The glass contains oven-warmed asp's milk.
The Rise of the Female Foreign Minister
- Thread starter waffle
- Start date
The glass contains oven-warmed asp's milk.
jambo
slip inside my schlafsack
Was replying to waffle's questions, to me.
That was my answer, you agree or you don't but you were looking to have a go basically.
And I disagree, it's not obvious what you or waff are saying here. It's the usual nudge-nudge, oh yes dahling isn't it just like so-and-so says? You are for the most part not actually saying anything. And you say I'm being an 'obscurantist'!
Can we just take a moment to look at the name of this forum? It's not everyone-agrees-that-the-world-is-like-THIS-dot-com, or we-all-take-such-and-such-a-theory-as-a-given-truth-dot-com. Your opinion is not the truth and you also don't have to argue about that until nobody can be arsed any more. It's about finding common ground and using a shared space to come at things from different angles.
Last edited:
jambo
slip inside my schlafsack
I asked the question because I wanted to be sure of your meaning. I can make an educated guess based on what I know of your general position but why should I assume I know what you're saying when I am not sure? That would be presumptuous, surely. Why take so much exception to people asking questions? Why do you think this, what do mean here?
And I never said I thought you made anything up or that I didn't believe you.
Last edited:
jambo
slip inside my schlafsack
Sure, OK, indeed.
But what is it about 'far right' ideology that engenders this, so to speak? Or rather, what is the correlation? Is it simply that 'conservative' politics at this time equates with conserving patriarchal institutional structures, or is it something more fundamental that underlies both phenomena I wonder.
Is it 'fair trade' asp's milk or just plain ordinary 'social and cultural' asp's milk, as your coffee-drinking colleague in the "What is Politics" thread might fail to distinguish?
Jambo said:
Like the 'common ground' of the "Hot Old Skool Babes" thread, the questioning of inherited gender roles being the enemy of the common ground?
Ripley said:
The question you 'raise' in your last sentence is the question that is raised by this thread, whether the trend reflects a move to the right.
Clearly, it's not all cynical patriarchal tokenism. Nordic countries have female foreign ministers, but this reflects the fact that such countries - particularly Finland and Norway - now have more women than men in government ministerial positions (around 60 percent in both cases) and lead in closing the Gender Gap Index.
On the other hand, there is the very strange case of Rwanda: "Rwanda achieved something no other country had ever done before: produce a legislature in which women outnumber men. The results of last month's [September, 2008]parliamentary elections gave women 45 out of the 80 seats in the chamber of deputies, or 56%. This surpasses Rwandan women's near parity in the outgoing parliament, already the highest proportion in the world. Rwandan President Paul Kagame praised the election results, saying that a female majority in parliament "emphasises the fact that the country's future is being shaped by women". Except that this seeming gender-equality paradise, after years of horror, is totally misleading.
craner
Beast of Burden
Incidentally, that Rwanda article linked to is typical effluence from the truthout website - this site is a vocal part of a campaign to tie Paul Kagame and the RPF to the assassination of President Juvenal Habyarimana in 1994. It constantly refers to the Rwandan Genocide as the "Rwandan Genocide" - implying that the Genocide was a myth peddled by Paul Kagame to disguise his invasion/putsch. It's an out-and-out Rwanda-denial rag and it seems that Waffles doesn't have much compunction in linking to anyone to make a cheap point, like a certain old friend of ours.
Last edited:
There's no need for you to emphasize your misogyny, when your other posts have always been more than adequate to the task.
craner said:
Yes, Rwanda is a model of gender equality and social utopia to which we should all aspire.
<rest of craner's congenital lunacy snipped>
What's next in Dissensus dementia? Feminists as Holocaust Deniers?
Last edited:
scottdisco
rip this joint please
nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
Sorry, Luka. Somebody was getting on my proverbial last nerve.
Isn't the standard response to token female/minority representation in government always, "see, women/blacks/latinos are allowed into positions of power! Sexism/racism is just a card liberals play in order to continue to promote 'special rights' agendas."
