(Okay, we can pee standing up. It's convenient at times, but it really doesn't mean anything in the broader context of the world.)
Technically, women can also pee standing up. Just not...neatly.
Zoe: First rule of battle, little one. Don't ever let 'em know where you are. Mal: Whoo-hoo! I'm right here! I'm right here! You want some of me? Yeah, you do! Come on! Come on! Aaah! Whoo-hoo! Zoe: Of course, there are other schools of thought...
'The Message'
Natter 69: Practically names itself.
Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.
Jessica - Mar 22, 2012 8:24:49 am PDT #27678 of 30001
And then Ortus came and said "It's Ortin' time" and they all Orted off into the sunset
§ ita § - Mar 22, 2012 8:25:48 am PDT #27679 of 30001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Just not...neatly.
Some can. Takes some practice, and some intimate touching, but apparently it's learnable for a few physiologies.
meara - Mar 22, 2012 8:39:27 am PDT #27680 of 30001
Often, it seems that the statement "I believe in equal rights for women, but I'm not a feminist" gets derided, but if you can't be a male feminist, it seems a perfectly cromulent thing to say
Eh, I'ma disagree with that--it seems to frame feminism in a bad light. I think if you were being strict about it, in the no-male-feminists sense, he'd say "I'm a feminist ally" or "I support feminism/the feminist movement" or whatever. Much as I would say "I'm a trans* ally" but certainly not "I believe in the right to transition, but I'm not pro-trans-rights!" (rather than "I support but I'm not trans" which would be the equivalent to "I believe in equal rights, but I'm not a woman")
§ ita § - Mar 22, 2012 8:46:18 am PDT #27681 of 30001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
it seems to frame feminism in a bad light
I don't understand how. Can you explain?
Is this definition of feminism as simple as "woman who believes in equal rights for women"?
Because, honestly? I don't want to be a part of "feminism" if it doesn't include men. So I would therefore believe in equal rights for women, but not identify myself as a feminist under that definition. Bad light, enh. It's the light the definers want.
Jesse - Mar 22, 2012 8:52:52 am PDT #27682 of 30001
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.
Usually people who proclaim that they are not feminists are doing it because they want to distance themselves from connotations with the movement.
§ ita § - Mar 22, 2012 9:03:36 am PDT #27683 of 30001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Usually people who proclaim that they are not feminists are doing it because they want to distance themselves from connotations with the movement.
Yes, but if you restrictively define feminism, it becomes a perfectly valid statement, which is my point. There then becomes a connotation worth distancing yourself from.
Jesse - Mar 22, 2012 9:09:28 am PDT #27684 of 30001
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.
Sure, but that's an uncommon definition, and not what most people would understand you to be saying.
Kate P. - Mar 22, 2012 9:14:25 am PDT #27685 of 30001
That's the pain / That cuts a straight line down through the heart / We call it love
I feel pretty strongly that men can definitely be feminists. I know there are some who would disagree, but I've never felt that mine is a minority view.
§ ita § - Mar 22, 2012 9:27:05 am PDT #27686 of 30001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
but that's an uncommon definition, and not what most people would understand you to be saying
But it's specifically what I'm talking about right now--I asked about the intersection of the people who place such restrictions on the definition and the people who deride that statement. I didn't pull it out with no context.
§ ita § - Mar 22, 2012 9:30:50 am PDT #27687 of 30001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Luther to be made a movie? [link]