desires claimed by/for heterosexual/dominant males.
I think those images/ideas are still at work, pretty strongly in fact, in commercial culture and they contribute to the always already ongoing normalization work for heterosexuality.

[and an aside: I think bk does deserve an apology. IMHO, she's smart and tough and has a distinctly non-JR approach to posting . . . the highly feminized stereotype is not nearly so hard-edged, complex, and interesting as BK is, and felt unfair to me, for whatever my opinion is worth.]
 
 
w1rebaby
20:52 / 27.03.02
she's on target when she notes that the dominant media image of "woman" is innocent, but available, "soft" but not too passive. accommodating to opinions/ space/ desires claimed by/for heterosexual/dominant males

I think this has more to do with status as a commodity than anything else, and is visible in nascent form in commodified media males.

Perhaps in the future we'll be defined by consumer/commodity rather than male/female...
 
 
Lurid Archive
00:09 / 28.03.02
So much to say on such a topic...

I definitely feel that a discussion of gender stereotypes that concentrates solely on women is half blind. Perhaps that is a personal issue as much as anything else.

I have noticed a certain sensitivity/aggression to sexually manipulative women and this is often confused with "girlyness". Problems arise because we all instinctively understand the corrupt gender roles that we have available and it is difficult to view ourselves and others without this distorting filter.

Ultimately, being girly is an affectation just as any personality trait is. We view it through the "insight" of the sexual bartering that is characteristic of traditional gender relations. However, by taking this point of view, we run the risk of prescribing behaviour in exactly the way we claim to deplore. This is obvious to all here, I just wanted to highlight the unconscious assumptions and value judgements that form our cultural backdrop.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
00:35 / 28.03.02
Ierne is correct. Neither her nor I were making any value judgements about any posters.

Now, let's try a bit of reading comprehension, shall we? If you go back to my original post in this thread, you will notice that 'girly girl' and 'Jessica Rabbit' are both in QUOTATIONS. Why is that? It's quite simple - because I was quoting ideas and phrases that were already in this thread before I joined in. Terms that were already entered into this discussion by Cherry Bomb and Ganesh. See, sometimes it really helps to read these posts in the context of the threads that they are in.

My comment was this - I think that in the post which started this thread, Cherry might be overstating her case. I also think that the language that Haus was using in his first post eemed to be a bit broad - by the way he was defining the 'girly-girl' posters, one might think that there was an epidemic of these types of suits on Barbelith. I disagree with this - I offered Bitchiekittie and Kali as the only posters that I am aware whom fit into what Haus was describing, but not in a way meant to implicate that there was anything good or bad about what they have written on Barbelith in the past. It was a statement of fact as I see it... Honestly, it was meant to be more of a defense than an indictment. That's sort of besides the point...

Anyway, to sum up:

Reading the post in context, one may notice that I was citing previous posts and not saying that Bitchiekittie and Kali were in fact Jessica Rabbit. No value judgements about 'girly girls' or the fictional character Jessica Rabbit were intentionally implied.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
00:54 / 28.03.02
One more thing: I think Cherry Bomb would be well within her rights to take me to task for suggesting that her assessment of how different women are treated on Barbelith had more to do with what may be her own insecurities than the reality of the situation as I see it. That is a highly contentious statement. Sorry.

I just find it crazy to think that Cherry might think that people take her less seriously - does ANYONE not take Cherry seriously? I certainly don't think so.

However, taking the ideas she and others have put forth into the context of the real world rather than Barbelith dramatically changes everything and leads to a very interesting discussion already in progress, in spite of some reactionary defensiveness that's been crowding out those ideas in this thread...
 
 
Mazarine
05:20 / 28.03.02
One of the things I've learned on Barbelith is never to presume someone's sex based on posts presented here. Suit names are rarely a solid clue, and maybe I'm just especially thick, but it seems every time I guess at a gender of a poster, I guess wrong, so I've endeavored to just stop guessing all together. I think, ultimately, it's valuable, since ideally that means that the ideas presented aren't being viewed as a man's ideas or a woman's ideas but just ideas.

Of course, this goes back to Cherry's original question of how being particularly masculine or feminine, or giving signals of being particularly masculine or feminine, effects the reception of one's posts. And that I have to think about more.
 
 
Cat Chant
06:32 / 28.03.02
I can't write connectedly at the moment, so here are some paragraphs.

I've started saying things like "I'd rather not spend my so-called leisure time investing labour and money in corporations and ideologies which colonize the female body [working for The Man!]" when people ask me why I don't wear makeup/shave my legs/blow-dry my hair etc. I'm also thinking about using some separatist tactics to de-girlify myself, ie make it clear that myself and my time & energy are [i]not[/i] available to men along the traditional lines in which women make men feel better about themselves.

There is a history, or a strand of history, in which femininity/femme behaviour in women has involved (a) channelling energy, money and time to oppressive institutions and (b) ingratiating oneself with heterosexual/dominant males in order to protect oneself or for (limited) gain ('uncle-tomming') in such a way as to reinforce the notion that "good" women act in this way, to the detriment of all gender outlaws.

There is also, as Cherry points out, a history in which all things outside a boundary which the dominant group wants to police are called "feminine" and trashed on those grounds. And the two histories interact in interesting ways. I should point out here that my desire to 'degirlify myself' in interactions with men is an obvious symptom of the second kind of dynamic - I have labelled "girly" the parts of myself I want to be rid of, or experience as complicit in a particular gendering of power.

Femininity/femme behaviour could work as culturejamming, I guess, if it is turned against the power dynamics it traditionally served, or at least not complicit with them.

Would it be possible to find masculine/butch styles for traditionally feminine/femme values? Butch nurturing (that wasn't patronizing/paternalistic?) And vice versa - femme ambition (that wasn't 'sleeping your way to the top')?

Obviously any attempt to police who is allowed to be femme and in what ways is going to end up reinforcing the boundaries and power dynamics that I (we?) want to get rid of. But also unexaminedly gendered behaviour is going to do that, and in a more insidious way.

I don't think it matters all that much who is "behind" the gendered fictionsuits. Jessica Rabbit flirting with Superman/Clark Kent feeds into the global network of heteroppressive power lines whether or not Jessica Rabbit turns out to be Tom Hanks and Superman turns out to be Jordan.
 
 
sleazenation
07:01 / 28.03.02
deva, of course the next question is what are the ways of a 'self-examined/self-aware' (i'm not sure what it should be called) that do not lead to a land of privilidge for an intellectual elite?

i guess i'm asking something along the lines of is a self critical approach to gender largely the domain of an educated elite?
 
 
Cat Chant
07:05 / 28.03.02
sleaze, you got me bang to rights. Shall think about this. Thanks.
 
 
w1rebaby
08:04 / 28.03.02
flux, that was perhaps the least apologetic apology that I have ever read, congratulations
 
 
w1rebaby
08:41 / 28.03.02
Would it be possible to find masculine/butch styles for traditionally feminine/femme values? Butch nurturing (that wasn't patronizing/paternalistic?) And vice versa - femme ambition (that wasn't 'sleeping your way to the top')?

Hmm, interesting idea. Divorcing the butch/femme aspect entirely from the motives, rather than just divorcing motive and style from overall role, which was what I was talking about.

(unless I've read you wrong)

I don't know whether this hasn't already been done, though. Take ambition. Aggressive ambition is often to be an inherently masculine trait. The "feminine" way would be to avoid direct confrontation and use manipulation to get what you want. But the motive is still the same - the pursuit of power - just due to the way society's evolved, different genders have found it more effective to behave in different ways.

Similarly with nurturing. There are plenty of traditional masculine ways to nurture a child, despite what some people might have you think. It is possible to be a good father without deliberately taking on "feminine" modes of behaviour. (I object strongly to the feminisation of nurturing, but I don't want to narrow the topic here...)
 
 
sleazenation
09:01 / 28.03.02
fridgemagnet-

one of the many problems that this topic faces is that while most of us agree there are some traits of behaviour that have been broadly and traditionally identified with specific genders we cannot all come to a consensus on what specifically those traits are...

For example your identification (or your perception of the identification of) non-direct confrontation as being a femme/feminine trait flies in the face of Nicolo Machiavelli and Sun Tzu, two men who espoused the vitues of non-direct confrontation.

One of the many counter arguements to this is that the achievements of these men are celibrated because they were men living in strongly patriarchal society which would have silenced most women from making similar acoumplishments.

This is not an attempt to appear clever, just to show how arguing in such a fashion fails to resolve anything.
 
 
w1rebaby
09:30 / 28.03.02
For example your identification (or your perception of the identification of) non- direct confrontation as being a femme/feminine trait flies in the face of Nicolo Machiavelli and Sun Tzu, two men who espoused the vitues of non-direct confrontation

Machiavelli was condemned for promoting underhand, deceitful "dishonourable" tactics, though. (I'm not sure about the reaction to Sun Tzu... I'm really speaking from a western cultural perspective here.)

I'm not saying that these are intrinsically masculine/feminine traits, clearly men indulge in plenty of politicking, but I am saying that they are culturally perceived as such.
 
 
Cherry Bomb
09:52 / 28.03.02
Oooh, ooh, ooh, we're kind of getting where I wanted to go now!

(Good to be up at 6 in the morning due to jet lag and reading theory!)

Anyway - quickly as an aside - well, Flux *I* try not to take myself too seriously... but really where I see myself going in the line of questioning I was originally getting at is in a "post-modern, post-feminist" world, what validity (if any) do gender roles - attaching oneself to one's gender role - take? This probably would have been a better way to phrase than my original post, which admittedly came out of a personal discussion I had over the weekend. Whether that has anything to do with my own insecurities or not, well heck, I'm open to the idea.

The Jessica Rabbit thing BK is not directed as a personal attack against you. Dupre is right with his description of her, and I believe Lyra brought it up as an abstract concept, because in the end she was so hyperfeminine as to be well, certainly some sort of combination of hyperbole and parody, and definitely a concept that could be discussed in the abstract. (and I still wonder, was Dao Jones REALLY Jessica Rabbit? Amazing.)

Deva you make a very good point about refusing to participate in behaviors that have inherently been part of an oppressive patriarchy. But is it possible to remove such behaviors from the history that they have? I know this is part of what modern feminism says but.. is it possible? And yes, I think we are having a half-argument here when we focus exclusively on women without including men and their gender roles.
 
 
sleazenation
10:14 / 28.03.02
critical opinion of Machiavelli has changed this way and that across the years, from the condemnation of the pope onwards. My point being that 'culturally perception' is an extremely fluid notion and as such point that easy derailment.
 
 
bitchiekittie
10:29 / 28.03.02

Persephone:

"But ideally, I would like to get rid of that word girly & its association with sex and gender...."

which, I think (speaking for myself anyway), is harder to rid yourself of than you might imagine. before I had my daughter I thought of all the ways I could avoid putting any pressure on her in regard to gender and how should behave. everything was easy, til I came to one little, simple thing: I couldnt imagine putting my son in a dress. sounds silly, its true, but I absolutely couldnt overcome this. of course, I was initially not too thrilled about dressing my girl up like a little doll either, but it bothered me that I associated this little bit of fabric so definitively with "being female" that I couldnt get over it. and I still do. it still pisses me off, this tiny nothing detail, but its a block that screws with how I see myself and others.

"if sexuality is part of your presentation, then is your intelligence automatically undermined?"

I think it most certainly can. Ive said before that I think a lot of people, even fairly sexually free people, at some level see sex as something devoid of any cerebral aspects and therefore as animalistic, base, and altogether common.

haus said once (and this is *completely* out of context, Im not implying any sort of agreement or discord with any arguments here on his behalf) that fruit flies can breed. which is a good point - we can all fuck. but I think we can go much further than that (just "doing it", performing), both in the act itself and with our embracing our sexuality as well as the sexuality of others.

a certain level of shame or reserve is expected, more so from women. which, to a degree, is understandable - I dont want to discuss the intimate details of my sex life with my boss. however, in normal social situations certain peoples behaviors in regards to sex are seemingly often determined by the gender of the speaker and the personal issues of the listener, rather than by *what is acceptable in that situation*
 
 
Persephone
11:33 / 28.03.02
which, I think (speaking for myself anyway), is harder to rid yourself of than you might imagine

ruefully

Au contraire. Whenever I say "ideally" I mean "that thing which I have never achieved in my actual life."

Also this is what I mean by "it exists and it doesn't exist." It's simultaneously looking at something and saying "it's just a construct" and also knowing that a construct is nothing to sneeze at. That you get to work on dismantling this construct and get worked on by this construct at the same time. It's like... something being unwoven and woven at the same time & it depends a little on the weaver (or unweaver) how much can get done (or undone). Multiply that to an aggregate of weavers, and you're seeing the motion of the fabric of society, as it were, ravelling and unravelling ceaselessly.
 
 
bitchiekittie
11:54 / 28.03.02
fantastically put!

I/we cant get past certain things. personal education, repetition, societal change - which will help us overcome these obstacles? its certainly happening, and is an ongoing process...but can it happen in one persons lifetime? will it ever happen across the board or will this potential freedom of though remain something within exclusive groups?

now Im not making any sense (as usual) so Ill quit
 
 
Lurid Archive
15:30 / 28.03.02
bk: Its interesting, though entirely expected, that you find it difficult to imagine putting your son in a dress. This gender division is deeply ingrained in all of us. What thoughts run through your head? Do you find it hard to associate a male with a dress or do you cling to female accessories in a possessive way?


As for sexuality and intelligence...

I think that this is a trap. Being independent and (mostly) free from sexual stereotypes doesn't mean reacting against those stereotypes. Certainly, I know women who manage to be independent, individual and most definitely sexual. They wear make up, if they want to, wear sexually appealing clothes, if they want to and flirt, if they want to.

Defining yourself in terms of an ideology you hate can be oppressive and, IMO, certainly is not the key to liberation.
 
 
bitchiekittie
16:30 / 28.03.02
"What thoughts run through your head? Do you find it hard to associate a male with a dress or do you cling to female accessories in a possessive way?"

definitely not possessively - although I like indulging in "pretty" things on occasion, Ive never been much on dresses makeup hair nails, all that. and - fair or not - Ive never had much respect for the girls who worried about the state of their hair or nails when engaging in sports or other activities. Ive never had much respect for women who "couldnt" lift the same boxes or move the same furniture (barring medical or legitimate physical reasons), for that matter.

and as silly, unfair, and backwards thinking as it may seem, its very definitely the former. there are no particular thoughts, only a lurking wall. I dont see a dress as anything other than a bit of fabric, yet its somehow so much more - while I often put my daughter in (made for-) boys shoes and clothing, I couldnt see myself being so blase about the reverse. wrong but definitely present

"Being independent and (mostly) free from sexual stereotypes doesn't mean reacting against those stereotypes. Certainly, I know women who manage to be independent, individual and most definitely sexual. They wear make up, if they want to, wear sexually appealing clothes, if they want to and flirt, if they want to"

I agree. however a woman is more likely to be judged for overt sexuality than a man would be, in most daily situations

there are a lot of different insults aimed towards women who are seen this way, not so many for men. and they are used quite freely
 
 
alas
17:02 / 28.03.02
bk: "- while I often put my daughter in (made for-) boys shoes and clothing, I couldnt see myself being so blase about the reverse. wrong but definitely present"

I think you're being too hard on yourself; considering that "effeminate" males today can still end up beaten up or dead, I don't think it's simply "wrong" for you to have this "wall," at all; it's a complex situation.

Here's a practical issue I faced as a parent: I believe both in the value of "traditional feminine" values like cooperation, nurturing, caring, etc. BUT I know that people who practice those values can get run over if they don't have "traditional masculine" traits like aggression, ambition, physicality. AND I know that girls who act aggressively are generally more subject to chastising when they "act out" than boys are. ("Boys will be boys . . .")

My daughter, when she was 8, had a tendency to beat up on other children, including boys, while out on the playground. The situation was complex, I admit--what counts as "beating up"? Are the standards being applied to her "aggressive" behavior the same as would be applied to boys who play aggressively? Between trying to parent and hold a job, how much time do I have to sort this one out?

OK, 'lithers: parent that situation.

tee hee.
alas.
 
 
bitchiekittie
18:20 / 28.03.02
"considering that "efeminate" males today can still end up beaten up or dead, I don't think it's simply "wrong" for you to have this "wall," at all"

true. so at which point do we stop buying into the bullshit induced by fear, thereby, to a degree, perpetuating the problem? or is it just foolish or reckless to do so in light of all of the likely opposition/potential derision? if you adopt the latter stance, then who is supposed to challenge this?

I dont know. I keep thinking *I* can but then I realize I havent even begun to see the all the crap, let alone figure out how to get out of it
 
  

Page: 1(2)34

 
  
Add Your Reply