The "we live in a post-racist society" idea is no more foolish than the "we live in a post-sexist" version.
Conservatives have responded to the push for more equity by allowing in highly visible blacks, latinos, and women to join the party only to advocate policies that would silence their advocates, veto any bill that may help promote greater equity in minority/gender representation under the law, and roll-back all of the hard-earned humans rights laws that are already in place.
Condi Rice
Michelle Bachman (uuuggghhh)
Mel Martinez
Colin Powell
See, now we live in a post-racial society! We have black people in government who work to extinguish the efforts of their social advocates and the policies that allowed them "in" in the first place! We have a black president, and he never once mentioned the fact that most black people still have a very slim chance of making it to the top in America, unless they want to be bought out by conservatives and use themselves as examples of how there's no more racism left.
And now you have almost zero women who self-identify as feminists, but who would say without irony "I'm not a feminist, but I believe women should be able to work outside the home, and live without a husband or father, and be allowed into all professions, even law and science..." while simultaneously popping an oral contraceptive in a BMW on the drive home to the condo they that they bought with their six-figure salary.
(Until we have no more people like Brooke Hogan in the U.S., we won't be a post-anything society.
http://www.bestweekever.tv/2008/07/21/three-words-youll-never-hear-president-brooke-hogan/
http://www.bestweekever.tv/2008/08/13/brooke-hogans-guide-to-voting-and-living-your-f-in-life/ )
Isn't the standard response to token female/minority representation in government always, "see, women/blacks/latinos are allowed into positions of power! Sexism/racism is just a card liberals play in order to continue to promote 'special rights' agendas."
The "we live in a post-racist society" idea is no more foolish than the "we live in a post-sexist" version.
Conservatives have responded to the push for more equity by allowing in highly visible blacks, latinos, and women to join the party only to advocate policies that would silence their advocates, veto any bill that may help promote greater equity in minority/gender representation under the law, and roll-back all of the hard-earned humans rights laws that are already in place.
Condi Rice
Michelle Bachman (uuuggghhh)
Mel Martinez
Colin Powell
See, now we live in a post-racial society! We have black people in government who work to extinguish the efforts of their social advocates and the policies that allowed them "in" in the first place! We have a black president, and he never once mentioned the fact that most black people still have a very slim chance of making it to the top in America, unless they want to be bought out by conservatives and use themselves as examples of how there's no more racism left.
And now you have almost zero women who self-identify as feminists, but who would say without irony "I'm not a feminist, but I believe women should be able to work outside the home, and live without a husband or father, and be allowed into all professions, even law and science..." while simultaneously popping an oral contraceptive in a BMW on the drive home to the condo they that they bought with their six-figure salary.
(Until we have no more people like Brooke Hogan in the U.S., we won't be a post-anything society.
http://www.bestweekever.tv/2008/07/21/three-words-youll-never-hear-president-brooke-hogan/
http://www.bestweekever.tv/2008/08/13/brooke-hogans-guide-to-voting-and-living-your-f-in-life/ )
Last edited:
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
The authors of that particular article aren't denying it, though.
Your (self-constructed) 'enemy' has indeed "tipped you into outright howling paranoid lunacy", in your own words. [This is where Poetix enters stage-right to offer you further moral support with some mythological, hyperstitional waffle about gnosis and 'the old ones'].
Josef K said:
Aw shucks! Even Spielberg (TM) would be proud of such a denouement. At least it's not yet Monsanto ... ("All baby milk is now the property of the Monsanto Corporation").
Scottdisco said:
Not at all. A welcome riposte to Craner's odious attempt to derail the thread with his usual self-satisfied, far right propaganda.
"I like to give the impression I am pretending to be ignorant, stupid, and lazy to hide the fact that I really am ignorant, stupid, and lazy. Now, what thread can I derail today with my gibberish while defending craner's endorsement of a wanted war criminal."
Thank you for that intriguing assessment. Maybe if we hurl little match-stick flags at each other the dispute can be finally resolved, before then moving on to the later US-sponsored Rwandan invasion of the Democratic Republic of Congo, and that war in which around 6 million have died for some coltan over the past decade ....
"So, in 1990, the RPF launched its insurgency. The French armed the government and put one of their officers in charge of the counterinsurgency operation. The escalation in oppression led to a rising tide of protest which the government dealt with in two ways: 1) introduce some modest democratic reforms; 2) build up death squads in the army (particularly the Interahamwe, who would go on to be central in the genocidal campaign), indoctrinated with anti-Tutsi racism. The government also used radio broadcasts to propagate fairly direct and unsophisticated messages denouncing attempts at making peace with the Tutsi. Yet by 1993, the RPF were marching on Kigali, and only French troops prevented them from reaching the city. Negotiations ensued, and the Arusha Accords were signed under the auspices of the OAU - but since Habyarimana would have substantial power stripped from him under the accords, he frustrated their implementation. In retrospect, it is hard to see how the accords were signed since it called for the Hutu nationalist regime to lose substantial control over the most important levers of state power, especially the army. At any rate, once Habyarimana was assassinated, presumably by individuals from within his own regime who feared that he would slowly acquiesce in a peaceful resolution, the genocide began.
During the genocide, as Linda Melvern has shown (especially in A People Betrayed: The Role of the West in Rwanda's Genocide, 2000), the West intervened constantly. The French surreptitiously backed the extremists carrying out the genocide through its Operation Turquoise, while the US and UK acted to suppress attempts by some in the UN to increase the presence and mandate there, despite full knowledge of what was afoot. In fact, they deliberately acted to withdraw the UNAMIR presence. I have no illusions about the UN, but these actions would at least suggest that we're beyond the myth of petrified negligence or even indifference - we're talking about an active attempt to facilitate the genocide by removing an obstacle to it. They couldn't even bring themselves to "jam" the radio broadcasts, essential to the conduct and expansion of the genocide. Don't make the mistake of thinking the US was indifferent, however: it supported the RPF's military battle, and had trained Paul Kagame, the RPF's leader, at Fort Leavenworth. But the genocide was directed at civilians, not at the RPF who could defend themselves."
craner
Beast of Burden
The French Imperialist line, no less.
Although maybe I'm wrong; been following this line of Rwanda revisionism for a while now. Tell-tale signs always being the hytserical branding of Paul Kagame as a "dictator" and "war criminal" - these orginate in du Quai d'Orsay, the Egyptian government, and other remaining enclaves of Hutu Power. (As far as I know, Madame Agathe is still living rent-free in her Parisian apartment, but I could be wrong.) But it's been appearing in far left media for a while now, as an even more depraved adjunct to Screbrenica denial. For example: this rum slice penned by Ed Herman in Z Magazine last October, in which he wrote:
This is, essentailly, the far left version of Robert Faurisson, and truthout is a major contributor to this trash; I felt I should point out that we have a link to such filth being circulated on Dissensus.
In terms of female African leaders, what about the great Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf?? Eh?
Although maybe I'm wrong; been following this line of Rwanda revisionism for a while now. Tell-tale signs always being the hytserical branding of Paul Kagame as a "dictator" and "war criminal" - these orginate in du Quai d'Orsay, the Egyptian government, and other remaining enclaves of Hutu Power. (As far as I know, Madame Agathe is still living rent-free in her Parisian apartment, but I could be wrong.) But it's been appearing in far left media for a while now, as an even more depraved adjunct to Screbrenica denial. For example: this rum slice penned by Ed Herman in Z Magazine last October, in which he wrote:
This is, essentailly, the far left version of Robert Faurisson, and truthout is a major contributor to this trash; I felt I should point out that we have a link to such filth being circulated on Dissensus.
In terms of female African leaders, what about the great Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf?? Eh?
Last edited: