ginmar: Jesus, part two

ginmar (

ginmar) wrote,
@ 2006-10-19 18:05:00

Jesus, part two
Hugo:

And here's where Ginmar may be right: I'd sit down and break bread with an anti-feminist sooner than I would with someone in the pelting/fur industry. That may be my weakness.

That's not a weakness, that's why weak friends are no better than weak enemies. He thinks anti-feminists are less offensive than fur traders or whatever. Guess he we know where women land on his care-o-meter.

(Post a new comment)

	stardragonca 2006-10-19 11:38 pm UTC (link)
	You're not as cute as a harp seal. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	ginmar 2006-10-19 11:41 pm UTC (link)
	Not as useful, obviously. Or as important. Damn. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	stardragonca 2006-10-19 11:42 pm UTC (link)
	He linked to this post,and the last one. Expect trolls. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	ginmar 2006-10-20 12:18 am UTC (link)
	Christ, does he want any help getting on his cross? He's trying to get the MRAs on his side by being a martyr. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	sister_sheena 2006-10-19 11:44 pm UTC (link)
	"I'd sit down and break bread with an anti-feminist sooner than I would with someone in the pelting/fur industry. That may be my weakness." Liberal men taking other liberal concerns more seriously than women's issues. In otehr news, fire hot, water wet. He sounds like a twit. (Reply to this)(Thread)

(Anonymous)
2006-10-19 11:57 pm UTC (link)

It's not just that -- christ, he's considering mistreating a mink to be worse than mistreating a live human being. He's valuing women less than ANIMALS. Now, I'm not on the side of pelting and fur either, but he is valuing members of his own species BELOW ANIMALS BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HAVE PENISES.

If anyone needed any fucking proff that even men who consider themselves our ALLIES think of us as less than human -- fuck, less than ANIMALS -- this is IT.

Hugo, you have just abdicated any right you once had to expect ANY woman alive to ever speak to you again or make eye contact much less allow you to exist in our sphere of awareness. Your "weakness?" You are scum, mister.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	ginmar 2006-10-20 12:29 am UTC (link)
	Yeah, and we've got some well-meaning or at least duplicitous souls whining about Ghandi and King. Um, that's nice, but that's not the issue. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(Anonymous)
2006-10-20 01:30 am UTC (link)

Yeah, and I wonder how many supposed male "feminists" who "aren't like that!!!!!!!!!!!!" are rushing to rip into Hugo and Amp telling them that he makes ALL so-called male feminists or pro-feminists or whatever the fuck they're calling themselves nowdays look like exactly the sorts of hideous, vicious motherfuckers you don't turn your back on for a second.

I mean, I'm not going to trust any fucker who tells me he's on my side, anyone who says he agrees with me, any male who claims to be my ally. Screw you. Give them some time, and they're right over with the MRAs. Women have to earn my trust, but every time I see this shit, I think that no man ever could.

Oh I'm sorry, and I GENERALIZING? Can't risk not doing it, pal.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

greeneyedkzin
2006-10-20 03:22 pm UTC (link)

Another vote for twitdom here. I always wonder if it's humanitarianism or reverse snobbery. I used to watch the anti-fur-coat-folk outside Saks Fifth Avenue. I remember one young man practically ran over a homeless man sitting on the steps of St. Patrick's in his zeal to tell one overdressed woman that she was "walking in blood," and "How would you feel if it were your cat?" (much too small and too cranky) or "your son?" He didn't HAVE a nice pelt.

I do know people whose concern is genuine. They're vegans, don't wear leather shoes or belts, or silk, or pearls. But most of these characters...I want to see their car upholstery, frankly.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	(Anonymous) 2006-10-19 11:55 pm UTC (link)
	I'm sorry ... did he just say that he values people who mistreat WOMEN above people who mistreat animals? Did he say that? Did he just ACTUALLY SAY THAT? He probably is married and claims to "love" his wife, too. Love, when used by creatures like that, is the grossest of insults. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	ginmar 2006-10-20 12:19 am UTC (link)
	Yes, he did. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	delphyne_ 2006-10-20 01:26 am UTC (link)
	He's actually on his fourth marriage. Which ought to give a few feminists who support him pause for thought but probably won't. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	ginmar 2006-10-20 01:31 am UTC (link)
	Oh, hell, I didn't KNOW THAT. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	fromaway 2006-10-20 01:41 am UTC (link)
	He also used to fuck his female students. For which he says he is very sorry, and I do believe that, but after watching him NOT GETTING IT over and over again I've become a bit cynical about him in general. (Reply to this)(Parent)

delphyne_
2006-10-20 01:43 am UTC (link)

He said it on his blog and I nearly fell off the chair laughing.

I can't see why any feminist takes him seriously - he's anti-abortion; has had four wives so far; keeps trying to conflate feminism, a liberation movement for women, with christianity, a religion that has done enormous damage to women; he's a womans studies professor which as far as I can see is just one more attempt at co-opting women's work; and like Ampersand gives MRAs a platform to attack women while he pretends to play the middle ground.

But I've said all this in a reasonable, civil and non-angry tone so I'm sure he won't be offended at me pointing out the obvious.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	ginmar 2006-10-20 01:49 am UTC (link)
	HOly fuck, I didn't know any of that. No wonder the MRAS like him; he's one of them. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

ciardhapagan
2006-10-20 03:09 am UTC (link)

No kidding. Living in the south, whenever I hear someone of his type start blathering about Christianity I know he's actually a fundie. Real liberal Christians don't go around "Jesusing" every conversation, real liberal Christians are prochoice, real liberal Christians beleieve religion is a private personal thing that one most certainly doesn't impose on others, real liberal Christians believe that other religions are equally valid for the people that believe in them and are as personally sacred for them. I have quite a few friends, coworkers, and relatives that live that way, and yes, here in the south. Christian moderates are more publically "preachy" and privately feel their religion is best, but they don't harass others constantly about their christianity, putting it in every freaking conversation you have with them. (A good example of a moderate southern Christian is President Jimmy Carter.) Only fundies drag Christianity into every single conversation. And liberal Christians are rather suspicious of those types, because it's almost inevitably a cover for someone who indulges in behaviors they roundly condemn with their moralizing. Liberal Christians tend to see Jesus as a sort of earnest, spiritual, idealistic, pacifist hippie really. (no suprise Liberal Christians absolutely love the musical "Jesus Christ: Superstar")

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	mirandaflynn 2006-10-23 10:03 pm UTC (link)
	I like that musical because Jesus spends a lot of it looking like he'd really like to slap most of his followers upside the head :) Which I imagine to be pretty accurate. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	ciardhapagan 2006-10-24 04:32 am UTC (link)
	Considering you see hints of that in the earliest "Gnostic" gospels (which predate the "real" gospels) I'd agree. (Reply to this)(Parent)

did you read the gospels?

jsl32
2006-10-27 10:26 am UTC (link)

jesus isn't exactly acting like a peacenik in 'em. god was not a hippie. that's totally unbiblical. so is the hiding the light of christ in you under a bushel thing you seem to advocate.

why do christians have to hide their spirituality, keep it 'private', when other spiritualities don't have the same tag? jesus was very welcoming to women and it is always worth noting that christianity is majority female. i get tired of some people telling other people they must be damaged for loving god and not being ashamed of that love, that they have to hide their love to be 'socially acceptable'. that seems extraordinarily restricting and not remotely open minded. and jesus was nothing along those lines. curious and curiouser.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Do keep up on current events? ginmar 2006-10-27 01:29 pm UTC (link)
	Methinks I hear the beginning of a "Xtians are SO persecuted!" cry. If so, don't even try. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	Oh, and by the way... ginmar 2006-10-27 01:31 pm UTC (link)
	Christ wasn't a Republican, either. If anything,he'd be exactly what you said he wasn't---a hippie. He lived amongst the outcasts, preached things which were anathema at the time and the threw the ~~Republica----~~ moneychangers out of the temple. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	stardragonca 2006-10-20 05:21 am UTC (link)
	He's a womans studies prof???????? My. Fucking. Lord. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

delphyne_
2006-10-20 10:35 am UTC (link)

See now that's the right reaction. Most people hear he's a womens studies professor and say, "Oh Hugo, you really must be a feminist then", not noticing that what he's really doing is co-opting women's work and inserting himself into places he doesn't belong.

It's no coincidence that the two most prominent "pro-feminists" in the blogosphere have made money out of feminism - Hugo with his women's studies professorship and Ampersand selling out his blog to porn.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	mirandaflynn 2006-10-22 08:17 pm UTC (link)
	Snort. Pandagon states that he's "is one of the most interesting bloggers out there on the issue of redefining masculinity in a feminist era". (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

delphyne_
2006-10-23 08:24 pm UTC (link)

Ha, interesting is one way to describe it. Interesting how someone like him has any credibility with feminists. And he does have crediblity.

My favourite of his stories is him providing his students with women-only and male-only space so the women students can have the experience. The problem with the women-only space is that Hugo joins it as their teacher to lead the discussions. I do feel sorry for his students that they will probably go away with a nagging sense of unease, but they'll be unlikely to be able to name the problem as I'm betting he hasn't given them the feminist tools to understand what is going on. They probably know a lot about christianity though.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	mirandaflynn 2006-10-23 10:01 pm UTC (link)
	"so the women students can have the experience" You mean the experience of being shut out of male spaces? Yeah, that's so new and different for women. ::eyeroll:: (Reply to this)(Parent)

	greeneyedkzin 2006-10-20 03:23 pm UTC (link)
	Some of those animals may be male. If the twit knew anything about it, he'd know the female pelts are finer and more valuable, which is kinda sick-making in this context. Sorry. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	nebojsanjegosh 2006-10-20 12:34 am UTC (link)
	Actually weak friends are even worse than weak enemies.... a weak enemy can be defeated, a weak friend will always be your downfall.... And in the case of this troll!? we have a term for you here in Europe: Capo or Quisling.... (Reply to this)(Thread)

	weak enemies can even be converted, on occasion bellatrys 2006-10-20 01:26 pm UTC (link)
	False "friends" have no interest in becoming real friends, because they know they're better off as parasites/cuckoos' eggs. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	delphyne_ 2006-10-20 01:24 am UTC (link)
	Is anybody surprised? Given the fact that MRAs have pretty much free rein at his place, I'd say he was already there. It's not a weakness Hugo, it's called male privilege and sexism. (Reply to this)

	uterinelining 2006-10-20 02:10 am UTC (link)
	Because, you know, giving a shit about both women and nonhumans is just too much effort for those poor white menfolk. It's like they must see every relationship as a hierarchy. Men are better than women. Humans are better than other animals. Humans are better than nature. etc. etc. Or something. (Reply to this)(Thread)

(Anonymous)
2006-10-20 08:26 pm UTC (link)

Apparently, humans are better than animals in that worldview, but as long as you classify women as nonhumans. Because clearly, we count less. Male humans, all animals, cockroaches, women. That's the pecking order.

I resent the fact that there's a pecking order at ALL, but I also resent that we're below fucking bacteria in this worldview.

If we're so repulsive and dirtlike in his view, it makes you wonder how he can get it up long enough to shove it in any of us ... unless sex is, as I've claimed reepatedly, intimately conencted to domination for men and being several evolutionary steps over that which you pork in their worldview makes it even better.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	tapetum 2006-10-20 03:01 am UTC (link)
	Having wandered over to both their spots periodically, I actually prefer the egregious Gonzman to Hugo. At least Gonz isn't a weasel, and will occassionally (very occassionally) admit he's wrong. Hugo just makes me cringe. Since when is being a feminist OR being a Christian synonymous with being worm-spined? (Reply to this)

	funniekins 2006-10-20 05:44 pm UTC (link)
	I particularly enjoy the part where he tells women all about how antifeminists aren't, y'know, murderers, unlike fur traders (or whatever the hell they're called these days)...because men don't bother killing women, they stick to chinchillas. mmm-HMmmp. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	ginmar 2006-10-20 05:54 pm UTC (link)
	Yeah, I'd ask Nicole Simpson about that except....Oh, yeah, that's right. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	BTW, any time someone says something like this, bellatrys 2006-10-20 08:44 pm UTC (link)
	about how some MRA type is "otherwise a good guy except for his sexism" I just substitute "KKK membership" and restate it. So Hugo is saying that he'd sooner have lunch with a Klansman than someone in the fur industry... (Reply to this)

velourmane
2007-02-23 06:24 am UTC (link)

"I particularly enjoy the part where he tells women all about how antifeminists aren't, y'know, murderers, unlike fur traders (or whatever the hell they're called these days)...because men don't bother killing women, they stick to chinchillas."

I'm really glad I scrolled back to this post (I'm not feeling well and this blog is a balm) because I was the feminist who made the comment which inspired Hugo's response about how furriers were murderers while antifeminists just had an honest philosophical disagreement.

I was so pissed. Good to see other people were too, and were taking him down on his hypocracy.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	ginmar 2007-02-23 01:35 pm UTC (link)
	Doesn't appear to do any good, though, unfortunately. (Reply to this)(Parent)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs