Chrono Compendium

Zenan Plains - Site Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Zephira on July 05, 2009, 03:52:44 am

Title: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Zephira on July 05, 2009, 03:52:44 am
I am pro life in most cases.  I can understand abortions for the exteme cases such as if the mother had the baby, she would die.
But if its just an irresponsible teenager who had an "accident", I don't give a shit and its your own damn fault.
If you don't have the money to support a baby, put it up for adoption.
My frustration is people who think like this.

What if the women was impregnated by rape?
What if she and the man were being perfectly safe, pills and condoms and whatever else, but it still failed?
What if the family didn't have enough money for a child, and the kid would grow up and suffer in squalor?
What if it happened to you before you were prepared to start your life, or before you were finished with school?

Is it fair to throw another unfortunate soul into an already overpopulated world? If you can't afford the child, the whole family, child included, will suffer. If you put it up for adoption, that's just more burden on an already strained economy.

And about that 'irresponsible girl in high school' scenario. She gets pregnant through an accident. Neither she nor her mate want the child, but thanks to reasoning in that quote, she isn't allowed to get an abortion. So, she suffers nine months of pain and sickness, then gives birth. From that point on her whole life is devoted to this unwanted child. She drops out of school to care for the kid and can't afford any further schooling. So, her career never kicks off. She mooches off her parents, her boyfriend, or asks the state for money. Her and her child just become another unnecessary drain on tax dollars that could be put to better use.
Now, if she DOES get the abortion, she is only out of commission for a couple of weeks. After she recovers from the swab she goes back to school, graduates, and possibly attends a college. She and the boy who got her pregnant the first time might end up getting married later on in life and, after both get a firm start in their careers, might decide to start a real family. By this time they are financially secure and comfortable in their relationship, so they will actually be able to care for their child.

I don't know about you, but if I wound up pregnant before I was able to actually give my child the good life it deserves, there is no way I would go through all nine months of a useless pregnancy.
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: V_Translanka on July 05, 2009, 04:03:51 am
That's why there should be sex/procreation licenses. If you get someone pregnant but can't afford it, you should be auto-castrated or something...People that are that kind of stupid and irresponsible don't need to be making little versions of themselves for ANYONE to have to take care of...>_>
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: Zephira on July 05, 2009, 04:08:32 am
It's either stupid people, or people stupidly out of luck. Condoms can break, and birth control pills don't always work. What irks me is when the unlucky people get lumped in with the stupid people and are denied the right to a good life, all because of one piece of plastic that broke or one pill that didn't work.

This anti-abortion mentality is why we have so many large, poor families. Yeah, kids are nice. Yeah, life is nice. But knowingly bringing a child into a poor existence is just cruel.
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: ZeaLitY on July 05, 2009, 04:15:08 am
Thanks for your perspective, Zephira. Like the ass on my Facebook who reminded everyone grieving over Michael Jackson that he was a "CHILD MOLESTER DAMNED BY GOD", it's amazing how Christlike Christians can be. The peace and love that Jesus preached is so evident in modern Christianity. <3

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_XDLnpGlOHFU/SLM8uO17SoI/AAAAAAAABZs/Hafrl7T1CyY/s400/100_2431.JPG)

(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/10_04/ProtestersPA0111_468x469.jpg)
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: IAmSerge on July 05, 2009, 04:17:12 am
What if the women was impregnated by rape?
What if she and the man were being perfectly safe, pills and condoms and whatever else, but it still failed?
What if the family didn't have enough money for a child, and the kid would grow up and suffer in squalor?
What if it happened to you before you were prepared to start your life, or before you were finished with school?

Look, as I said before, adoption would be a very reasonable solution for the majority of the above cases.

With the rape situation, I can understand that the whole experience would be traumatic and scar the girl for life... which, I would condsider that to be one of the more extreme cases in which I wouldn't mind an abortion.

Look, theres a reason that my religious beliefs limit sexual relations to married couples.  Not because my religion is being an ass to unmarried people but because it usually just works out better that way.

In my opinion, if you're not responsible enough to have a baby, you aren't responsible enough to have sex.

And, ZeaLitY, seriously, if I saw those people doing that, I would personally go up and call them dumbshits to their faces.  For they, just as often as other things, are an extremely personal insult to my beliefs.
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: V_Translanka on July 05, 2009, 04:22:37 am
The only excuse should be if a condom breaks, the pill doesn't work and the morning after pill also doesn't work (all of which adds up to a minute percentage under even 1%, I believe)...If you don't use all of those resources available to you and still end up with an unwanted baby (through consensual sex), I don't really feel that sorry for you.
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: Zephira on July 05, 2009, 04:33:18 am
Alright, adoption, sure. Let your child grow up in what's essentially a human farm and drain money and resources that could have been used for better purposes. I'm sure that kid would be real happy to know that you gave him away and he has no family.
Yeah, adoption is great since you're taking someone else's kid and not contributing to overpopulation. But, wouldn't this overpopulation thing be better managed if the people who orphaned that child had just aborted in the first place?

Okay, going completely abstinent until you marry is pretty noble. But, what if you never marry? What if you never find Mr/Mrs. Right? I highly doubt that even you would want to die a virgin in such a case.
In my opinion, if you're not responsible enough to have a baby, you aren't responsible enough to have sex.
I'm not talking about irresponsible people here. I'm talking about responsible people who had this all planned out, but they aren't ready for a child and had an accident. If a faulty condom or pill leads to pregnancy, it doesn't make the couple irresponsible. What do you say to these people, who themselves carefully until now? Their whole life could be ruined by broken plastic.
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: Truthordeal on July 05, 2009, 04:39:15 am
Eh, might as well stop by here.

I don't like abortion. If someone close to me was mulling it over, I'd try to convince them not to go for it. But I can't control the situations of strangers some 3000 miles from me.

More than likely, I'd be considered pro-choice, because I'd rather have women have the right to decide than have the government decide for them.

I cannot condone late-term or (especially) partial birth abortions except in case of an emergency, though. If you decide to terminate, do it in the first six months. That's not that too tough a request, is it?

Tiller the Baby Killer wasn't hated because he did abortions. He was hated because he did them as the baby was alive. That, to me, is too inhumane to be a choice.
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: ZaichikArky on July 05, 2009, 05:07:56 am
Eh, might as well stop by here.

I don't like abortion. If someone close to me was mulling it over, I'd try to convince them not to go for it. But I can't control the situations of strangers some 3000 miles from me.

More than likely, I'd be considered pro-choice, because I'd rather have women have the right to decide than have the government decide for them.

I cannot condone late-term or (especially) partial birth abortions except in case of an emergency, though. If you decide to terminate, do it in the first six months. That's not that too tough a request, is it?

Tiller the Baby Killer wasn't hated because he did abortions. He was hated because he did them as the baby was alive. That, to me, is too inhumane to be a choice.

You really need to educate yourself on late term abortions and why they occur. Because that douchebag made it a federal law to outlaw "partial birth abortions", thousands of women are caught up in loopholes which prevent them from aborting their severely deformed babies.

First of all, partial birth abortions represent .17 percent of all abortion cases(in the US). Second of all, over 90 percent of these cases, the fetus is substantially deformed or delivering it would cause substantial damage to the woman delivering it.

And your example, this "Tiller the Baby Killer" guy. Did you know that almost all of his cases of partial birth abortion were due to either of those scenarios I mentioned? Either the baby was severely deformed or the mother was in grave danger delivering the baby? Actually, in his case, it was not even proven that the late term abortions that he performed were done without reason. I find it sickening that he was murdered for being a champion of womens rights... but there are a lot of fucked up people in this world.

Because no one understands the severity of the partial birth abortion act, women will continue to be in danger of being forced to deliver their babies to full term. This is really a stab in the heart of people who are not only pro-choice, but feminism as well...
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: Lord J Esq on July 05, 2009, 05:23:08 am
There really is no explanation but bigotry or ignorance for opposing a woman's right to control her own body. There's no logical or economic or ethical or psychological rationale for it. It can only be the case that those who oppose this most elemental freedom either do not understand their own belief, or possess an ulterior motive.

For the bigots, the ulterior motive group, it all comes down to controlling women's sexuality and self-determination; it really does. It's that simple. They don't care about the unborn children, and they're not fooling anybody with their sanctimonious blather. They widely oppose contraception, even though contraceptive usage would reduce the abortion rate. They universally oppose the social programs, environmental regulation, and public institutions that help children make it to adulthood in one piece. And their permissive attitude toward male sexuality reveals their hypocrisy to anyone with the mind to look.

As for the ignorant--the larger of the two groups and including Compendium members like IAmSerge and Truthordeal--it's all about believing whatever their trusted religious and political authority figures tell them to believe: the actual issue and the substance is irrelevant. It just so happens in this case that the issue is abortion and millions of people's lives get ruined when professional, legal abortion care is denied to everyone who wants it. People can be conditioned, like dogs, to believe almost anything. At the same time, critical thought is not exactly one of our species' most consist and reliable traits. That's a recipe that will explain every bad popular movement in history, including the so-called "pro-life" movement, a movement which makes no sense for anyone whose aim is not to oppress women. Everyone who leaves religion (or at least leaves fundamentalist religion) goes on to remark on how blindly they allowed their faith to be shaped by others. No duh. But that's what faith does to you: With faith, the most obvious things in the world can become utterly obscured. That's why intelligent, well-meaning, thoughtful, and intellectually crisp people who are otherwise religious can nevertheless be so deeply wrong on so many topics.

Frustrating? Yeah. But I take a lot of satisfaction in knowing that the religious basketcases have lost their political stranglehold on American politics and will be returning to fringe group status. Hopefully it will be less than a generation until we can establish full abortion care access for everyone.

Anyone who really loves kids so much should get their own rather than telling someone else what she can and can't do with her own body.
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: Lord J Esq on July 05, 2009, 05:42:54 am
And your example, this "Tiller the Baby Killer" guy. Did you know that almost all of his cases of partial birth abortion were due to either of those scenarios I mentioned? Either the baby was severely deformed or the mother was in grave danger delivering the baby? Actually, in his case, it was not even proven that the late term abortions that he performed were done without reason. I find it sickening that he was murdered for being a champion of womens rights... but there are a lot of fucked up people in this world.

I forgot about Truthordeal's sick comment about Dr. Tiller. Thanks for pointing it out. Dr. Tiller did good work--and this was despite being harassed on a daily basis, having his clinic violently attacked, and even being shot. He endured all that and kept providing abortion care to the women who needed it, because he understood their need and was willing to risk his own life to do what he could to help. He was one of the few remaining healthcare providers in the country of several key late-term abortion procedures. He knew no new doctors were coming into this because of the harassment, the lawsuits, and the domestic terrorism that comes out of these anti-choice squads. He understood the importance of his work, and he paid a very high price for seeing his convictions through. I don't use the term but rarely, yet Dr. Tiller was a real hero. He knew his life was at risk and he held fast anyway. His absence will mean that hundreds of women in the years to come will suffer serious health problems or even death simply because there is no doctor brave enough to resist the Jesus-loving torch and pitchfork brigades. Without access to the best abortion care, they will be reduced to more dangerous alternatives. That was the specific intent of the criminal who murdered Dr. Tiller.

I don't think most people realize just how serious this is. The right has moved so far to the right right that they are literally stepping into the realm of domestic terrorism, and as a result we have "dumbshits" (to use another person's word) coming on to public forums like this one and basically advocating for terrorism--or at least condoning it--without having any clue whatsoever that that is what they are doing. This really is the darkness before the dawn. I'm glad America is finally beginning to move away from that terrible precipice, but in the meantime these proud conservative vigilantes are only going to get more dangerous as they realize that their power is fading. Perhaps there aren't enough data points to make a clear line yet, but we've had eight acts of fatal right-wing terrorism in America so far since Obama took office (zero from the left wing). They're a dangerous bunch, and they're getting it from organizations like Fox News, Focus on the Family, and mass media personalities like Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Malkin. Dr. Tiller isn't going to be the last innocent victim.
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: Zelbess on July 05, 2009, 09:26:48 am
Thank you, Lord J Esq for mentioning everything I ever wanted to say and more. Denying abortion is blatantly sexist. I sometimes feel this country has regressed back to the dark ages, considering the  horrible levels of female sexual oppression that exist currently. Just look at the government funded "Purity Balls", where young girls swear their virginity to their fathers and promise to wait until marriage. Adolescent females are swearing their virginity not to their mothers, not to themselves, not to their god, but to their fathers. They are essentially giving control of their sexuality to a man. (It's pretty metaphorical for what the right-wing government and religious groups would like women of America to do.) Boys are not involved in these events - they have seperate events, where - you guessed it - they are taught to be "virginity warriors" for women. People don't fret over male sexuality - it's female sexuality people aim to repress and control. A very enlightening book to read about society's approach to female sexuality is "The Purity Myth" (http://www.amazon.com/Purity-Myth-Americas-Obsession-Virginity/dp/1580052533) by Jessica Valenti. It's a real eye-opener!

Quote from: IAmSerge
But if its just an irresponsible teenager who had an "accident", I don't give a shit and its your own damn fault.
An inherently sexist attitude is revealed in this one line. "Irresponsible teenager" - singular. Last time I checked, women don't get pregnant on their own. Society loves to dump blame on the woman and often wholly leave men out of the picture. Women have to deal with carrying the child and the life-altering consequences of pregnancy. Men? They can run, and frequently do. Yet it's the woman who is often given the scarlet letter of shame, and labeled as "irresponsible", "stupid" or "whore". The man's involvement in her condition is often completey overlooked.

Also, on the subject of Dr. Tiller's death, I can't help but to notice the blazing hypocrisy. Pro-lifers... who kill. Whatever happened to "all life is precious"? I guess only republican, Christian, morally-conservative life is "precious". The irony also exists in the fact that pro-lifers are usually republican, which typically supports the death penalty, rights to firearms, and emphasis on war over diplomatic relations. None of these things are very conducive to life, to be frank. "Pro-Zygote" or "Pro-Fetus" might be a better term for them. Or even better yet, "Anti-Woman".

Quote from: Zeality
My vocal experience is limited to karaoke'ing Robert Palmer, but I want to say something like, even if you do have them removed and there's a slight difference, perhaps it can be overcome or even used to an advantage if it expands your range. This is a pretty unqualified opinion, but there are at least several good high-profile cases in which athletes or other public figures have injuries that threaten their livelihood and are told they'll never have it the old way again, only to lay down serious effort and do the impossible. Mental conditioning plays a lot in this recovery, so in addition to believing that they'll recover, believe with total conviction that you'll have the strength to overpower any hiccups from the removal. It's probably very painful to consider this, but as long as you engender that complete faith in your resolve and alacrity, you can rest knowing there will be a future no matter what the outcome. Make yourself an ∞ multiplier in this equation.
Thanks for the great support, Zeality! :) Everyone else, too. I'll be mentally-conditioning myself for a positive outcome! I know Josh Groban said getting his tonsils removed in his early twenties helped him tremendously vocally, so maybe that will be the case for me as well. :)
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: Boo the Gentleman Caller on July 05, 2009, 11:35:27 am
Quote
I sometimes feel this country has regressed back to the dark ages ...

If that's the case, I'm coming to your castle to take you over!  Rape and pillaging, ho ho ho!

Quote
"My fate is to live among varied and confusing storms. But for you perhaps, if as I hope and wish you will live long after me, there will follow a better age. When the darkness has been dispersed, our descendants can come again in the former pure radiance."—Petrarch
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: Zephira on July 05, 2009, 12:06:19 pm
I'm going to have to go with Zelbess and thank Lord J for articulating what I couldn't. I heard about Dr. Tiller's murder, but I never got the chance to really study what he did. It really is sickening how someone can get killed for trying to help people.

And good luck, Zelbess! I know you'll pull through this just fine because you still have to sing Radical Dreamers for us :lol:
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: FaustWolf on July 05, 2009, 12:54:37 pm
Hmm, Truthordeal might feel more welcome in the Tiller debate if we showed him the wikipedia article on Dr. Tiller so he doesn't have to take just our word on the nature of his practice. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Tiller#Late_term_abortion) This is a small gesture, but it's always important that debate be based solely on facts and not anecdote.

Granted, info seems to be limited, but I trust the Wall Street Journal fairly well. The guy who shot him was probably not aware of the exact nature of his medical practice, driven instead by visions of intact 6-month old fetuses being ripped from the womb and cut into small pieces. Even if something like that has happened in Tiller's clinic, allowing the child's life to trump the mother's life is an extreme position most pro-lifers don't even espouse, judging from the ones I've met.

What's really interesting is that the Wiki article states Tiller has actually been thoroughly investigated via trial and acquitted of all charges. This is precisely why the legality of abortion should be viewed as a positive development for people on both sides of the debate; pro-lifers should be interested in knowing whether there are cruel excessess happening (I'm sure that if Tiller was cutting up viable fetuses into little pieces and laughing maniacally whilst so doing, this would have come up at trial), and pro-choicers should be interested in making sure conditions at clinics like Tiller's are safe. Much better to have Tiller operate at a clinic than in people's garages or in apartment rooms.


But I feel the real injustice here is that human society is going in circles over the morality of this issue when all it takes to eliminate the possibility of abortion for a specific couple while preserving the possibility of having children in the future is a little snip-snip, a little freeze-freeze, and a little double checking before engaging in sexual activity. What, is that too frightening for the civilized gentleman? If sex isn't worth a little snip-snip, then sex must be overrated indeed.
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: Truthordeal on July 05, 2009, 01:12:13 pm
I don't see why you're getting upset with me over my beliefs, or more importantly, my articulating of them.

I've stated before, I don't like abortion. I don't like the concept of someone burning a fetus to death. But I also see the other side of the coin, and more often than not support a woman's right to choose.

Is it so appalling that someone disagrees with your beliefs that you have to label them as a right wing nutcase, religious zealot, bigot or any of the other fabulous names posted below?

BTW, I'm not considered a conservative. I'm considered a libertarian. I love the free market, but want women to have the right to choose, gays to be allowed to marry and honestly, I don't care if pot gets legalized or not. I'm still not gonna smoke it, but it could do a lot of good, economically and humanitarian wise.

And, thanks for the article FW. I understand there are extreme cases for late term and partial birth abortions. But those cases should remain in the extremities.

Another thing here though. I wish people(not directed at you guys, specifically) would quit trying to draw moral equivalencies between people and other historical events.

Case in point, from the wikipedia article
Quote
Columnist Jack Cashill compared the trial to the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi war criminals,[29] while NYU Professor Jacob Appel described Tiller as "a genuine hero who ranks alongside Susan B. Anthony and Martin Luther King Jr. in the pantheon of defenders of human liberty."

I'm reasonable enough to know that Tiller wasn't exactly Dr. Mengelee. I also know that he wasn't even close to the stature that MLK was, and to make either of these comparisons is a crime against logic.
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: Zephira on July 05, 2009, 02:28:44 pm
The reason I get so upset over your beliefs is there are others in your belief who are trying to abolish abortion completely, and the majority of practitioners in your belief make it very hard for a woman to get an abortion at all. The availability of an abortion is like like a safety net (albeit an expensive one). If that is made completely illegal, I fear that I might wind up accidentally pregnant and unable to fix it. And before you pull up the 'irresponsible teenager' card again, I wouldn't engage in any sexual activity unless fully protected. I've put too much time into my college and future to career to throw it away.

Sure, articulate your beliefs, but know that people will be upset by it, just how we upset you with our beliefs.
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: Truthordeal on July 05, 2009, 02:38:48 pm
I understand that. And I think its more a matter of perception than anything. The media will get the most vocal Christans, i.e., Pat Robertson, to talk about abortion to stir things up. They do the same with people like Nancy Pelosi on the economy or torture to get their ratings up.

Eventually everyone sees that opposite side(Christians, liberals) by the figureheads that the media picked out, even though in most cases they don't represent the people they say they do.
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: ZeaLitY on July 05, 2009, 04:20:20 pm
Look, theres a reason that my religious beliefs limit sexual relations to married couples.  Not because my religion is being an ass to unmarried people but because it usually just works out better that way.

This is a typical example of anti-human religious policy. It speaks leagues about how pessimistic and negative faith's view of humanity is. The rule precludes the idea of mature, adult humans who can have consensual sex for their own mutual pleasure without procreation or deeper involvement. The religious point to irresponsible teens and unwanted pregnancies and cry foul, evoking their idea of human corruption and original sin, with salvation only available through their God. Then, with the veneer of trying to help the situation, they promote abstinence, which only makes the issue worse by cutting out contraceptives and safe sex from the equation, in turn creating more unwanted pregnancies and sexually-transmitted disease instances. And then they cry fowl again! Here's a fantastic example:

http://digg.com/world_news/Pope_Benedict_XVI_is_a_Global_Health_Nightmare

Congratulations, Pope Benedict! Your speech against condoms and effort to restrict their distribution will no doubt contribute to AIDs incidence and unplanned pregnancies all over Africa. The Bush administration did the same by tying federal dollars in with abstinence programs for schools, and they fell flat. And all of this comes from your faith's dick view of humanity and antiquated idea of morality. Anti-human.

Quote
And, ZeaLitY, seriously, if I saw those people doing that, I would personally go up and call them dumbshits to their faces.  For they, just as often as other things, are an extremely personal insult to my beliefs.

Hah, and they'd meanwhile call you a dumbshit for not being hardcore enough to take your stone age beliefs to the streets and protest like they do. It seems you're still part of Nixon's silent majority, oh-ho! If only rational thinkers and scientists could choose what and what not to "accept" about the universe as you Christians pick and choose what to endorse from the Bible. Not man enough to take the truly controversial bits, eh? You'd better hope God doesn't pull an Abraham-Isaac to test your meager faith!

Quote from: Zelbess
Yet it's the woman who is often given the scarlet letter of shame, and labeled as "irresponsible", "stupid" or "whore". The man's involvement in her condition is often completey overlooked.

[Oops! Didn't use something in correct context here.] Anyway, yeah, this is a terrible situation.

Quote from: Truthordeal
I've stated before, I don't like abortion. I don't like the concept of someone burning a fetus to death.

It would behoove you to develop a reasonable foundation for your position. Pro-choicers have one based on science, human development, and biology; pro-lifers are usually of the "my pastor told me its bad so it's bad" variety. What really strikes me is how the abortion question starkly illuminates religion as a naked emperor. When I was in the LDS church, I thought, "why is there a debate on this? Shouldn't the Prophet or whoever ask God when the spirit enters the fetus? Is it conception; is it birth? They should figure it out and then make a conclusion." Haha, was I a sap, or what?!

Quote from: Truthordeal
Is it so appalling that someone disagrees with your beliefs that you have to label them as a right wing nutcase, religious zealot, bigot or any of the other fabulous names posted below?

Even if you aren't running out and committing acts of domestic terrorism, you're still promulgating an anti-human view that's been complicit in the ruining of several lives. This is like when a group of guys are around and someone makes a sexist joke about the female period with full misogynist rancor. If you don't speak up, you might as well be affirming it. I've not hesitated in the past to make conversations suddenly turn awkward with my objections to things like that, and neither should people hesitate to call out policies that stigmatize and endanger women, derail entire lives, and promote baseless religious ideologies.
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: Lord J Esq on July 05, 2009, 05:43:17 pm
I understand that. And I think its more a matter of perception than anything. The media will get the most vocal Christans, i.e., Pat Robertson, to talk about abortion to stir things up. They do the same with people like Nancy Pelosi on the economy or torture to get their ratings up.

Eventually everyone sees that opposite side(Christians, liberals) by the figureheads that the media picked out, even though in most cases they don't represent the people they say they do.

I see what you're doing. When you're outmaneuvered in an argument, you resort to saying that everybody on all sides is being misled (in this case by "the media"). Then you list some major right-wing personalities and essentially offer them up as a sacrifice in the debate, implying that the millions of impressionable conservatives who listen to those personalities are not extremists but are just plain good folk.

I have no doubt that if you were feeling empowered rather than outgunned at this point in the argument, you would be pressing ahead with your anti-choice views in their true form. As it is you are trying to tailor your delivery to suit your opponents, without actually ceding any ground.

You would not win any more arguments than you already do, but you would get more credit for being honest and logically consistent rather than trying to offer ideological compromises you don't really believe in.

One of Lord J's comments on Battlestar Galactica tailored the word "slut" to describe a male character, and it was satisfying.

ZeaLitY...first of all my comment wasn't even on this site. It was in my own journal. Second of all, I felt so bad about using the word "slut" in any context--male or female--that I retracted it on my own volition just a few hours later. I guess I can't stop you from referring to my original usage, but, if you must, then I want to make clear to the community that that's not a word I am comfortable using, which you implied.
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: KebreI on July 05, 2009, 05:53:43 pm
Quote from: Zelbess
An inherently sexist attitude is revealed in this one line. "Irresponsible teenager" - singular. Last time I checked, women don't get pregnant on their own. Society loves to dump blame on the woman and often wholly leave men out of the picture. Women have to deal with carrying the child and the life-altering consequences of pregnancy. Men? They can run, and frequently do. Yet it's the woman who is often given the scarlet letter of shame, and labeled as "irresponsible", "stupid" or "whore". The man's involvement in her condition is often completey overlooked.
But as you have just shown those woman then in turn blame the men, after all there are responsible. True Woman get more of the shame but to say the men deserve it is just as sexist.

Then again I will never be happy with the current set up for abortions. I am in support of abortion in more cases then just rape, harmful for the mother, etc. If she doesn't want it then its her body. I am conflicted with that statement though because it may be her body but it's the fathers child as well. In no way do I believe that one persons choice should prevent hen from having the child. The other way too, if the father wants an abortion but the mother wants the child then she should have it. With modern medicine though the embryo could be given to another host in the earliest of stages, but still that's hardly a solution.
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: Zephira on July 05, 2009, 05:57:17 pm
Then let it be a group decision. It's something boyfriend/girlfriend or husband/wife should work out together. But along that same line, it should be the family that makes the decision of whether or not to abort, not the government, church groups, or whoever else.
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: ZeaLitY on July 05, 2009, 06:01:47 pm
One of Lord J's comments on Battlestar Galactica tailored the word "slut" to describe a male character, and it was satisfying.

ZeaLitY...first of all my comment wasn't even on this site. It was in my own journal. Second of all, I felt so bad about using the word "slut" in any context--male or female--that I retracted it on my own volition just a few hours later. I guess I can't stop you from referring to my original usage, but, if you must, then I want to make clear to the community that that's not a word I am comfortable using, which you implied.

Well, damn. I figured this was coming. You need to put production of "The Quotable J" on the fast-track.
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: Daniel Krispin on July 05, 2009, 06:23:35 pm
Alright, adoption, sure. Let your child grow up in what's essentially a human farm and drain money and resources that could have been used for better purposes. I'm sure that kid would be real happy to know that you gave him away and he has no family.
Yeah, adoption is great since you're taking someone else's kid and not contributing to overpopulation. But, wouldn't this overpopulation thing be better managed if the people who orphaned that child had just aborted in the first place?


Actually, it doesn't usually affect the child in that way. My own mother was adopted, and I'll have you know that there is a connection between her and her adopted parents as strong as any other familial bond.

Okay, going completely abstinent until you marry is pretty noble. But, what if you never marry? What if you never find Mr/Mrs. Right? I highly doubt that even you would want to die a virgin in such a case.

Why not?



You know what, forget it. Too many words. Simply put, my frustration is the utterly anti-intellectual tenor of these debates. For all their appeal to science, it's no more in that province than the true liberty was a part of the Reign of Terror. You have to stop assuming some sort of self-righteous high-ground in these debates, as though because of the creed you follow you suddenly have brighter eyes than the rest. That's the same problem that gave us the crusades and every other war of ideology. The assumption that one must be apriori correct. And, more than this, painting all the other's with a demon's brush. It's not good intellectualism, and it's certainly not good science.
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: Zelbess on July 05, 2009, 08:36:14 pm
Quote
But as you have just shown those woman then in turn blame the men, after all there are responsible. True Woman get more of the shame but to say the men deserve it is just as sexist.
In no way did I insinuate that men alone "deserve the shame"; you are imagining some sort of bias in my post that is simply not there. :P I made no mention of women desiring the majority of blame placing upon men; I did, however, make a genuine social criticism on the fact that society views an unwanted pregnancy in a completely skewed way. More often than not, the woman is lambasted as "stupid", "irresponsible", and told statements like "You messed up, now live with the consequences", completely overlooking the male's contribution the situation as well as his responsibility to take care of the child. Look up the term "slut shaming" sometime; it applies perfectly to situations like these. The fact is, men are responsible for the situation equally as much as the woman, yet our culture frequently chooses to overlook that fact. That was why I pointed out the use of singular nouns in IAmSerge's post; it completely overlooked the fact that it "takes two to tango" and was a prime example of the culturally ingrained sexist bias when it comes to criticizing teenage pregnancy.  Both sexes should be included; if two people had unprotected sex and ended up with a pregnancy, then both should be hailed as irresponsible and take responsibility for their actions, not just the woman because she is the one who must deal with the longterm consequences, not only due to pregnancy, but because of culturally ingrained gender roles that dictate the woman is supposed to be a child's primary caretaker.

I personally do not think sexual activity - premarital or otherwise - should be "shamed", nor should unwanted pregnancy; I think attaching a stigma to human sexuality is ridiculous. But at the same time, I think if the criticism must exist (and it will until the public's traditional attitudes towards sex miraculously revolutionizes itself), it should be applied to both sexes involved.

Quote from: Zephira
Then let it be a group decision. It's something boyfriend/girlfriend or husband/wife should work out together. But along that same line, it should be the family that makes the decision of whether or not to abort, not the government, church groups, or whoever else.
Well said! :) My only beef is that the men should only have a say in what the woman should do with her unwanted pregnancy if he plans to support the child and be an active participant and father in it's life. If he plans on bailing and denying his responsibilities, then his opinion should mean squat.
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: Daniel Krispin on July 05, 2009, 09:24:36 pm
What if it's not sexuality per se, but rather the indulgence of human desire where there is the danger of it possessing the participant. I'm just thinking what the stoics might have to say on this, and they, too, would attach a stigma, but the stigma is more upon the idea of pleasure for its own sake. They would say let things indulge their needs, but nothing more. The way most treat it is in the way of it being something uncontrolled, hence the stoics would disagree with it according to their moral framework. What would you say to such a thing as that?

However, on another note, since, as you have said, it certainly is the responsability of both parties involved, why is the modern response then to absolve both of the responsibility (ie. have an abortion), rather than enforcing responsibility upon both? Personally I would much prefer the second option. Absolving people of responsibility is not a good way of running a society - if you will, there's my social commentary. This is one of the perils involved in abortions. Not to mention pregnancies in which abortions might be desirable are for the most part quite avoidable and, as you have said, it does take two. Except in instances such as rape, there is a willingness in both parties and, in some manner, in engaging in such activity they do enter into a sort of social contract in which their actions have reprocussions. The question of whether or not they want it after the fact is moot, in doing what they do - most especially unexusable since there are such methods as birth control - they have the responsibility for the outcome. To admit abortion, save for the most extreme circumstances, might be a disrespect of the woman.

Yes, you heard that right. It may be a disrespect. I believe it is Kant - though I only know this via my brother's ramblings - that speaks to the effect that criminials are punished because we respect them as humans. We act in accordance with the law to honour their choices. They have broken the law knowingly, hence to respect that decision, their human faculty of choice, we punish them as the law dictates. To remove that dehumanizes them. Likewise, becoming preganant is almost always done knowingly - that is, the knowledge that there is that risk. Barring more extreme cases (and it's better to argue the rules, rather than the exceptions), this is how it is. To remove the consequence of those actions is to disrespect the choice that was made, and in effect dehumanizes the person by removing the consequences to her decesion to have such sex. Such is one philosophical proposal which delves into the nature of choice itself.

So this is one of the problematic elements that arise. The issue is hardly clear-cut. This is a question that might be raised that is neither religious nor scientific, but rather philosophical. Indeed, it doesn't even deal with such issues as the nature of life, but merely with the issue of choice in and of itself. And it's something that I think is difficult to deal with. As I've said, these pregnancies are for the most part quite avoidable. If they have made that choice not to avoid them - through abstinence if that is the moral conviction of the person, or through birth control if that is the case - then to offer them an 'out' is to entirely disregard it.

I suppose I cannot get past the problem of the willingness involved. The choice is made already. If I went out and got myself into a dilemma which would require much work to get out of, and knowingly did so, would you consider it right that I could be excised from that responsibility? Perhaps it is an act of kindness, but even that act of kindness can have severe negitive reprocussions, as the sense of cause and effect can be tainted. Of course, an equal responsibility does lie upon both parties. These are social issues that are all connected to the issue of abortion that are not often addressed.

Nor, for that matter, is the validity of the statement that a woman should do as she wishes with her own body. Firstly assuming that one does have absolute supremacy over their own body (something that is taken true apriori, but is never actually proven to be the case... in the natural world this is certainly not the case, seeing as members of a species will sacrifice others for their own survival, in which the sanctity of the individual certainly does not exist), there is the problem of if the child is part of the woman, and if so, at what point does individual identity begin? (This is even putting aside the issue of what is 'life', and if life has sanctity... if it does not, there is nothing ethical wrong with killing... and if there is, what constitutes life?) Indeed, it is made all the more difficult by the fact that we have already assumed individual sanctity in the case of the woman... does this not extend then to an unborn child? And if it does not, then at what point does the growing creature become an individual human? At birth? What makes that the proper line, or are we arbitarially assigning it? Often it appears that while with the one hand we are applying an argument of personal right to the woman, we are ignoring that of the unborn child... and even if we assume that there is a difference... where does that difference occur? And if we cannot judge that difference, do we have a right to then arbitrarially choose?

Furthermore, there is the issue that, genetically, the unborn is not solely the mother's, but has elements of the father in it as well. As such, though it is in the mother, and connected to the mother, it is not entirely the mother's, save by a social distinction we have put on it in this current place and time. But if one wants to speak purely scientifically, there is a strong element of the father within it, and therefore to abort it is to damage something that is part of the father's body as well. Again, it may be inside the mother, but does that physical connection constitute a 'part'? If I lose my arm, is it no longer mine? If you were to cut off my arm, and take it, could you justly claim it because it is no longer connected to me? Therefore even if abortions are to be done, they should be in some part the decision of the father... right? Because though the woman has to undergo nine months of labour, what makes the time and work spent more valuable than the investment the man has put into it? Only if you can make a value judgement and quantify time and the like, and judge it greater and lesser and what not. And by what standards is that being judged to be so onus that it is worth an abortion?

You see, the arguments that are being made rely on a whole host of philosophical preconceptions that are only clear if they are assumed apriori and then has everthing else built upon it. But when one examines these foundations we run into some grave issues. Most importantly, we run into places where decisions and judgements are made rather arbitrarially, which makes any sort of scientific credence difficult to apply. Therefore the ethical nature of abortion really is not something easily solved, and goes beyond only the rights of the woman involved. To hold it only at that is dangerously simplistic at best. I don't think this issue has nearly yet been resolved, not religiously, not scientificially, and certainly not philosophically (probably the most important.)

One thing must be added. And that is the dilemma of views being tainted by preconception. What I mean by this is that Zelbess, for example, speaks that 'unless the traditional public view toward sex changes...', implying a very puritan and old-fashioned viewing of sex. However, when I look at the typical public view, I see it rather free and liberal. Now unless there is a difference between Canada and the US in this, it means that both she and I look at the same system yet, because of our natural bias, focus on different things to endorse our own world-view within that. That should serve as a warning to us that our views of the way things are are always filtered through some fashion of bias, no matter how objective we should hope to be.

I'm not really giving answers with this, because at this point - perhaps at all points - clear and decisive answers are horridly difficult to come by, and even more impossible to agree upon. But they are questions to be considered.
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: alfadorredux on July 05, 2009, 09:36:57 pm
You know, I've been watching this discussion for a couple of iterations now, and what bugs me is that most of the people posting here (not all, but most) seem to assume that birth control is 100% effective. Guess what? It isn't. Not even vasectomy or tubal ligation is an absolute guarantee that a woman won't get pregnant (the failure rate for either of those is on the order of 0.01%, IIRC, but it does happen). Both parties can take absolutely every precaution against pregnancy and still have it happen.
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: ZeaLitY on July 05, 2009, 09:38:30 pm
You know, I've been watching this discussion for a couple of iterations now, and what bugs me is that most of the people posting here (not all, but most) seem to assume that birth control is 100% effective. Guess what? It isn't. Not even vasectomy or tubal ligation is an absolute guarantee that a woman won't get pregnant (the failure rate for either of those is on the order of 0.01%, IIRC, but it does happen). Both parties can take absolutely every precaution against pregnancy and still have it happen.

All the more reason to have legal abortion. I even know someone who did this after her birth control failed. If abortion hadn't been available, her life would have been significantly impaired.
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: Zelbess on July 05, 2009, 09:53:47 pm
Quote
However, on another note, since, as you have said, it certainly is the responsability of both parties involved, why is the modern response then to absolve both of the responsibility (ie. have an abortion), rather than enforcing responsibility upon both? Personally I would much prefer the second option. Absolving people of responsibility is not a good way of running a society - if you will, there's my social commentary. This is one of the perils involved in abortions. Not to mention pregnancies in which abortions might be desirable are for the most part quite avoidable and, as you have said, it does take two. Except in instances such as rape, there is a willingness in both parties and, in some manner, in engaging in such activity they do enter into a sort of social contract in which their actions have reprocussions. The question of whether or not they want it after the fact is moot, in doing what they do - most especially unexusable since there are such methods as birth control - they have the responsability for the outcome. Or, so it should be, I think. To admit abortion, save for the most extreme circumstances, is a disrespect of the woman.
Look, the fact is a woman (or man, if he chooses to stay involved) should not have to sacrifice the outcome of her entire life for one irresponsible moment or lapse of judgment. Forcing a child upon a woman or couple and saying, "Ha, bet you'll learn your lesson now!" is not the right approach. What I mean by "responsibility" is both parties owning up to the fact they created a potential life together, and making the best choice for themselves and their situation, whether that be keeping the child, adoption or abortion. Responsibility involves admitting their mistake and taking the proper steps to educate themselves and learn better, more responsible behaviors as well. You may prefer the option of having the child, but it's not your right to say what a woman should or should not do with her life and her body. Later in your post, you argue whether abortion is morally justified or not, and how complex the situation is; the fact is, because of the many different approaches to morality, there will never be an answer wholly agreed upon. That is why it's so essential to leave the choice open and let the women (or couple) decide for themselves and act in accordance to their own beliefs and moral system.

As for the father having a say in the fate of his child, to me, he only reserves that right if he plans to man-up and be a father to the child, emotionally and financially supporting it in life. If he chooses to abandon the woman while she is pregnant, then to me, he gives up his right to have a say in what the woman will do concerning her pregnancy. You can't just abandon your potential child and then claim, "Well, even though I don't plan on raising the child, I don't like the idea of my genetic spawn being aborted. Because it is half mine, I should be able to have a say yet dump all the responsibility on my wife/girlfriend".

Quote
You know, I've been watching this discussion for a couple of iterations now, and what bugs me is that most of the people posting here (not all, but most) seem to assume that birth control is 100% effective. Guess what? It isn't. Not even vasectomy or tubal ligation is an absolute guarantee that a woman won't get pregnant (the failure rate for either of those is on the order of 0.01%, IIRC, but it does happen). Both parties can take absolutely every precaution against pregnancy and still have it happen.
Very true! My father had a vasectomy, and it spontaneously reversed itself and my mom ended up pregnant. Not to mention, the birth control pill's failure rate is placed at about 1 to 5%, when used properly! Women increase this risk by not taking their pill at the same time everyday, missing pills, or taking antibiotics while on the pill. Certain other medications and supplements can lower it's effectiveness. It's definitely still very much up to chance, it seems. :P Discovery Health Channel's show "I Didn't Know I was Pregnant" is very well living proof of that. A lot of those women were on the pill, had husbands with vasectomies or were deemed infertile, and still became pregnant.
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: Daniel Krispin on July 05, 2009, 09:57:27 pm
You know, I've been watching this discussion for a couple of iterations now, and what bugs me is that most of the people posting here (not all, but most) seem to assume that birth control is 100% effective. Guess what? It isn't. Not even vasectomy or tubal ligation is an absolute guarantee that a woman won't get pregnant (the failure rate for either of those is on the order of 0.01%, IIRC, but it does happen). Both parties can take absolutely every precaution against pregnancy and still have it happen.

All the more reason to have legal abortion. I even know someone who did this after her birth control failed. If abortion hadn't been available, her life would have been significantly impaired.

And by what standard do you consider the life impaired? Don't yell at me, it's a valid question. You're assuming your own standard of worth to be correct, after all. But you must consider that the impairment of a life according to how you measure success might not be evil absolutely. This is the error of many of your arguments, in that you base them upon such an assumption that the actualization of life in this manner is the highest good. What if it is not? Or, what if the value of the unborn is greater than that of the impairment? That is, it is a question of value and value judgement. You are setting a very high value upon certain successes of life, but you are making those judgments arbitrarially according to your preference. That is a difficult and dangerous way of arguing. By what exterior measure do you hold up these two things and say that this is better than that, that this is more valuable then that? You cannot assume it self-evident or that if one disagrees it's from a backward mind. Where is the proof for this?

Like I said, don't yell, it is a valid question, because it's something you don't address at all. You treat your statement as though it's a given that your assertion that 'life would have been impaired' is far worse a thing than the abortion. But in some ways you're quite often begging the question. Your solutions are contained in your premises, and they all work together very neatly, but only if you believe things to be as you believe them to be, which is a conundrum and rather illogical to those who don't.
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: Daniel Krispin on July 05, 2009, 10:10:49 pm
Look, the fact is a woman (or man, if he chooses to stay involved) should not have to sacrifice the outcome of her entire life for one irresponsible moment or lapse of judgment. Forcing a child upon a woman or couple and saying, "Ha, bet you'll learn your lesson now!" is not the right approach. What I mean by "responsibility" is both parties owning up to the fact they created a potential life together, and making the best choice for themselves and their situation, whether that be keeping the child, adoption or abortion. Responsibility involves admitting their mistake and taking the proper steps to educate themselves and learn better, more responsible behaviors as well. You may prefer the option of having the child, but it's not your right to say what a woman should or should not do with her life and her body. Later in your post, you argue whether abortion is morally justified or not, and how complex the situation is; the fact is, because of the many different approaches to morality, there will never be an answer wholly agreed upon. That is why it's so essential to leave the choice open and let the women (or couple) decide for themselves and act in accordance to their own beliefs and moral system.

Ah, you're making an error in that Zelbess. You say 'a woman should not sacrifice...' You are making a statement of opinion in that, or at least a moral judgement in that you think that it should not be so. You also imply that it's been forced upon them. But that is far from it, actually, because it has not been forced upon them, but neccessitated by their own actions and no others. As for the statement, I could as well say someone should have to sacrifice that. That might be the way things work. The problem is, Zelbess, there are things in life that are like that, and to some extent, engaging in that is making a social contract to that effect. Just because we've got a way out, doesn't mean it should be allowed... we could pardon all debts, too, but we don't do that (and, in fact, society would cease to function if we did so.) The problem I have with such statements is that they seem to put an extreme amount of worth upon individual ambition and mobility. However, you must understand the value we place upon that is very much a social construct, and the value of that freedom of choice regarding the rest of life may not be as great as you think. Indeed, I myself put far less worth on the freedom of choice than most people do, and the very fact that I can do so shows the very fuzzy nature of that. As I've said to ZeaLitY, you cannot assume one to by nature be more valuable than the other in such a way. Can you put a price on life? Or if you don't consider a foetus to be life, on the potential contained therein? And that potentiality... does it belong to the mother, to the parents, or to the entire race? Again, such ethical issues are hard to decide, but it doesn't mean that they can be decided relatavisitically. Now, to add the caveat at the end, I myself would personally put a lot of value in what a person can accomplish with their life (at least, that would be my natural inclination), and to be honest, it would bother me to see a woman unduly constrained, especially if the choices were not hers. However, I think if such a choice has been made, yes, it is a fair price to pay. I would exact the same of myself. If I slept with a woman and she became pregnant, I would hold myself bound to it, my responsability as much as hers. If it ruins my future life, well, that was my choice. I cannot excise myself from that. And neither can a woman. A woman has rights, to be sure, but even as with mine, they extend only so far. I cannot enforce my will, but her choices must hold true over her life... and they must fit within the dominance of the society, even as my life is lived within certain boundaries. Not to mention... why do you consider freedom so great? Another question not addressed. 'One must not command me, my life is free and my own.' Why? Nature will not tell us this. Why do you think it is the case? Why, moreoever, SHOULD it even be the case, over any of us? Are our lives our own? Are our bodies our own? And more than this, do we not have some say over what people can and can't do... and since we do, where do we draw the lines? Can we ethically extend a person's right over their own body to a right to harm it, or to harm perchance another life? Or even harm another potential, even if it is not life?

And, to make the issue worse, you cannot argue for moral relativism, because then one could well argue to the extent a good extent that even mass murder is justified by someone of superhuman character, if that fits within their personal moral framework. Unfortunately to say 'everyone should do as they see fit' isn't exactly a good solution either.

However, you are right about any right being abandoned if the father abandons that. Although even in that case I think the onus of responsability lies upon and with him throughout his entire life.

Finally, while we are on the scientific question of how birth control is not 100%, let us also consider the issue that there is the grave effect of post abortion depression and the like. This can be quite severe as well, and is a documented danger associated with abortion that can affect a woman just about as much as actually having the child.
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: Zephira on July 05, 2009, 10:12:16 pm
In answer to your question, here's a hypothetical example.
I have two quarters left before I graduate from high school and college, then I get to start in my chosen career. Let's say I got pregnant tonight. Going by what you said about 'teaching responsibility', I would not be able to abort and I would be forced to carry the child full term and raise it. I would have to drop out of college and high school to raise the child. This kills my chances of getting a degree, and thus my chances of getting a good job. So, by the time the child is old enough that I don't have to stay home every day to take care of it, I will have to pay more for classes (currently have free college because I'm in high school). This will be close to impossible because I don't have a job yet. I won't be able to afford child care to look after the kid while I search for a temporary job, either.
So, I'm left jobless and cut off from my career of choice, and I can't afford to give the child the care it deserves.
IF the father stays to help rear the child, he would likely have to drop out of school as well or take on an extra paying job to pay for the two of us and the kid. This will greatly impede his education as well, making it harder for him to get any higher paying job.

So, a broken condom or failed pill (irresponsibility, apparently) led to this scenario. I fail to see how irrevocably altering two people's lives over an accident teaches responsibility. Yes, there are idiots out there, but not everyone is mentally impaired.

Before you say this is all about money, it's not. It's about quality of living, and (regrettably?) money is required for that. If you can't get a job, you can't pay housing, medical, insurance, or grocery bills.

Ah, you're making an error in that Zelbess. You say 'a woman should not sacrifice...' You are making a statement of opinion in that, or at least a moral judgement in that you think that it should not be so. But I could as well say someone should have to sacrifice that.
I'm sorry, but reading that just made me sick. I don't care what religions or other people's morals say, I would NOT sacrifice my life and everything I've worked for because of some stupid mistake.
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: Zelbess on July 05, 2009, 10:13:56 pm
Quote
And by what standard do you consider the life impaired? Don't yell at me, it's a valid question. You're assuming your own standard of worth to be correct, after all. But you must consider that the impairment of a life according to how you measure success might not be evil absolutely. This is the error of many of your arguments, in that you base them upon such an assumption that the actualization of life in this manner is the highest good. What if it is not?
I personally think you are missing the point; you are looking too much into philosophy swirling the situation. It's not nearly as complex as you make it out to be. Notice he said, his friend's life would be significantly impaired, not the lives of all women; he was no speaking for all women, just his friend. It's the individual woman's call of judgment to decide whether bringing a child into the world is for her greater good, based on her personal situation and her feelings. For example, perhaps Zeality's friend found out she was pregnant during her first month of work at the job of her dreams, which happens to be very time-consuming and demanding. Having a child might force her to drop the career and future of her dreams, that she's strived her whole life to achieve. Perhaps she never wanted children; perhaps she wanted to live a childfree lifestyle. Another woman might have completely different circumstances, desires and attitudes towards children, which would make her perception of whether bringing an unexpected child into this world would impair her life or not. A woman's priorities are individual and subjective, and it's up to her to decide.
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: Boo the Gentleman Caller on July 05, 2009, 10:15:51 pm
If my dog gets pregnant, is it cool with everyone that I have the puppies aborted?

(honest question, actually)
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: Daniel Krispin on July 05, 2009, 10:29:49 pm
In answer to your question, here's a hypothetical example.
I have two quarters left before I graduate from high school and college, then I get to start in my chosen career. Let's say I got pregnant tonight. Going by what you said about 'teaching responsibility', I would not be able to abort and I would be forced to carry the child full term and raise it. I would have to drop out of college and high school to raise the child. This kills my chances of getting a degree, and thus my chances of getting a good job. So, by the time the child is old enough that I don't have to stay home every day to take care of it, I will have to pay more for classes (currently have free college because I'm in high school). This will be close to impossible because I don't have a job yet. I won't be able to afford child care to look after the kid while I search for a temporary job, either.
So, I'm left jobless and cut off from my career of choice, and I can't afford to give the child the care it deserves.
IF the father stays to help rear the child, he would likely have to drop out of school as well or take on an extra paying job to pay for the two of us and the kid. This will greatly impede his education as well, making it harder for him to get any higher paying job.

So, a broken condom or failed pill (irresponsibility, apparently) led to this scenario. I fail to see how irrevocably altering two people's lives over an accident teaches responsibility. Yes, there are idiots out there, but not everyone is mentally impaired.

Before you say this is all about money, it's not. It's about quality of living, and (regrettably?) money is required for that. If you can't get a job, you can't pay housing, medical, insurance, or grocery bills.

Ah, you're making an error in that Zelbess. You say 'a woman should not sacrifice...' You are making a statement of opinion in that, or at least a moral judgement in that you think that it should not be so. But I could as well say someone should have to sacrifice that.
I'm sorry, but reading that just made me sick. I don't care what religions or other people's morals say, I would NOT sacrifice my life and everything I've worked for because of some stupid mistake.

Zephira, your opinion! Don't mistake that. You might say that makes you sick, but I could as well say it makes me sick that someone would be willing to sacrifice a life for as something as - in the grand scheme of things - meaningless as a career. That's the problem we're running into. You're speaking far too greatly of that... in some sense, you're speaking the language that our current culture has taught you to speak, that career and ambition is the greatest thing you can accomplish. Frankly, Zephira, I consider an unborn child to at least have the possibility of being alive. Or if not that, at least potential. Well, if a child, born but still young, a baby, got in the way of my ambitions, should I kill it? Would it make you sick if I said I would not sacrifice my career to save a child? But what is a child? What benefit to society but raw potential? It might not even get anywhere. Or say a starving child in Africa. Shoot it and I get my dream job. There's really nothing lost there, is it? Would it make you sick that refusing to shoot the child I don't accomplish my paltry dreams? You would not sacrifice it? Fine. I WOULD.

As for the rest of what you said, absolutely you should. If I was in that situation, I would, without a doubt or question in my mind. That is the choice you made, and it superceeds those plans you have. Not to mention, you are setting out the absolute worst-case scenario. It won't neccessarially be so doom and gloom and all that. But the thing is, just because you don't want it, doesn't make you right in not wanting it. These are choices you make. The thing is, there are ways around it all. Avoid sex. If you have sex, there's this chance. You know, if it's that much a peril to you, if you're job is that valuable, you know what? You can avoid sex, too! Heavens, there's always that! It sounds to me like you want your cake and want to eat it, too. If there's this danger with getting pregnant, and if your job is really that valuable, if your future is that valuable, then you can put your sex life on hold. But you wouldn't... which seems to imply the issue is rather about wishing to be selfish. People are thinking they have a right to be selfish. To be able to have everything, and get rid of the consequences.

It's got me utterly overthrown that you don't consider that option. That it must be that one can have sex with the possibility of pregancy but still not accept the responsability that entails if it damages the career. As I said, if it's that perilous, if your career is really that valuable as you say it is, you'll avoid the sex. And if you don't... well, maybe it's not the career that's valuable, maybe it's the ability to do exactly what you want and damn the consequences, which, in its barest, baldest, form, is actually just being selfish, and nothing more noble than that.
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: Shee on July 05, 2009, 10:32:53 pm
If my dog gets pregnant, is it cool with everyone that I have the puppies aborted?

(honest question, actually)

Does it matter if we are cool with it or not???
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: Daniel Krispin on July 05, 2009, 10:44:47 pm
Quote
And by what standard do you consider the life impaired? Don't yell at me, it's a valid question. You're assuming your own standard of worth to be correct, after all. But you must consider that the impairment of a life according to how you measure success might not be evil absolutely. This is the error of many of your arguments, in that you base them upon such an assumption that the actualization of life in this manner is the highest good. What if it is not?
I personally think you are missing the point; you are looking too much into philosophy swirling the situation. It's not nearly as complex as you make it out to be. Notice he said, his friend's life would be significantly impaired, not the lives of all women; he was no speaking for all women, just his friend. It's the individual woman's call of judgment to decide whether bringing a child into the world is for her greater good, based on her personal situation and her feelings. For example, perhaps Zeality's friend found out she was pregnant during her first month of work at the job of her dreams, which happens to be very time-consuming and demanding. Having a child might force her to drop the career and future of her dreams, that she's strived her whole life to achieve. Perhaps she never wanted children; perhaps she wanted to live a childfree lifestyle. Another woman might have completely different circumstances, desires and attitudes towards children, which would make her perception of whether bringing an unexpected child into this world would impair her life or not. A woman's priorities are individual and subjective, and it's up to her to decide.

Nevermind. This is rather outdated since Lord J's last post has me reconsidering things.
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: Lord J Esq on July 05, 2009, 10:45:05 pm
I know you weren't directing any of this explicitly at me, Daniel, but I feel inspired to reply nevertheless. This is not going to be one of my customary rebuttals; simply a reply. I won't promise no disagreements, however. =)

Quote from: Daniel Krispin
You know, in all of this... heck, you know, I don't even want to bother arguing the issue. It's a useless thing. It's damned ad hominem, that's about all I see here, and it sickens me.

I can see why you would say that. Somebody like me uses words like “bigot” and “sexism,” and you use words like “ad hominem,” and very little real debate happens. It's even worse among the non-intellectuals or the pseudo-intellectuals who enter the fray (on any side) without a strong head to guide their arguments. I would say that it sickens me too.

Is it useless, though? My entire stay on General Discussion has been something of an informal experiment to answer that question, and I would have to say that, on the contrary, it can be very useful...if your goal is to help others broaden their minds. I had no idea what the long-term effects of my constant rebukes and lengthy expositions would be, but over time I have noticed several forum members evolve in their thinking, some to the point of completely upending their worldview. That's a gratifying thing, because it proved something which, years ago, I could only hypothesize: Despite all evidence to the contrary, people do listen to reason. I played a role in that, by showing people more coherent ideas than what they were accustomed to. Oh, I suspect you and I would disagree as to whether it was the merit of my ideas or the strength of my rhetoric that won the day, but from my point of view it isn't even close. You've always been capable of equaling me in endurance and eloquence, and your appeals to antiquity I cannot match, but I don't know of anyone on these forums who ended up evolving in your direction. I know that I repulsed plenty of people along the way—not least of which was our very own Ramsus, which, with apologies to him, amuses me to no end—but, all things considered, I think standing my ground was not so useless after all.

Quote from: Daniel Krispin
Dammit, it sickens me because I fear what science is to become, what people can say only to hold that science is with us, and those of the opposition, simply because they stand against us, are of the dark age. With what sweeping statements all opposition can be painted with the demon's brush, and all the high terrible rhetoric to which those who hold true to their inclination are subjected.

Your own rhetoric is no feeble force either, Daniel. Let me offer you my perspective from two vantage points:

First, much of the popular resistance to science is simply unfounded. It stems from our ingrained aversion to change, and from a popular culture which vilifies scientific progress as mad and destructive. I don't know about Canada, but America is an anti-intellectual nation. Then there is the whole religious aspect: To those whose progenitors once held that a god controls every aspect of every thing, scientific discovery over the generations has eroded considerably the power of the gods, to the point where many of the devout have declared science their enemy, unreasonably. In all of these contexts—the general aversion to change, the caricaturization of science, and the religious antipathy toward science—the “anti-science” faction is in the wrong. Why? Because change is not inherently a bad thing, because real science does not look like what we see in the movies, and because science does not care about religion and is not interested in making enemies of the religious. Science merely looks for explanations, and anyone who infers an ulterior motive out of that is being paranoid. It is perfectly fine to “demonize,” as you put it, the people who oppose science for no good reason, because they really are obstacles and hinderances.

Now, my other vantage point is this: I don't know any scientists who, by virtue of their passion for science, feel that scientific research ought to be absolutely unlimited. Undoubtedly there are a few, but that mindset simply does not have a place in the scientific tradition. Scientists, when they wear their scientist hats, are some of the most disinterested people among the human species. They're the only large group of people who explicitly affirm their willingness to be proven wrong and then actually follow through with an admission of wrongness when better information shows up. Even more amazingly, usually there is no egotism about it, and thus no humility. Being open to new ideas and new facts is just the way science works, and within the community there is nothing controversial about it. There is plenty of controversy about whether information can be considered “good” information, but there is universal agreement that facts will always prevail over preferences.

Nor is all this virtue held in place by some tenuous honor system. Scientific research—especially that conducted without a profit motive—is held in check by stringent ethical guidelines and a menagerie of state and federal laws, covering everything from occupational safety and health, to the wellbeing of animal test subjects, to the informed consent of participants, to the manipulation of the human condition. These guidelines and laws are not immutable, and there is always debate as to what the limits should be— but usually only crackpots outside the scientific world are in favor of unrestricted research or anything approaching it. Truly, Daniel, there are people out there who invoke the name of science as others would invoke the name of a deity. This is true. However, that quasi-religious bunch and their passion is not to be confused with those of us who value the real purpose of science, and our passion.

Quote from: Krispin
Science, there are crimes commited in your name. Shame on you who take science as your watchword and beat it into your sword to advance your own wars.

I agree with you here. I have probably even more disregard than you do for people who abuse the name of science. Notably, however, many of these people do so with a religious mindset: science is their religion.

Most people are either unwilling or unable to exercise their critical thinking skills on a regular basis in an effective way. For many people, “science” is little more than a faction in a war—a faction with which they align themselves, but a faction all the same. They follow the banner of science, not the actual institution of science. They surely do not grasp the harm they are doing.

I will rebuke such people myself when the way is clear to do so, but often the situation is complicated by the ongoing assault of the religious conservatives. C'est la vie.

Quote from: Daniel Krispin
Where is compassion and respect for your opponents?

I could read this two ways. In my first interpretation, you would seem to be arguing that people should honor decorum above the truth, and that we should be more concerned about keeping our sleeves clean than we should about bringing the world's truths into the sight of all people. In my second interpretation, you would seem to be dismayed by the enmity and egotism which despoils most arguments into mudslinging festivals. I am going to assume my second interpretation is the correct one.

I think you have to acknowledge the realities of this medium and of your fellow humanity. Intellectual debate is not a popular sport but an elite discipline, and most people floating around online simply do not possess the chops or the desire to participate in an elite discipline. Now, you were generous enough to phrase your rebuke so that it might apply to everyone rather than just your opponents, even if the context of your message paints a more partisan picture, so I can build on that with this:

You must distinguish between: 1) those involved in debate; 2) the points they are debating; and 3) the debate itself. In a mature debate, one respects the debate itself, shows compassion (or at least courtesy) to those involved, and abandons all ruth when it comes to the actual points of debate.

In contrast, respect for one's fellow debaters has to be earned. I have two requirements for that: The person in question must respect the debate, and they mustn't hold any blatantly despicable views. The former in particular seems to transcend partisanship, whereas the latter does a great job of inspiring contempt. We don't have more than a handful of high quality debates at the Compendium, and I think it's because the majority of people here are too young or inexperienced or unaware to know any better.

Quote from: Daniel Krispin
Where is the glimmer of thought that perhaps the enemy may be right?

Indeed.

Quote from: Daniel Krispin
And there is my frustration, a supreme one at that: the sentiments in the name of science that this thread have echoed. And how these arguments are put forward with the most insulting and unrespectful tenors, sweeping and painting all those of opposing views with statements that are, at best, ignorant and bigoted. *sigh* I expect far too much of humanity. At least, I mistakenly expected some bit of coherence in argument and explanation for people's views, rather than just the typical rehashed and indoctrinated rhetoric.

Sometimes a bigot is just a bigot. Someone who thinks so little of women has earned that title. Daniel, not all sides in a debate are legitimate. Not all points of view deserve the validation of a debate. In our society, we've become too focused on the idea that everything must be “fair and balanced,” and that the only enlightened debate is the kind where everybody “agrees to disagree.” Well, that's not reality. Some points of view are too odious to ever be treated with such respect and kindness.

What do you suppose Thought would think of me if I went up to his wife, in his presence, and called her a fat, ugly whore to her face? What do you suppose he would do? Would he say “Let's debate this maturely?” No...of all the things he might say, I think that's not one of them.

(And Thought, if you're reading, I only concocted that example because your Mario-mustachioed wife is quite attractive and seems like an awesome person. Please don't kill me...)

Independent of the number of people who oppose abortion rights is the ugliness of opposing abortion rights. Independent of the generalness of talking about “women” as a group is the ugliness of the injustice visited upon the specific individuals who are affected by the controversy.

I do use the word “bigot” a lot, but never idly or indiscriminately. There simply are that many bigots in the world. Is it “an insulting and unrespectful tenor” for me to bring that word into a debate? No. It is an insulting and unrespectful tenor for anyone to be opposed to abortion in the first place.

Quote from: Daniel Krispin
It is laughable in an utterly depressing way to see those who think themselves free from bias be as biased as those they accuse of it, and only use appeals to some faint, distant, and mostly unproveable, ideal, as vindication for their faith. How can you do this? As rational, thinking individuals, how can you do this? How can you honestly think yourselves so enlightened? Isn't the nature of knowledge that it shows one all the clearer one's uncertainty? Is this not the old Socratean maxim?

I can't help but think you're thinking of me. If I am mistaken, then forgive me for being egotistical. I think your rhetoric here is unsupportable. I would defy you to substantiate these allegations which you cloak as observations. I would, but, knowing that we know that you know that I know that you won't be convinced by any subsequent rebuttal I might make, this time I do not defy you to substantiate your case. I will simply dismiss it here, and I don't think you will object, because we have covered all of this ground before.

Quote from: Daniel Krispin
Endless appeals to statistics and 'facts' and all that rot, but in the end, nothing really proven other than that he really, really believes his idea.

Surely you are aware that a statement such as that is counterproductive. I can only conclude that you don't care. Forever curious is your premise that faith trumps facts, and that facts are not the base units of truth. “All that rot,” eh? I would love to visit the inside of your mind sometime.

More generally, I have learned that religious people have a very hard time understanding the world from a faith-free point of view. Using a word like “belief” and applying it to someone like me is rather pointless...and nearly meaningless. I try to avoid beliefs entirely, because they make for weak ground to stand on. There is a wide world of subjects where my knowledge is insufficient to warrant an opinion, and on these subjects you will not see me press a case. Meanwhile, in those few areas where my knowledge is sufficient enough and my passion high enough that an opinion ensues, I will stand my ground firmly. Then along come the believers, who fail to see all the opinions I do not have and see only my adamancy on the opinions I do have. Then they insist my conduct is hypocritical and claim I too am merely issuing a belief, no different from anyone. How inane.

Over the years you have set up a very difficult set of criteria for people to prove to you that you are mistaken on any given subject. You reject “statistics and fact,” you dismiss contrary passion as self-defeating, you conflate reason with belief, and you resort to claims of “ad hominem” thereby completely ignoring the actual substance of the charges raised against you. You have built one of the most powerful shells I have ever witnessed, and it would have to be powerful to accommodate your intellectual fiber, but, as a consequence of its robustness, it stands out glaringly...to everyone on the outside. This, more than anything, is why you and I can have so few mature debates between us. We both know what we are about, and I am unwilling to be moved by inferior arguments, and you are unwilling to be moved by superior ones. Impasse. I have not debated with you on all those many occasions where you had a meritorious point, or have you forgotten?

Quote from: Daniel Krispin
If I'm to be convinced, it'd be through logic and through reason, not through this pseudo-scientific approach. But philosophy! I believe in evolution; I did not always do so. I was convinced. I can be changed. But this? This just shows to me, well, the inherent weakness of your argument.

I get what you're saying. My previous posts did not contain any bibliographies, and they made no justification for the premises I hold. I said that sexism is a bad thing, but I didn't explain why. I said that murdering Dr. Tiller was an act of domestic terrorism, but I didn't define what terrorism is. I left no room for a reasonable anti-choice point of view, without giving any of the currently anti-choice people an out other than through bigotry or ignorance.

Yeah, I see what you're saying, and I'll address it shortly. But first...first...I'm not just anybody. I'm one of the few people who can actually see through your complaint to the motive behind it. This is a particularly masterful piece of rhetoric on your part, because on the surface it is completely valid. For you to be wrong about me would require that I possess superior firepower that I haven't unleashed, raising the question of why I wouldn't resort to such means if they really could persuade you as you say.

Here's why: It doesn't work. I used to spend five or even ten times as long on my arguments, by referencing everything that I said...only to have some obstinate snot come along, shrug their shoulders, and say “Meh.” You can see the vestiges of my practice by looking at some of my older arguments on the Compendium, although by 2003 I was already well along in learning this crucial lesson: Facts don't win over those who have already made up their minds. They just don't work. In hindsight, it's no surprise: The facts do not require me to give them a voice: They are everywhere. Those who deny them must be quite good at it.

I think you are one of those whose mind is already made up, Daniel. Your views can be changed, but not from people like me who you perceive as antagonistic. Years ago I unwittingly burned the bridge of any influence I might have on you. I'm glad you “believe” in evolution, even though that's still wrong, since the concept does not accommodate belief in order to be properly accepted. And I'm glad that, in general, you have matured and opened your mind in some instances, to some people, on your terms. It'll be healthy for you in the long run, and may even lead to the day when you can take advice from people like me without performing these tortured acrobatic feats to elude my arguments—having learned the hard way that you cannot confront them frontally.

Let me talk about my frontal assault power, just for a moment. Like any good superweapon, I wish I could use it exclusively, yet in practice I rarely use it at all—especially on Internet message forums. Why? Because it takes extraordinary time and energy to make a powerful case, and yet it gets me no farther ahead in a place like this than simply stating the bottom line. People aren't like that: They don't respond to quality as I wish they would. In practice, no hostile audience is going to be convinced by my full case but not by summary declaration of the bottom lines on an issue. Likewise, those whose minds are open enough to acknowledge the merit of my summary declarations do not need the massive onslaught of a fully-support argument just to perceive that merit. You might say that I'm like Spekkio: I give you back what you're capable of dealing with, and I don't waste more of my limited time and enthusiasm than that.

But if you want to see what it's like, and put your supposed open-mindedness to the test, I would do it. I would present to you my full case on the subject of abortion—such that anyone with an impartial judgment would be able to see irrefutably that only bigotry or ignorance can justify an anti-choice stance. It would take days or even weeks for me to make the time to finish it, but if you're prepared to come out in favor of unconditional access to abortion care—if you truly are prepared to grow intellectually—then, for you, I will rouse myself to the occasion. Understand, however, that, if you ask for this, you will get nothing less than my best, and, if you are not ready to acknowledge your ignorance or your bigotry as the case may be, you will be revealed as a hypocrite to all those who are assembled here. So, I would be the one doing all the work, but you would stand more to lose. It's your choice, Daniel Krispin.

On the other hand, if you aren't ready for that, then at least show me the courtesy of making specific objections where you see them rather than rhetorically admonishing me—especially now that I have offered you the honor of experiencing one of my full arguments. On a more casual level, I've rarely shied away from defending my statements when challenged. Go for it! Here, your next post gives you an opportunity to do just that:

Quote from: Daniel Krispin
However, on another note, since, as you have said, it certainly is the responsability of both parties involved, why is the modern response then to absolve both of the responsibility (ie. have an abortion), rather than enforcing responsibility upon both? Personally I would much prefer the second option. Absolving people of responsibility is not a good way of running a society - if you will, there's my social commentary.

By enforcing responsibility on the parents—where “responsibility” is assumed to mean that the mother is not allowed to have an abortion and instead both mother and father must raise together the kid they conceived together—we would be using the children as pawns in their parents' penalization, and we would betting the parents up to resent their own kids. That's a terrible idea, both from the child's viewpoint and from the society's.

What part of my analysis do you disagree with?

Quote from: Daniel Krispin
To admit abortion, save for the most extreme circumstances, might be a disrespect of the woman. Yes, you heard that right. It may be a disrespect. I believe it is Kant - though I only know this via my brother's ramblings - that speaks to the effect that criminials are punished because we respect them as humans. We act in accordance with the law to honour their choices. They have broken the law knowingly, hence to respect that decision, their human faculty of choice, we punish them as the law dictates. To remove that dehumanizes them. Likewise, becoming preganant is almost always done knowingly - that is, the knowledge that there is that risk. Barring more extreme cases (and it's better to argue the rules, rather than the exceptions), this is how it is. To remove the consequence of those actions is to disrespect the choice that was made, and in effect dehumanizes the person by removing the consequences to her decesion to have such sex. Such is one philosophical proposal which delves into the nature of choice itself.

You are comparing women who seek an abortion to criminals? We need to talk about your perspective here, Daniel.

At first, you are saying that people should accept the consequences of their actions. That's something I can agree with. But then you go on to imply that, if someone gets pregnant, the only acceptable consequence is for her to give birth to, and presumably raise, the child. If she doesn't do that, it is “demeaning” to her. In so doing, you insinuate that conceiving a child is a bad thing, and that the woman must be punished for her inappropriate action by being forced to have the kid. In this way, you make two completely hidden claims: First, you presume that any sexual act which results in the conception of an unwanted child is a bad thing. Second, you presume that only giving birth (and presumably raising the child) is an acceptable consequence of getting pregnant.

You need to justify those two claims.

Consider what it would be like if you hadn't brought that baggage into the discussion. Suppose I cut off my fingertip in a kitchen mishap. I was going too fast and was simply being careless. No excuses. Well...the hospital can fix that. They can sew my fingertip back on and, in a few weeks, all will be right with the world once more. This would be uncontroversial.

Yet it is a direct analogy to abortion: Hey, I was being with that knife. Shouldn't I suffer my fate, rather than trying to cheat using the power of modern medicine to get my fingertip back? Wouldn't a band-aid and a stiff upper lip do my character a lot more good?

That's what you're saying, Daniel: You're saying that conception is a bad thing that many people would get out of if they could, but that instead they should have the kid because it's better for their character. Can you justify that?

Quote from: Krispin
Nor, for that matter, is the validity of the statement that a woman should do as she wishes with her own body. Firstly assuming that one does have absolute supremacy over their own body (something that is taken true apriori, but is never actually proven to be the case... in the natural world this is certainly not the case, seeing as members of a species will sacrifice others for their own survival, in which the sanctity of the individual certainly does not exist),

The right to self-determination is only occasionally enshrined in the law, and it is certainly not inherent to the universe itself, as you point out. What it is inherent to is the human condition. We desire to control our own bodies in a way that bees do not. This desire is not only instinctual, but cognitive too. You like philosophy; you should be able to appreciate the subtlety of this point: Much of our justification both as a species and as individuals comes from our ability to effect changes in our environment. If we do not have the right to control our own bodies, then much of our purpose in life evaporates. Another question also rises: If we do not have the right to control our own bodies, who does? And yet another question: If the right to self-determination is not absolute, how could you possibly begin to qualify it?

Those are not rhetorical questions, for indeed there are some obvious exceptions: Children are not granted full self-determination—only partial self-determination—because they are not yet capable of understanding their actions. The gap of time between when a child begins to achieve this ability yet is still declared a minor by the law is one of the greatest moments of tension and rebelliousness in a person's life. Another example is the criminally insane; they might be medicated against their will—or they may not possess a rational will at all, in which case anything done to their bodies would be without their consent.

These are valid exceptions whose validity is obvious. Depriving a woman of her reproductive rights for her own good or for the good of society does not seem obvious to me at all. Can you possibly make such a case? I can make a case to the contrary: Depriving a woman of her productive rights means that any time she has sex she will potentially trigger a course of events in which she is required to give birth to a child. She is therefore motivated to use contraceptives or to refrain from sex altogether. This amounts to a constraint on her sexuality. Is that a good thing that should be enshrined in the law and applicable in the vast majority of cases? Should a fertile woman refrain from sex through her entire reproductive lifetime except when she is willing to have a child?

Well, there are two answers: yes and no. Let's cover both. “No” can be justified on the simple grounds that sex is one of the most pleasurable activities in life while sexuality is one of the fundamental human forms of expression. It would make a lot of sense for women to be allowed to have sex however they please, and if medical technology permits them to do so without having unwanted children, so much the better: Take contraceptives where possible, because it's easier than abortion, and resort to abortion when necessary.

“Yes” can also be justified on simple grounds, but, not surprisingly, only religious people make that particular case, because they invariably resort to talking about the sacredness of sexual intercourse, or the soul of a zygote, or other such nonsense that is total gibberish outside of a religious context.

It is impossible to advocating the universal restriction of women's sexuality that would come with a ban on abortion without resorting to value judgments on sex and conception that are factually insupportable and rely totally on theological validation.

What part of my argument do you disagree with, Daniel?

Quote from: Daniel Krispin
there is the problem of if the child is part of the woman, and if so, at what point does individual identity begin? (This is even putting aside the issue of what is 'life', and if life has sanctity... if it does not, there is nothing ethical wrong with killing... and if there is, what constitutes life?) Indeed, it is made all the more difficult by the fact that we have already assumed individual sanctity in the case of the woman... does this not extend then to an unborn child? And if it does not, then at what point does the growing creature become an individual human? At birth? What makes that the proper line, or are we arbitarially assigning it?

I'm glad you raised this point. “Identity” in the sense you mean it exists in the mind, and can be perceived by others—although sometimes the perception is incorrect. (See: Terri Schiavo.) This identity begins gradually, taking form as a child's sentient will slowly coalesces into a coherent mental space from which the child perceives itself and its surroundings. All of this happens after birth over a long period of time—weeks, months, even in the first couple of years of life. When a baby is actually born, it is purely an instinctive animal with no identity of its own. It has basic abilities provided for biologically, such as the ability to breathe and to suckle and to pee, but there is no “grant intellect” behind these functions. We anthropomorphize babies...we attribute meaning to their actions that isn't there, in the same way we anthropomorphize pets and even inanimate objects. But it's all in our own minds at that point. A newborn baby, let alone an unborn baby, possesses no identity.

Nor am I merely saying that. You can look up for yourself the stages of cognitive development in infants. The bottom line is that, when a woman gets an abortion, there is no “person” there being murdered...only a body being destroyed.

Quote from: Daniel Krispin
Therefore even if abortions are to be done, they should be in some part the decision of the father... right? Because though the woman has to undergo nine months of labour, what makes the time and work spent more valuable than the investment the man has put into it?

The nine months of gestation and the many hours of labor make the woman's contribution more valuable than the man's, that's what. Can you really dismiss this so crassly? A man spends two minutes of ecstasy making a kid; a woman spends nearly a year of her life lugging it around inside her own body—at a risk to her health, her social status, her career, and her financial independence.

She's the one running the baby oven: It's her choice by default what to do with the knobs and switches. It's not about the baby, Daniel. It's about the woman. If the man wants a child so badly, he will have to find a woman who is willing to have one with him. Is that so terrible a thing to ask of him? And would you really believe that a man should be able to force a woman to carry a child to term simply because she agreed to have sex with him? Tell me how that would not be a blatant subjugation of a woman's rights.

Disgusting. There's a word for “rape,” but there is not yet a word for forced birth. Maybe we need one.

Quote from: Daniel Krispin
What I mean by this is that Zelbess, for example, speaks that 'unless the traditional public view toward sex changes...', implying a very puritan and old-fashioned viewing of sex. However, when I look at the typical public view, I see it rather free and liberal. Now unless there is a difference between Canada and the US in this...

Bingo. In much of the United States, abortion care is effectively illegal or unobtainable due to the efforts of state and local activists and government. Whereas in a city like Seattle someone can get an abortion without being harassed by the Jesus police, there are some places where one would have to drive hundreds of miles, on their own dime, to get to a healthcare clinic providing abortion services. They would then have to make their way through the crowds of religious bigots shouting terrible things at them. They would have to undergo the procedure absolutely alone, except for the medical staff, and then, having gotten the abortion, go back to face the wrath of a hostile family who despises what she has done with herself. Those hurdles are insurmountable for millions of women annually, and, as a result, millions of children are brought into the world who have no place being here. It's a despicable crime.

Don't tell me that answers are horridly difficult to come by. They're really quite easy.
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: Daniel Krispin on July 05, 2009, 10:52:37 pm
Quote from: Lord J
You are comparing women who seek an abortion to criminals? We need to talk about your perspective here, Daniel.

At first, you are saying that people should accept the consequences of their actions. That's something I can agree with. But then you go on to imply that, if someone gets pregnant, the only acceptable consequence is for her to give birth to, and presumably raise, the child. If she doesn't do that, it is “demeaning” to her. In so doing, you insinuate that conceiving a child is a bad thing, and that the woman must be punished for her inappropriate action by being forced to have the kid. In this way, you make two completely hidden claims: First, you presume that any sexual act which results in the conception of an unwanted child is a bad thing. Second, you presume that only giving birth (and presumably raising the child) is an acceptable consequence of getting pregnant.

You need to justify those two claims.

Consider what it would be like if you hadn't brought that baggage into the discussion. Suppose I cut off my fingertip in a kitchen mishap. I was going too fast and was simply being careless. No excuses. Well...the hospital can fix that. They can sew my fingertip back on and, in a few weeks, all will be right with the world once more. This would be uncontroversial.

Yet it is a direct analogy to abortion: Hey, I was being with that knife. Shouldn't I suffer my fate, rather than trying to cheat using the power of modern medicine to get my fingertip back? Wouldn't a band-aid and a stiff upper lip do my character a lot more good?

That's what you're saying, Daniel: You're saying that conception is a bad thing that many people would get out of if they could, but that instead they should have the kid because it's better for their character. Can you justify that?

It'll take me a while to read the rest, but this part for the moment stuck out. No, I feared it would be seen like that, no it's not compared to a criminal. That is just an example of cause and effect.

But as for the rest, I'll take that into due consideration. I'm not exactly sure at the moment how to reply to the knife analogy, and it might imply a flaw in my reasoning, I must admit. And, unfortunately, this was the cornerstone of my argument. *sigh* I'll be back, sometimes later... I do appreciate your reply, though. It's very measured. It'll give me a bunch to think about.
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: Zelbess on July 05, 2009, 11:06:24 pm
Quote
Ah, you're making an error in that Zelbess. You say 'a woman should not sacrifice...' You are making a statement of opinion in that, or at least a moral judgement in that you think that it should not be so.
You're missing the point; she is making a sacrifice. She is sacrificing a potential outcome of the future, one that might be better for her. Whether it be better or worse for her, she is now faced with a road that has been barricaded and no longer can be taken.  All, by your standards, so she can be "taught a lesson in responsibility".

Quote
And, to make the issue worse, you cannot argue for moral relativism, because then one could well argue to the extent a good extent that even mass murder is justified by someone of superhuman character, if that fits within their personal moral framework. Unfortunately to say 'everyone should do as they see fit' isn't exactly a good solution either.
I don't see how you can make the comparison between the freedom to terminate of a fetus and the freedom to commit mass-murder. That's incredibly extreme, and as such, does absolutely nothing to bolster your point.

Quote
The thing is, there are ways around it all. Avoid sex. If you have sex, there's this chance. You know, if it's that much a peril to you, if you're job is that valuable, you know what? You can avoid sex, too! Heavens, there's always that! It sounds to me like you want your cake and want to eat it, too. If there's this danger with getting pregnant, and if your job is really that valuable, if your future is that valuable, then you can put your sex life on hold. But you wouldn't... which seems to imply the issue is rather about wishing to be selfish. People are thinking they have a right to be selfish. To be able to have everything, and get rid of the consequences.

It's got me utterly overthrown that you don't consider that option. That it must be that one can have sex with the possibility of pregancy but still not accept the responsability that entails if it damages the career. As I said, if it's that perilous, if your career is really that valuable as you say it is, you'll avoid the sex. And if you don't... well, maybe it's not the career that's valuable, maybe it's the ability to do exactly what you want and damn the consequences, which, in its barest, baldest, form, is actually just being selfish, and nothing more noble than that.
Wow, I find this extremely sexist and incredibly ridiculous. Women want sexual equality, which would mean they should have their cake and eat it to. Why? Because men certainly can. Not only can they have their cake and eat it too, by your view, they also get a complementary scoop of ice cream because they lack a uterus and do not have to deal with pregnancy, therefore, have a complete right to sexual freedom and expression. Men can have sex and not worry about the repercussions of pregnancy ruining their career. They don't have to take time off to birth the child, to recover; they can take an optional paternity leave if they wish, though. Add another cherry to that scoop of ice cream! By your view, it seems that only women should deny their sexual urges because of risk to their careers, hopes and dreams. If women value their careers, their contributions to the world through their work, they should just completely avoid sex, not express their sexuality and deny part of their human nature? All because of the risk of getting pregnant and possibly denying a mere potential future life? Yeah, that's completely reasonable. Women have a right to their sexuality as much as men; they are sexual creatures, just like men. To deny that part of themselves because it's "selfish"? The fact is, you have to be selfish in life sometimes; You can't live selflessly and get by. People have a right to be selfish. Frankly, if you are preaching about the evils of selfishness, I would truly hope that you are not being a hypocrite and have lived a completely selfless life, in which every action you did contributed to the benefit of others. Complete selflessness is not conducive to emotional happiness. I value the happiness of the life already on this planet, which is more substantial than anything "potential".

Your viewpoint doesn't promote equality, it just makes the chasm between women and men even larger and deeper. Frankly, like Zephira, your view sickens me (and I'm asexual!) and your expectations out of women who wish not to currently have a child are completely and utterly ridiculous. I guess if a couple marries eachother and wishes to be child-free, they should just abstain from sex and masturbate til the day they die. Because apparently, sex without the purpose of baby-makin' is "selfish". I can't even wrap my head around that... I'm done with this debate. :| I know when something is hopeless, and this situation truly is.
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: Boo the Gentleman Caller on July 05, 2009, 11:12:28 pm
Don't hate, masterbate!
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: Daniel Krispin on July 06, 2009, 12:17:07 am
Quote
Ah, you're making an error in that Zelbess. You say 'a woman should not sacrifice...' You are making a statement of opinion in that, or at least a moral judgement in that you think that it should not be so.
You're missing the point; she is making a sacrifice. She is sacrificing a potential outcome of the future, one that might be better for her. Whether it be better or worse for her, she is now faced with a road that has been barricaded and no longer can be taken.  All, by your standards, so she can be "taught a lesson in responsibility".

Quote
And, to make the issue worse, you cannot argue for moral relativism, because then one could well argue to the extent a good extent that even mass murder is justified by someone of superhuman character, if that fits within their personal moral framework. Unfortunately to say 'everyone should do as they see fit' isn't exactly a good solution either.
I don't see how you can make the comparison between the freedom to terminate of a fetus and the freedom to commit mass-murder. That's incredibly extreme, and as such, does absolutely nothing to bolster your point.

Quote
The thing is, there are ways around it all. Avoid sex. If you have sex, there's this chance. You know, if it's that much a peril to you, if you're job is that valuable, you know what? You can avoid sex, too! Heavens, there's always that! It sounds to me like you want your cake and want to eat it, too. If there's this danger with getting pregnant, and if your job is really that valuable, if your future is that valuable, then you can put your sex life on hold. But you wouldn't... which seems to imply the issue is rather about wishing to be selfish. People are thinking they have a right to be selfish. To be able to have everything, and get rid of the consequences.

It's got me utterly overthrown that you don't consider that option. That it must be that one can have sex with the possibility of pregancy but still not accept the responsability that entails if it damages the career. As I said, if it's that perilous, if your career is really that valuable as you say it is, you'll avoid the sex. And if you don't... well, maybe it's not the career that's valuable, maybe it's the ability to do exactly what you want and damn the consequences, which, in its barest, baldest, form, is actually just being selfish, and nothing more noble than that.
Wow, I find this extremely sexist and incredibly ridiculous. Women want sexual equality, which would mean they should have their cake and eat it to. Why? Because men certainly can. Not only can they have their cake and eat it too, by your view, they also get a complementary scoop of ice cream because they lack a uterus and do not have to deal with pregnancy, therefore, have a complete right to sexual freedom and expression. Men can have sex and not worry about the repercussions of pregnancy ruining their career. They don't have to take time off to birth the child, to recover; they can take an optional paternity leave if they wish, though. Add another cherry to that scoop of ice cream! By your view, it seems that only women should deny their sexual urges because of risk to their careers, hopes and dreams. If women value their careers, their contributions to the world through their work, they should just completely avoid sex, not express their sexuality and deny part of their human nature? All because of the risk of getting pregnant and possibly denying a mere potential future life? Yeah, that's completely reasonable. Women have a right to their sexuality as much as men; they are sexual creatures, just like men. To deny that part of themselves because it's "selfish"? The fact is, you have to be selfish in life sometimes; You can't live selflessly and get by. People have a right to be selfish. Frankly, if you are preaching about the evils of selfishness, I would truly hope that you are not being a hypocrite and have lived a completely selfless life, in which every action you did contributed to the benefit of others. Complete selflessness is not conducive to emotional happiness. I value the happiness of the life already on this planet, which is more substantial than anything "potential".

Your viewpoint doesn't promote equality, it just makes the chasm between women and men even larger and deeper. Frankly, like Zephira, your view sickens me (and I'm asexual!) and your expectations out of women who wish not to currently have a child are completely and utterly ridiculous. I guess if a couple marries eachother and wishes to be child-free, they should just abstain from sex and masturbate til the day they die. Because apparently, sex without the purpose of baby-makin' is "selfish". I can't even wrap my head around that... I'm done with this debate. :| I know when something is hopeless, and this situation truly is.


Whoa, Zelbess, ease off on the name calling and ad hominem. Frankly, no, it's not 'extremely sexist', not unless you have a skewed interpretation of what that means. If it means I have a different view of things than you, then fine, that might be the case. But I made a point, and to be name-called for it is hardly fitting. This is, in fact, exactly what I'd feared - that I get painted with a villain's brush and set into politically charged categories like being a sexist.

Frankly, that's a horrid way of arguing, and I'm really quite offended that you would level that at me, when on one hand you only half understood my argument, and on the other in all things I have ever been I have never acted as such.

Okay, let's go through this. Though it's difficult. You're working with preconceptions regarding my arguments and making what I said fit into those, rather than examining what I actually said. For one thing, I never spoke about anything as being 'taught a lesson.' This is about cause and effect, the very thing that makes human society work. Something must take the weight of what happens. In this case, there is the example that, oh, we have a shortage of young people relative to old in our society. That is a societal problem, Zelbless, not a personal one. Not to mention you entirely missed my point in that statement which was that your saying 'should not' is a statement of your own viewpoint, rather than an absolute one.

Secondly, regarding my supposed 'extreme' answer, again, you missed the mark widely. I was merely saying that in this case moral relativism could not work, because it would imply that if one can do things to gain ends, it includes the likes of mass murder. This is a true statement, that relativism that implies the end justifying the means - especially if you consider an unborn alive. If you don't consider the two the same, then where do you draw a line, and what is the value you place on life?

Thirdly... oh, wow. Zelbess, do you think so little of me that you would write... that to me? Seriously. From all that you've ever heard me say, and you take that stance against me? Whenever in all that I said did I advocate that men should be treated differently, hm? I have always maintained that equality, in fact added that if it were me, I would take that responsability instead of a wife or a girlfriend, showing that I do not even think that child-rearing unique to the mother. And you have the audacity to call me sexist? Look, the simple fact is, some women can manage having children and a career. Some can't. The individual should be mature enough to know that and not become pregnant if they know it would interfere. The bloody same goes for men. And you're offended by this? You seem to have a predisposition to seeing sexism, and to declaiming it, I think.

Frankly, Zelbess, you're overreacting to the maximum. You saw me say a bit that disagreed, and you went on overdrive-kill mode against a perceived threat that's not there. You're shooting a bogeymen that don't exist, shot an arrow at a foe and hit a friend. I never once argued for what you think I did, for anything I said for women I hold the same for men, and first and foremost for myself. Not to mention my commentary on being 'selfish' was in regards to the concept, not the individual, who of course does selfish things. "Because apparently sex without the purpose of baby-makin' is selfish"... wow. Just, wow. Honestly, I'm rather speechless that you mock me quite like that. That you'd paint me as... that. I never said that to be the sole purpose. I only ever said that I consider the strong possibility that a foetus could be alive, in which case I think life trumps anything else. Use birth control if that helps, but as was said, it's not 100%, so there is that risk. And risk can't be annulled. And just because I say that if there is a child that it should not be, as I see it, killed, I'm seen to be that? For all that I've treated everyone on these forums, men and women alike and equal, for all that, never taking part in any partisan mocking or ridiculous jesting any which way, when I try to make a statement about something like this, still I'm labelled a villain, without all my other actions taken into account, and I sicken those who have otherwise known me to be honourable? Truly, a good reputation is meaningless.

*sigh*

And then you bow out of it. Did I really earn that level of disrespect that you would not even try and understand what I meant? If there's any that should bow out in disgust it should be I. As soon as I pen my mouth arguing reasons why I think abortion might be wrong I'm labelled woman-hater and and it's implied that I wish to see women as nothing as child-rearers. Zelbess, take a deep look at how I've always treated any woman on the forums, whether it is you or tea or Zephira... have I ever spoken down at you, ever shown myself to be like that? Have I ever even treated you any differently from the men?

Despite my perceived actions, I never spoke anything with ill intent. If my company is ill-liked and if I'm to be seen a villain and a dastard for holding a contrary viewpoint, I'll reserve it. I suppose... I'll leave this bloody thing now. Save for J, he deserves a response for what his considerations. But... you're right, this cannot be argued. This IS a lost cause, because your mind is set and will see a demon in me if I so much as breathe a word contrary to your liking in this matter. I had hoped for better, but I suppose that's the dissident's lot. But dammit, now I feel sick.
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: skylark on July 06, 2009, 12:28:15 am
Wow... :shock:

Ummm, I'm just gonna say this.

I don't quite like the idea of abortion, but I also understand that it's not my place to judge, or anybody else's for that manner. Hell, she shouldn't be judged at all! I'm not going to throw stones at woman because she doesn't want a kid.

I think it's sick that there are so many closed-minded people out there who would go so far as to kill to make sure 'their way is right'.

If I'm being counter-productive, my bad. :(

And wow for Lord J. :shock:
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: Truthordeal on July 06, 2009, 12:36:09 am
Wow... :shock:

Ummm, I'm just gonna say this.

I don't quite like the idea of abortion, but I also understand that it's not my place to judge, or anybody else's for that manner. Hell, she shouldn't be judged at all! I'm not going to throw stones at woman because she doesn't want a kid.

I think it's sick that there are so many closed-minded people out there who would go so far as to kill to make sure 'their way is right'.

If I'm being counter-productive, my bad. :(

And wow for Lord J. :shock:

Skylark, that is quite possibly the smartest thing I've heard on the abortion debate to date.

And now I'm frustrated that I missed being a Level ** and am now a Guardian :(
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: Daniel Krispin on July 06, 2009, 01:11:32 am
Wow... :shock:

Ummm, I'm just gonna say this.

I don't quite like the idea of abortion, but I also understand that it's not my place to judge, or anybody else's for that manner. Hell, she shouldn't be judged at all! I'm not going to throw stones at woman because she doesn't want a kid.

I think it's sick that there are so many closed-minded people out there who would go so far as to kill to make sure 'their way is right'.

If I'm being counter-productive, my bad. :(

And wow for Lord J. :shock:

Ya, he writes a lot. I've still gotta sort my way through it all, heh.

Was there anyone that demanded killing to make sure of their own rightness? I don't think there are many that would go that far.
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: IAmSerge on July 06, 2009, 01:54:03 am
This is, in fact, exactly what I'd feared - that I get painted with a villain's brush and set into politically charged categories like being a sexist.

Don't worry, we all do here.  You know, how Z takes his political and anti-religious frustrations out on me.  *shrug* happens all the time.

Quote
I know when something is hopeless, and this situation truly is.

You're exactly right.  Any sort of political debate on these boards, or any debate other than those on CT, is hopeless.  Both sides are just too damn stubborn.
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: skylark on July 06, 2009, 01:58:33 am
Ya, he writes a lot. I've still gotta sort my way through it all, heh.

Was there anyone that demanded killing to make sure of their own rightness? I don't think there are many that would go that far.

And I've stepped into a minefield. >_<

Oh well, I guess I'll nail my coffin now and get it over with.

I'm not as extreme as Zeality on atheistic belief, but I know there are far more hateful people in the world than many of us are willing to admit. The killer(s) behind that abortion doctor is, sadly, the only example I can think of on the top of my head.

But the real monsters, in my opinion are the ones who don't demand. They just do.

I know I have no proof, but... it's just a gut feeling that I have.

It may be due to the fact that I don't have that much faith in people to begin with.

Pessimism sucks. >_<

Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: ZeaLitY on July 06, 2009, 12:25:34 pm
I'm not as extreme as Zeality on atheistic belief

Haha @ atheistic "belief".
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: x_XTacTX_x on July 06, 2009, 02:24:07 pm
I'm not as extreme as Zeality on atheistic belief

Haha @ atheistic "belief".

No offense meant here Z, and coming from a fellow atheist, we have still yet to find solid, decisive proof that there is not a higher deity, just as much as the religious have yet to find proof that the world did not originate the way we think it did. Hence, this is a belief. Not a religious or theistic one, mind you, but it is something we believe because there has been enough evidence supplied, yet no decisive proof.

I suggest you remain open-minded and admit that there are flaws in any kind of belief system.
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: Zephira on July 06, 2009, 02:42:03 pm
There are flaws in every belief system, theistic or atheistic. The big flaw they all share? They all show how the universe "began", but nothing can go back farther than that. Most theists believe that God created the universe. But, where did God come from? Atheists believe the Big Bang was the start of the universe. But, where did all the matter for that come from? Was there another universe before hours that eventually compressed small enough that it exploded? Will our universe do that too?

Yes, looking towards the very beginning is fascinating, but it doesn't help us get anywhere. If God created the universe, how does that help us build a better future for ourselves? If the universe exploded out of a single super massive point of matter, how does that help us improve life on earth? Every now and then the "yeah, but what happened BEFORE that" question pops into my head, and it always gives me a headache. It makes more sense to look to the future instead of trying to answer something that can't be answered.
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: x_XTacTX_x on July 06, 2009, 02:45:42 pm
Atheists believe the Big Bang was the start of the universe. But, where did all the matter for that come from? Was there another universe before hours that eventually compressed small enough that it exploded? Will our universe do that too?

It was our universe, and it will do it again. No matter came from anything, it is the same matter you see here today, just compressed. We can speculate that our universe has done this before many times, and we're just another part of the cycle.
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: skylark on July 06, 2009, 02:48:10 pm
Haha @ atheistic "belief".

*Steps on mine*

*BOOM*

And this is why I keep my damn mouth shut, because I word things wrong... >_<

I think Z got what I meant, though. :p
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: FaustWolf on July 06, 2009, 02:52:56 pm
Hmm, I'm still unsettled by the result of the argument between Krispin and Zelbess, because I think they've both brought up main ideas that appear conflicting yet could be resolved quite easily if we simply clarify one assumption.

Zelbess' assumption is that sexuality is as integral a part of human nature as eating and drinking. Krispin's assumption is that sexuality automatically entails a chance of pregnancy, and extrapolating from that, a couple who do not wish to risk creating and destroying human potential should abstain from sex completely. The conflict is, asking people to forego an integral part of human nature entirely can be seen as an inhumane expectation.

However, already at this starting point, the debate has been tainted by centuries of androcentric views of sexuality that continue to infest our sex education classes and pop culture. What I refer to, of course, is the fetishization of penetrative sex. Why, when the entire human body is a sexual organ, do we continue to focus on such a small portion of it?

Might we not reconcile the argument at hand by allowing the hypothetical couple to engage in sexual behavior that involves no penetration, and therefore no chance of pregnancy? Bear in mind, scientists are starting to believe that the evolutionary purpose of the female orgasm has been to bond women to creative partners, ones who show capacity for caring and communication.

C'mon, we're human beings here. We've got brains, and therefore we should be able to figure out a way to have our cake and eat it too, with a little self control. Asking the male partner to forego a single sex act out of many possible ways to fulfill sexual potential certainly is justified by the fact that it prevents the possibility of creating "unwanted" life "by mistake" (for those amongst us who are pro-life), and I feel it is also certainly justified by the fact that it prevents the possibility of induced uterine dilation, a ton of bleeding, and chance of infection (for those amongst us who are pro-choice).

Western sex ed systems have done wonders in educating us in various forms of barrier protection (still important for prevention of STDs even in a variety of non-penetrative sex acts), but there is still a huge amount of injustice in the fact that they tacitly continue to promote an androcentric view of sexuality. And it is to the detriment of us all. It is probably in the bedroom that the remnant of androcentric oppression rears its ugly head most in western society.

Oh my, that last sentence could be seen as double entendre. Shame on me. I certainly don't want to present myself as a misandrist either, but I feel that androcentrism and misandry are one and the same in the final analysis, for degrading the human potential of men just as much as it oppresses women.

EDIT: Alfadorredux, I am one of those who presented vasectomies as if they were failsafe earlier, and you're correct. Looks like the success rate of a vasectomy isn't all that much better than a condom based on the data available, maybe moving the decimal point over a bit. Still, that shouldn't be good enough for a true pro-lifer/pro-choicer, both of which share an interest in a 100% pregnancy prevention rate and therefore should see eye to eye in the end. We should be pushing for reengineering both of sexual mores and the human body if the goal will ever be achieved.

Moving on...
Quote from: Zephira
If God created the universe, how does that help us build a better future for ourselves? If the universe exploded out of a single super massive point of matter, how does that help us improve life on earth?
Even barring the theological concerns and the motivations behind them for now, knowing our origins could be hugely important given a few millennia, or maybe a few thousand millennia. If the universe is in a constant cycle of expansion and contraction, we need to know this so that we can somehow escape the contractionary phase and thus preserve human civilization indefinitely. The sun's origins have little to do with our advancement right now either, but investigation has already shown us that we will have to escape the bonds of this solar system in a few hundred million years. Er, however long it's going to be before our sun goes all Sephiroth on us.

Hey, if Chrono fans got together and actually successfully completed a large-scale fan project, preventing the contraction of the universe must be a small feat, right? :grimm
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: Thought on July 06, 2009, 05:32:30 pm
This anti-abortion mentality is why we have so many large, poor families. Yeah, kids are nice. Yeah, life is nice. But knowingly bringing a child into a poor existence is just cruel.

I would have to argue that you have misdiagnosed the cause; if that were true then one would expect the number of large, poor families to have decreased over the last 50ish years as abortion has become more socially acceptable (not that it is now socially acceptable, but it is certainly more so). Education and economic status are more indicative; uneducated, poor individuals tend to have larger families. Educated, financially stable individuals don’t necessarily have more abortions than less educated, poor individuals; they have fewer pregnancies. Perhaps they are less likely to be taken in by the various urban myths of teenage contraceptives, such as douching with coke or that you can’t get knocked up if it’s your first time. Or perhaps having multiple children fulfills the old purpose of a retirement program. I am not widely versed in such areas and so my commentary on it must necessarily be limited.

Religion certainly isn't a stalwart in this regard either. While a number of Christian denominations/sects are fine with birth control, even if they are pro-life, not all are. Catholics, being well represented among Mexican immigrants (the first generation of which tend to be economically ill-off) and others, aren't just pro-life, they're anti-birth control. The use of a condom, pill, or surgery is a violation of tradition. As such, Catholics are more likely to have large families. To be anecdotal for a moment, a friend of my wife’s family is Catholic and had to specifically request permission from the Church to get a vasectomy, as his wife’s health was in danger if she became pregnant again (I believe they have either 7 or 11 children). He now takes flack from other Catholics who believe that such a dispensation should not have been granted.

Society in general isn’t much better as it generally endorses the concept that men can sex-and-run, that pregnancy is a female-only issue (indeed, that there is such a thing as female-only issues; it is generally expected that men are supposed to be grossed out by a woman’s period and menstrual fluid… a trait in no way unique to modern times, mind you; if I recall correctly, Hypatia of Alexandria once used a used menstrual cloth to scare away an unwanted suitor). It is curious that society has separated sex, intimacy, and responsibility.

I'm sure that kid would be real happy to know that you gave him away and he has no family.

While I certainly could be wrong, I'd suspect most people would rather be alive than not. Thus, I suspect that even most orphans would rather be orphans than to have never existed.

Denying abortion is blatantly sexist.

Ah, if only it were blatantly sexist, then things would be so much easier, but it is not (at least, not from an internal perspective). Calling someone a bigot is an insult and even people engaged in racist or sexist behavior will deny the claim; near no one willingly takes on such a title. Because of this, pointing out behaviors that are sexist or racist in a person can be an effective tool for motivating change. Very few people want to be engaged in behaviors that they believe are sexist or racist. The problem comes in making them realize those behaviors are sexist or racist. If denying abortion is blatantly sexist, then it would be much easier to convince those who are against it to change their mind; one could point to the obvious and leave Jimmy Cricket to do the mop-up.

Remember, no one thinks of themselves as a villain. No matter how wrong someone might seem, they have reasons for what they believe. You might disagree with those reasons, you might find their reasoning to be flawed, but it is there nonetheless. There is little hope of being able to convince someone to change their ways unless you can understand why they hold to those ways in the first place. And, once you truly understand them, there is that terrifying moment in which you realize that it would have been a simple thing for you to have believed in them yourself. Generally, what separates us from those that we hate is a random chance of birth.

An inherently sexist attitude is revealed in this one line. "Irresponsible teenager" - singular. Last time I checked, women don't get pregnant on their own.

Women do get abortions on their own, however. It seems that there is a disconnect somewhere along the line; both sides drop men from the equation. Is it better to drop them from one side than the other?

You know, I've been watching this discussion for a couple of iterations now, and what bugs me is that most of the people posting here (not all, but most) seem to assume that birth control is 100% effective. Guess what?

That's because from the extremes of both perspectives (which is where people generally argue from), it is irrelevant. If abortion is fundamentally wrong, then it doesn't matter if you were taking preventatives. And if abortion is right, then it likewise doesn't matter if you were taking preventatives. There is no A for Effort, as it were. It is sort of like getting a speeding ticket then claiming that you should get out of it because you were using a radar detector.

One has to first admit that, if it is reasonable, abortion should be avoided, before allowing that birth control is an important factor. And, if in certain circumstances it should be avoided, then we’re quibbling over what is reasonable. Extremists on both sides would hate such a stance since it moves towards the middle.

I would NOT sacrifice my life and everything I've worked for because of some stupid mistake.

It is terribly interesting that this just happens to be one of the few areas in life in which people can reverse stupid mistakes. I wonder if people cling to it because it offers a degree of control in an otherwise chaotic world, and likewise if people reject it because that control isn't universal.

People ruin their lives because of stupid mistakes all the time. Here we have a chance to undo such a stupid mistake. It is a curious situation that isn't duplicated in many other places in life; one should expect that people would be unsure of how to handle it. Other stupid mistakes, if reversible, tend to take a heroic level of effort. There are, of course, stupid mistakes that aren’t reversible. The abortion issue is, ironically, treading virgin territory.

If my dog gets pregnant, is it cool with everyone that I have the puppies aborted?

But... puppies...

(http://static.londonfgss.com/attachments/4679d1231927471-puppy-dog-eyes-83825.jpg)

Seriously, I didn't know there were methods to cause dogs to abort. Makes a degree of sense, I suppose. I guess my answer would be that it depends; you should first make all due attempts to find these potential puppies homes before they are born. If you cannot, and you are unable to care for them, then an abortion might be the proper course of action, though certainly not something that is commendable or ideal (after all, a responsible owner should have their pets spayed and neutered, so this really should be a non-issue in an ideal world).

I played a role in that, by showing people more coherent ideas than what they were accustomed to. Oh, I suspect you and I would disagree as to whether it was the merit of my ideas or the strength of my rhetoric that won the day, but from my point of view it isn't even close. You've always been capable of equaling me in endurance and eloquence, and your appeals to antiquity I cannot match, but I don't know of anyone on these forums who ended up evolving in your direction.

To be fair, if someone did evolve towards Daniel’s way of thinking, they may have also learned in the process not to show it around you. You can be rather ruthless, when you want to be, and not everyone has Daniel’s (or your) endurance.

What do you suppose Thought would think of me if I went up to his wife, in his presence, and called her a fat, ugly whore to her face? What do you suppose he would do? Would he say “Let's debate this maturely?” No...of all the things he might say, I think that's not one of them.

(And Thought, if you're reading, I only concocted that example because your Mario-mustachioed wife is quite attractive and seems like an awesome person. Please don't kill me...)

Hmm... that is a very interesting question, from an introspective perspective. What would I do? I’d of course be angry, but would that anger overcome my natural passive-aggressiveness and the social-enforced aversion to violence? And of course would any violence on my part be successful? Honestly, there is a good chance that they wouldn’t be, and while allowing you to insult my wife is unacceptable, so too is failing to beat the crap out of you.

But all that aside, I'm fairly sure I know what my wife would do. So me not killing you may be the crueler of your options. Be warned: the short ones are the most violent.

However, your statement does contain several topics that, if presented in an non-insulting manner, I would love to debate. For example, I find it rather bigoted that “fat” is used as an insult, and I’d generally argue that apply the label “ugly” to any woman is sexist. I could also debate the use of “whore,” but that is a topic that gets more face-time anywho.

There's a word for “rape,” but there is not yet a word for forced birth. Maybe we need one.

I feel bad for thinking this, but that seems like an awesome premise for a work of fiction. Sort of reminds me Gateway to Women's Country.

Whenever in all that I said did I advocate that men should be treated differently, hm? I have always maintained that equality, in fact added that if it were me, I would take that responsability instead of a wife or a girlfriend, showing that I do not even think that child-rearing unique to the mother.

The sentiments expressed there really needed to be hear-heared. Abortion debates often touch on this subject but seem to always skitter away from it quite quickly. Social conceptions regarding men's roles in sex, pregnancy, abortion, and child rearing need urgent attention. Admittedly, since men are the focus of so much is almost seems unfair for them to get attention in an abortion discussion as well, but it is necessary. It is unfair to say that women should abstain from sex and hold pregnancy as consequence without a similar situation for men. True, men have many advantages in society, but social expectations that require us to be good men are not one of those; indeed, it is so easy for us to be scum and get away with it. It shouldn't even enter a guy’s mind that it is acceptable to run and leave a woman with children; if men lack a physical uterus that ties them to an unborn child, then there needs to be a "social uterus" that ties them just as absolutely. This is not a comment on women (except, I suppose, insofar as that women should require better of the men in their lives), but rather a comment that men need to, well, man-up.

Zelbess' assumption is that sexuality is as integral a part of human nature as eating and drinking. Krispin's assumption is that sexuality automatically entails a chance of pregnancy, and extrapolating from that, a couple who do not wish to risk creating and destroying human potential should abstain from sex completely. The conflict is, asking people to forego an integral part of human nature entirely can be seen as an inhumane expectation.

Might I suggest moderation? Certainly, one who eats must accept the possibility that the consumed calories will be digested and used for energy and if that energy is not expended, it will be converted to fat. Furthermore, when one eats one also ingests hormones, minerals, and other organic elements that can have good or bad effects on them. A fine steak cooked medium rare is a wonderful dish, but one ought not eat it without realizing that there is a health risk associated to eating "undercooked" meats. One must thus eat responsibly, avoiding over consumption so as not to become fat, and avoiding food that can have undesirable consequences unless one is willing to accept those consequences.

The pro-choice side of the debate unfortunately dances rather close to the glutinous side regarding sex; stomach for food and food for the stomach!

The pro-life side of the debate unfortunately dances rather close to the ruthless side regarding consequences; you ate undercook meat and now you're sick? Bah, no medical treatment for you, you should have known better!

As one should expect from me, my stance on the issue is middle-ground. One might well say that I am both pro-choice and pro-life. On one hand, abortions should be readily available to women (with a few, extreme-case laws to protect against potential abuses but which do not impede the majority of women). But on the other hand, there should be very few abortions. Not because there are laws preventing them, but because the right to choose is a right that few women need to exercise. I’d much rather we live in a world where no woman ever became pregnant who did not want to be pregnant; thus I believe we should work towards such a word. Pro-lifers should defeat abortion by eliminating (or reducing) the number of rapists in society, by expanding sex-education so that birth control is effective and implemented. And pro-choicers should defeat anti-abortionists by ensuring that abortion is a spotless process; if problems arise, it should be the pro-choice crowd that brings them to light and addresses them.
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: ZeaLitY on July 06, 2009, 06:33:48 pm
C'mon, we're human beings here. We've got brains, and therefore we should be able to figure out a way to have our cake and eat it too, with a little self control. Asking the male partner to forego a single sex act out of many possible ways to fulfill sexual potential certainly is justified by the fact that it prevents the possibility of creating "unwanted" life "by mistake" (for those amongst us who are pro-life), and I feel it is also certainly justified by the fact that it prevents the possibility of induced uterine dilation, a ton of bleeding, and chance of infection (for those amongst us who are pro-choice).

This is still backing up and making sex the problem, when the issue at stake is abortion. And abortion should be debated from a scientific, humanist standpoint, because religious perspectives are inherently flawed and illogical and shouldn't be respected or taken seriously. They're card houses built on irrational premises and assumptions, like the receiving of souls by the body or what "the bibble" (an incredibly contradictory and fallible book) seems to say on the subject. It's possible to discuss the nature of a fetus as a human being without bringing God into the equation.

Quote
Quote from: Zephira
If God created the universe, how does that help us build a better future for ourselves? If the universe exploded out of a single super massive point of matter, how does that help us improve life on earth?
Even barring the theological concerns and the motivations behind them for now, knowing our origins could be hugely important given a few millennia, or maybe a few thousand millennia. If the universe is in a constant cycle of expansion and contraction, we need to know this so that we can somehow escape the contractionary phase and thus preserve human civilization indefinitely. The sun's origins have little to do with our advancement right now either, but investigation has already shown us that we will have to escape the bonds of this solar system in a few hundred million years. Er, however long it's going to be before our sun goes all Sephiroth on us.

A strong point of humanism is that we can define our own purpose in life. We're not children of God, or pawns in a game, or anything like that. We're organisms born with the freedom and liberty to pursue our own meaning in life using our gifts of sentience and emotion. The sky's the limit! We can all dream as we wish and move humanity to a shining future, tearing a path through destiny for all the rest to follow through. Heavenly breakthrough, humanity!

Quote from: Thought
There is little hope of being able to convince someone to change their ways unless you can understand why they hold to those ways in the first place.

Hey, we can argue for the edification of the audience if not for the conversion of the other party. I'd do the latter if I were in a scientific debate or something else that didn't involve religion, because then rationality and fact would make one of the parties' positions untenable. But as long as we've got sky gods, miracles, and the f-word (faith) in the mix, well, a logical argument might as well be useless to convert the opposition.
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: Zelbess on July 06, 2009, 06:36:09 pm
@Thought, Faust: As I said earlier, I will not be participating in any continuation of this debate. So, don't expect any replies from me. :P I will comment on the hilarious irony though, that I, an aromantic asexual, staunchly defend sexual freedom, haha.

In recent frustrations, two huge bruises on both of my knees, complete with petechiae! I just woke up and they were there. Yowch! :(
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: Thought on July 06, 2009, 07:54:31 pm
@Thought, Faust: As I said earlier, I will not be participating in any continuation of this debate. So, don't expect any replies from me. :P I will comment on the hilarious irony though, that I, an aromantic asexual, staunchly defend sexual freedom, haha.

But you just replied! You've broken your word once, how can I trust it now? For all I know, you'll be posting when I'm not looking. Sorry, you'll have to earn my trust-that-you-wont-post all over again; I can't reasonably just take your word for it now.

Hey, we can argue for the edification of the audience if not for the conversion of the other party. I'd do the latter if I were in a scientific debate or something else that didn't involve religion, because then rationality and fact would make one of the parties' positions untenable. But as long as we've got sky gods, miracles, and the f-word (faith) in the mix, well, a logical argument might as well be useless to convert the opposition.

The audience should generally be one's target in a debate, true. They're the ones most likely to be swayed. But that shouldn't stop you from targeting your opposition.

I wouldn't have thought that there were boundaries to your passion, Z. That you'd settle for anything less than absolute victory. The future of humanity needs us to defeat all opponents, not just the easy ones. If one avenue of attack won’t work, find another.

Absolute victory, because anything less would be uncivilized.

(http://www.comicsbulletin.com/news/images/0409/spaceghost1.jpg)

(http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii82/spyderbugg/sPYdeR%20webSiTE/DynoMuttAndBlueFalcon.jpg)

(http://fc07.deviantart.com/fs39/f/2008/338/5/9/Thundarr_the_Barbarian_by_pungang.jpg)
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: Zelbess on July 06, 2009, 08:39:47 pm
But you just replied! You've broken your word once, how can I trust it now? For all I know, you'll be posting when I'm not looking. Sorry, you'll have to earn my trust-that-you-wont-post all over again; I can't reasonably just take your word for it now.
I swear, I won't ever do it again! I can stop any time I want, I swear! :( I have self-control, let me prove myself, why can't you trust m- *gets dragged away by men in white coats*
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: FaustWolf on July 06, 2009, 09:11:29 pm
Quote from: ZeaLitY
This is still backing up and making sex the problem, when the issue at stake is abortion.
Normally I'd admit that I committed a logical error by needlessly broadening the topic of debate, but they're so inextricably linked that discussion of abortion necessitates some discussion of sexuality. And... uh...well, Krispin started it! 8)

But I'd wager that the very need for abortion in the majority of cases stems from androcentric sexual mores, whether the need results from rape or the kind of simple lack of imagination in the bedroom encouraged by western pop culture. I disagree with the typical conservative stance that abstinence is the only way to prevent pregnancy and, by extension, abortion; only abstinence from very specific sexual practices is needed to break the cause-and-effect chain Krispin proposed.

I think what I'm eventually getting at is that even pro-choicers don't glorify the act of abortion; I mean, do we? Do we hold abortion balls like ultraconservatives hold these chastity balls? There's good reason why we do not. I don't think any of us fail to acknowledge that abortion is not a pretty procedure in terms of risks to the woman undergoing it, or in cases of abortion of an advanced pregnancy, that a fetus with a functioning nervous system could feel pain during the procedure. Wikipedia has a great article on fetal pain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_pain), but it's mostly useful in revealing that an entirely inadequate amount of research seems to have been completed on the matter. It seems to me that an abortion is a solemn occasion any way you slice it, often arrived at after weighty cost-benefit analysis and emotional stress on the woman's part (in cases of abortion after consensual sex) or severe trauma on the woman's part (in cases or rape or other nonconsensual sex).

In light of the significant moral, emotional, and psychological questions surrounding abortion even within a legal and non-religious context, I find it far better to obviate the situation entirely. If we mean to promote as perfect a level of sexual equality as possible, then let's take it all the way baby, and build a society in which women are no longer subject to abortion risks solely to pleasure men in a way that is losing significance thanks to the sexual revolution's separation of lovemaking and procreation.

Something tells me men would get along just fine if we behaved more like lesbians in our intimate relations, and the benefits of such a social shift could be enormous in every respect except the minor boo-hoo men would suffer because a little less attention is being paid to the, ahem, strawberry shortcake than before. Haven't we also been suffering minor boo-hoos like slight losses in comparative social prestige and employment advantages for the cause of equity? It's time we suck it up and take it like men!


Wow, that...sort of became the kind of old fashioned 70s feminist rant I'm not even sure Lord J would approve of. But as Thought says, absolute victory...
(http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/2286/chli.png)
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: IAmSerge on July 07, 2009, 02:21:32 am
Quote from: IAmSerge
But if its just an irresponsible teenager who had an "accident", I don't give a shit and its your own damn fault.
An inherently sexist attitude is revealed in this one line. "Irresponsible teenager" - singular. Last time I checked, women don't get pregnant on their own.
Thank you, Zelbless, for pointing out the mistake I made when typing a post, for calling me sexist, and for completely misunderstanding the point of that sentance. *sigh&facepalm*


If you disagree with what's being said about something you said, go ahead and disagree. Is there really a need to be a sarcastic ass about it? And yes, I realize the irony of ME saying that to someone else...>_>
~V_Translanka

Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: Lord J Esq on July 07, 2009, 08:11:15 am
Haha @ atheistic "belief".

No offense meant here Z, and coming from a fellow atheist, we have still yet to find solid, decisive proof that there is not a higher deity, just as much as the religious have yet to find proof that the world did not originate the way we think it did. Hence, this is a belief. Not a religious or theistic one, mind you, but it is something we believe because there has been enough evidence supplied, yet no decisive proof.

I suggest you remain open-minded and admit that there are flaws in any kind of belief system.

I find it bizarre to see this particular argument coming from a supposed atheist. It is classically a tu quoque fallacy used by theists to criticize atheists for something that theists themselves already do: the act of faith. They don't seem to realize the fallacy, because even if were correct in their criticism, all it would do is invalidate their own position along with that of the atheists. So, for an atheist to buy into that same thinking is a double whammy of wrong. Right or wrong, you lose.

Perhaps there is ground to say that metaphysical certainty on the possibility of the divine is not something we currently possess. I happen to assert exactly that, which is why, cosmically, I am an agnostic and not an atheist. At the degree of metaphysical certainty, which is the highest degree of certainty, atheism does indeed contain an element of belief—but not in the matter of the question of the existence of the divine. No, the element of belief on the atheist's part is that he or she has the standing to declare metaphysical certainty in the first place. The question being judged (in this case the question of the divine) is irrelevant.

Metaphysical certainty is itself a tricky concept. Is it even logical? If so, is it ever truly applicable outside of a priori truths? Outside of personal experiences? Can metaphysical certainty ever be applied legitimately to objective reality? That's not an easy question. What are the criteria under which one can justly assert metaphysical certainty? Some people would even demand the very definition: What does it mean to have metaphysical certainty? My personal philosophy has not yet resolved this issue, and so I am likely to refrain from asserting metaphysical certainty in most cases for the foreseeable future.

But I digress: Atheism is most definitely not, on the inherent level, a form of belief akin to theism. There are people whose expression of atheism takes the form of a belief, but this is a logical failure on their part and not an inherent flaw in the concept of atheism. In logical terms, atheism is the rejection of a divine premise. There are two forms, strong and weak. (Note that this is my own terminology: my definitions do not apply outside of my own writing.) Weak atheism rejects divine premises one at a time. I, for instance, am a weak atheist when it comes to specific religions like Christianity and Buddhism, because I reject the divine premises at the center of these religions. (A “divine premise” is something like “There exists an all-perfect God who created the universe and influences the course of all events, who gave humanity the gift of salvation by dying innocently on a cross.”) In contrast, strong atheism rejects the very premise of any affirmative divine premise. It is this form of atheism which runs into the metaphysical certainty issue. Weak atheism does not, on a technicality: Every divine premise that has come along thus far has suffered from a lack of falsifiability, a lack of verifiable physical evidence, a plethora of logical contradictions, a plethora of substantive contradictions, and various other ills which, on any other topic, would make the rejection of the divine premise in question an uncontroversial matter.

Now, it is important to remember that rejecting a premise—any premise—is not the same thing as affirming its opposite. There is a difference between the statements “I do not believe in your god” and “I believe your god does not exist.” The latter is unsupportable. The former is the correct: You can see even in the phrasing that it is a rejection of another belief rather than a belief of its own.

It is always important not to confuse the act of belief with the judgment of a premise. I encourage everyone to think on that.

Atheists believe the Big Bang was the start of the universe.

Zephira, atheists do not inherently believe any such thing. Atheism is not a worldview. The label of atheism tells you nothing about a person other than that they reject one or more divine premises. It doesn't tell you if they like seafood more than Italian food. It doesn't tell you if they are liberal or conservative. It doesn't tell you if they had a troubled childhood, or won the Tour de France, or invented penicillin. And it doesn't tell you if they subscribe to the Big Bang theory.

That's why the argument that atheism is bad because Stalin was an atheist falls flat. Atheism is the absence of a checkmark on a box on the list of one's personality. Anyone who uses the label “atheist” for anything else other than to reject divine premises is misusing the label. If you want to talk about somebody who thinks government and religion should be kept separate, the appropriate word is “secularist,” not “atheist.” If you want to talk about somebody who thinks highly of the human spirit and cares for human wellbeing, that word is “humanist,” not “atheist.” If you want to talk about somebody who hates religion and works to dismantle it beyond the separation of church and state, well, there's are words for that too, none of which is “atheist.”

It was our universe, and it will do it again. No matter came from anything, it is the same matter you see here today, just compressed. We can speculate that our universe has done this before many times, and we're just another part of the cycle.

I don't think I missed your absence. Would you care to substantiate any of that stuff you just said? You can't say things and have them magically be true. You have to think about what you say, and reason your claims so that they will be supportable and defensible. What a ridiculous hodgepodge of cobbled-together pseudo-spiritual schmutz and drek.

What I refer to, of course, is the fetishization of penetrative sex. Why, when the entire human body is a sexual organ, do we continue to focus on such a small portion of it? Might we not reconcile the argument at hand by allowing the hypothetical couple to engage in sexual behavior that involves no penetration, and therefore no chance of pregnancy? (...)

Faust, I will give you credit for trying to mediate an amicable resolution to their disagreement, but just look at what you are resorting to. You aren't really offering a compromise; you're essentially saying that Daniel is correct, but that it's okay because we can still indulge in every other kind of sexual behavior without the risk of pregnancy—thus rendering their disagreement moot.

That is noble of you, but it is a complete nonstarter. Heterosexual vaginal intercourse isn't a “fetish.” It is the evolutionary mechanism by which we propagate our species, and that makes it the root form of all human sexuality. Yes, other sexual activities can bring sexual stimulation and pleasure. Even so, most of our species have the impulse for this basic sexual act, and that will never be neutralized through social conditioning. Only drugs, selective breeding, or genetic engineering could effect the changes in neurochemistry that would be necessary to relieve people of their fundamental desire for this form of sexual intercourse.

You can't tell people not to have sex. Christians have tried it for 2000 years, and it doesn't work. Your suggestion is nothing more than a variation on that theme. No matter what kinds of alternative or derivative sexual activities humans might cook up, the majority of us will still desire the good old V&P. It's not a matter of judgment. It's not a matter of discipline. We have the power to choose our actions, most of the time, but, whatever we choose to do, the desire will still be there.

I applaud your denunciation of “androcentric” sexual folkways, but the way forward is not to shackle and fetter male sexuality; it is to liberate female sexuality.

This anti-abortion mentality is why we have so many large, poor families. Yeah, kids are nice. Yeah, life is nice. But knowingly bringing a child into a poor existence is just cruel.

I would have to argue that you have misdiagnosed the cause; if that were true then one would expect the number of large, poor families to have decreased over the last 50ish years as abortion has become more socially acceptable (not that it is now socially acceptable, but it is certainly more so).

Your claim is merely a hypothesis. Have you checked it? I would doubt it, because a key part of your claim is wrong: Abortion has become less socially acceptable since it was nationally legalized, as indicated by a reduction in the national abortion rate by nearly one-third since its high around 1980.  The absolute numbers paint a similar picture: The highest number of abortions recorded in the United States was in 1990. (The relative number is derived from the absolute number by factoring the overall population, which is always increasing. That's why the year with the highest absolute number of abortions occurred later than the year with the highest rate of abortion.)

Thus, factoring in both population growth and the birth rate, both abortions and the abortion rate have declined considerably. What caused this? It can't be that abortion has become more socially acceptable, as you say, because that premise does not fit with the observation. It may be that abortion has become less socially acceptable. However, opinion polling does not bear this out. People's attitudes on abortion today are almost identical to what they were in the 1970s, the 1980s, and the 1990s.

That leaves only two plausible explanations: The conception rate may be dropping, which would indicate increased contraceptive use. That's the good variable. And access to abortion may be in decline. That's the bad variable. You can compare the relative contributions of these two possibilities by looking up the abortion rate numbers and sorting them by socioeconomic indicators like income and education, and cross-referencing these numbers with census data on family size.

Or you could find somebody who has already crunched all of these numbers. =)

My own research suggests that the dominant force over time in the reduction in the abortion rate has been increased contraceptive usage, as abortion rates have dropped much more sharply in progressive, secular states like Washington than in ultrareligious redneck preserves like Mississippi. Access to abortion has gone way down, but it's gone down mostly in places where people were less likely to seek out abortions anyway.

Here, I suppose I will share some links with you:

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/index.html
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more-americans-pro-life-than-pro-choice-first-time.aspx

All-in-all, I think that Zephira's argument that an anti-abortion mentality has led to larger, poorer families is not convincingly refuted by your claim about abortion's social acceptability or its actual incidence.

It is curious that society has separated sex, intimacy, and responsibility.

Well observed.

While I certainly could be wrong, I'd suspect most people would rather be alive than not. Thus, I suspect that even most orphans would rather be orphans than to have never existed.

Most of us would indeed choose to exist than not to exist; we are all therefore thankful to some extent that our parents did not abort us. However, to argue against abortion on the grounds that those who are not aborted are appreciative of their existence is a logical fallacy, exposed by the reductio ad absurdum. By such logic, abortion is invalidated by the gratefulness of those who were not aborted. Well, if our gratefulness is the measure of these things, then every conceivable child should be born, or at least as many as possible, given that the potential number of sperm and egg pairings in the human species is...absurdly high. Abortion isn't the bad thing: Not being born is the bad thing, because only those who are born can be grateful, and gratefulness is the measure.

See how ridiculous that is? But that's not the only fallacy at work. There is also the implication that abortion is wrong because when we apply the prospect of it to our own lives, we chafe—for our lives our full and we most certainly do not wish that we had been erased before ever having the chance to live out our experiences. This is a fallacy because it is not our lives that are being evaluated when someone considers getting an abortion. Those who do get aborted will never be in the position of looking back on their lives and being glad they weren't aborted. There is no dissonance here because it is illogical to foist our own perspective onto somebody else's circumstances.

I don't think I said that very well, but I would imagine you get the point.

Calling someone a bigot is an insult and even people engaged in racist or sexist behavior will deny the claim; near no one willingly takes on such a title.

Calling someone a bigot may insult them, but it does not mean the accusation is inaccurate. But I interrupted you. Go on:

Because of this, pointing out behaviors that are sexist or racist in a person can be an effective tool for motivating change. Very few people want to be engaged in behaviors that they believe are sexist or racist. The problem comes in making them realize those behaviors are sexist or racist. If denying abortion is blatantly sexist, then it would be much easier to convince those who are against it to change their mind; one could point to the obvious and leave Jimmy Cricket to do the mop-up.

So calling bigots “bigots” is counterproductive because it hardens their minds. You're right, Thought.

I will tell you: If my primary aim were to defeat the bigots by showing them the error of their ways, I would take a very different tack here. But that isn't my primary aim. My aim has been what I always said it has been: to point out the truth. I suppose you might say that my arguments are always directed to the Compendium at large. I may not win the minds of my opponents, and sometimes I do go farther than behooves my cause in my aggressive denunciations of villainy, but I am certain that these arguments of mine are thought provoking to at least some of the people who bother to read them, and provoking thought is good enough for me, because I am confident in most of what I say, and in every argument I make. I don't need anyone to “believe me”; I just need people to think about it for themselves.

There is little hope of being able to convince someone to change their ways unless you can understand why they hold to those ways in the first place. And, once you truly understand them, there is that terrifying moment in which you realize that it would have been a simple thing for you to have believed in them yourself. Generally, what separates us from those that we hate is a random chance of birth.

I think you overstate your point here, but there is some elegance in that point. One time we had a windstorm here in Seattle that caused power outages for over a week in some areas. In the aftermath of this long night, an editorial cartoonist at one of the city's dailies drew a cartoon of a regular old Joe Cubicle and a barbaric-looking savage. Drawn between them was a big light switch.

When it comes down to it, the key philosophical differences between any two people are often few in number. By the same token, there are any number of variables a person could chance in their past that would have radically altered the course of their lives. It all seems so delicate a balance of improbability upon improbability that it might lead one to wonder whether it's all a dream.

But I don't feel that way myself. History is what it is. We are the way we turn out. In a raffle of one trillion people, there will always still be a winning ticket. Our differences are not always important in the ways we make them out to be, but some of our differences are very important indeed, and they should not be downplayed simply because it would be too easy a thing to erase them with the succor of a time machine or a propaganda blitz.

Women do get abortions on their own, however. It seems that there is a disconnect somewhere along the line; both sides drop men from the equation. Is it better to drop them from one side than the other?

Ideally, the mother and father of an unborn child would agree on what to do with it. But that often does not happen, and because the child is the mother's burden and not the father's, it becomes her choice by default. To have it be any other way would be to impose an outside control over her body. If the woman is mature and open-minded, she will take the father's wishes into consideration. But the final decision must be hers. Males can play a role in shaping their own destiny by choosing their mates with care.

You know, I've been watching this discussion for a couple of iterations now, and what bugs me is that most of the people posting here (not all, but most) seem to assume that birth control is 100% effective. Guess what?

That's because from the extremes of both perspectives (which is where people generally argue from), it is irrelevant. If abortion is fundamentally wrong, then it doesn't matter if you were taking preventatives. And if abortion is right, then it likewise doesn't matter if you were taking preventatives.

You have my gratitude for pointing that out so nicely.

One has to first admit that, if it is reasonable, abortion should be avoided, before allowing that birth control is an important factor. And, if in certain circumstances it should be avoided, then we’re quibbling over what is reasonable. Extremists on both sides would hate such a stance since it moves towards the middle.

Ah, the Tyranny of the Center. One of the few areas in which conservatives are more palatable than moderates is that at least conservatives have to defend their positions. Moderates have succeeded in fostering a society which accepts without skepticism the premise that the moderate position is always the superior one.

The irony is that this is almost always the opposite of the truth. Government thrives on compromise, and suffers enormous inefficiencies as a result. I am watching with much trepidation our Congress' debate on healthcare reform. Universal coverage was deemed out of the question before the negotiations even began. Now the most liberal position is simply a government-run health insurance plan that will compete with the private insurers. This compromise, if it succeeds, will do very little to rein in the waste and rationing created by our current system, thus guaranteeing that we will have to reform our reforms soon down the road. And that, my friend, is the best possible outcome at this point.

Other excellent moderate positions in history include:

The Articles of Confederation
The Three-Fifths Compromise

Oh, hell, I'll stop right there. The Three-Fifths Compromise...I can't top that. It was the ultimate centrist triumph. What better way to illustrate the tyranny of the center than to cut a person's democratic soul in two?

Anyhow, centrists can't even define what they are about until the left and the right draw a line for them. I look on such people as irritants. It's certainly better to have more centrists than conservatives, but too many people get suckered into the idea that being moderate is what it's all about. When it comes to abortion, the lines of debate are ridiculous. The center's position is completely unacceptable, and the right's position is 12th-century barbaric.

There are two good reasons to avoid getting oneself into the position of needing an abortion: The first is medical. Abortion is rarely as dangerous or excruciating as childbirth, but it is a very uncomfortable procedure, and, as with any serious medical procedure, it entails a nonzero risk of complications. The second reason is familial. The mother (or the father, or someone else very important to her) might actually want the kid. Wanting to have the kid—if that desire is informed and deliberate—is a great reason not to have an abortion!

But that's it. Those are the only two factors that ought to weigh against having an abortion in a person's mind. Everything else is religious baggage.

I would NOT sacrifice my life and everything I've worked for because of some stupid mistake.

(...)

People ruin their lives because of stupid mistakes all the time. Here we have a chance to undo such a stupid mistake.

Calling sex a “stupid mistake” strikes me as narrow-minded. Certainly, sometimes an act of sex is stupid, or is a mistake, or is both stupid and a mistake. More generally, however? I seriously doubt it. Most of the people who get abortions are in their twenties and thirties. They're not teenagers in school; they're adults who wanted sex but didn't want the kid. That's fair.

Which only makes it all the worse that abortion care access is in such danger.

To be fair, if someone did evolve towards Daniel’s way of thinking, they may have also learned in the process not to show it around you. You can be rather ruthless, when you want to be, and not everyone has Daniel’s (or your) endurance.

Maybe so! But if those who are not convinced can be cowed, I won't call it a loss. We would all do a lot better if the bigots were routinely browbeaten into timidity and bashfulness.

Ah, but that implies that our good Daniel himself is a bigot, as is anyone who thinks like him. Let it not be said that I think so little of him anymore. Therefore: If the misguided can nurture their wisdom in humbleness, so much the better!

In fact, humbleness is a virtue for us all, myself included. I'm not brazen on every topic—only those topics where I have cause to be. And ruthlessness isn't my only posture. Daniel might appreciate this next bit: When it comes to ruthlessness, I respect people by the way I disrespect them. I never hold back the truth. I never settle for half-arguments. I always say what I mean. I don't necessarily say everything that I'm thinking, but I never lie. I treat people like adults, even if they're not capable of handling it today, because maybe tomorrow they will learn. That's “ruthlessness,” for better or worse. On the Good-Evil axis, I'm benign. I wish harm on no one. I hope all of us have full and satisfying lives, yourself and Krispin and IAmSerge and everyone. That's why I can say with no inflation of self-importance that even those who end up not agreeing with me tend to benefit from my contributions. I have no idea if I am well-liked around here, but I am certainly a curious figure.

However, your statement does contain several topics that, if presented in an non-insulting manner, I would love to debate. For example, I find it rather bigoted that “fat” is used as an insult, and I’d generally argue that apply the label “ugly” to any woman is sexist. I could also debate the use of “whore,” but that is a topic that gets more face-time anywho.

You are welcome to open that debate, but I don't think we will have much to disagree about. I picked that insult precisely because it is the opposite of what I would consider an effective attack:

On the subject of fat: I spend a lot of energy combating fat-bashers; fat acceptance is one of my bigger social justice commitments. And it's not only academic: I'm actually attracted to fat women. Like I said, your wife is attractive! Yeah, she's fat, but it would never be an insult coming from me. I'm even pudgy myself; it would be terribly ironic of me to commit that particular hypocrisy.

On the subject of ugly: This one requires no comment. Anyone who think I would attack on this line is not thinking straight.

On the subject of “whore”: It should be pretty obvious that I am pro-sex. I don't think of it as disparaging if a person—or a female in particular—has had multiple sexual partners. If anything, I think people benefit from having at least more than one sexual partner in their lifetimes. It's like language: Perfecting one is empowering; perfecting more than one is enlightening. And I'm talking only about the sex. There are also the many rewards and benefits of getting to know the people with whom one shares that pleasure.

And pro-choicers should defeat anti-abortionists by ensuring that abortion is a spotless process; if problems arise, it should be the pro-choice crowd that brings them to light and addresses them.

I am amused that this is the only thing you bothered to demand of pro-choicers, almost as if you couldn't think of anything else. =)

Really, your position on abortion is far less extreme than I thought. If you really are in favor of unrestricted legal access to abortion, then I don't much care if you'd like to keep it rare; I won't try to change your mind.

I myself do not necessarily want to see the abortion rate go up, down, or stay where it is. What I want is for women to get smarter in choosing what's best for them in their individual circumstances, and for the government to guarantee that they'll have access to the healthcare they need in the event that they choose abortion, and for contraceptive usage and effectiveness to be improved upon.

I think what I'm eventually getting at is that even pro-choicers don't glorify the act of abortion; I mean, do we? Do we hold abortion balls like ultraconservatives hold these chastity balls? There's good reason why we do not. I don't think any of us fail to acknowledge that abortion is not a pretty procedure in terms of risks to the woman undergoing it, or in cases of abortion of an advanced pregnancy, that a fetus with a functioning nervous system could feel pain during the procedure.

You are premature to speak on behalf of everyone else. On the contrary, while I would agree with you that few pro-choice people are likely to raise themselves to the level of pomposity required for an “abortion ball,” your underlying premise is totally off-base. Abortion is up there with birth control in terms of reducing the liberty gap between the sexes; its modern practice and legality was one of the most empowering innovations of the 20th century. Many millions of women (and men) cherish abortion, even if it does involve gore and nausea and pain. So do root canals, but nobody would avoid one of those on moral grounds. I don't think anyone would go out of their way to get pregnant just so that they could get an abortion, but plenty of people feel empowered rather than ashamed when they end up pregnant and choose the best course of action for themselves.

The anti-choice crowd depicts abortion as a guilty, miserable experience that causes depression and cancer and whatever else. They show images of aborted fetuses to disgust people. The traditional media have largely adopted that viewpoint. That probably explains why many if not most Americans see abortion as a “necessary evil,” thinking that it should be legal only when necessary. But, really, it's the wrong way of looking at it. The risk of abortion are overstated by its opponents; pregnancy and childbirth are almost always more hazardous. Indeed, many abortions are performed for precisely that reason. The accusations of cancer and depression have been studied, with no support found for those claims. (Surprise, surprise.) And don't let the imagery of a fetus fool you: It looks as ugly when it's alive and healthy as it does when it's dead and perforated, because of the Uncanny Valley: We have our human instincts to thank for that.

I think our nation needs a campaign to remind people what abortion is: It's not a “necessary evil.” It is a tool of self-determination and sexual equality.

Quote from: IAmSerge
But if its just an irresponsible teenager who had an "accident", I don't give a shit and its your own damn fault.
An inherently sexist attitude is revealed in this one line. "Irresponsible teenager" - singular. Last time I checked, women don't get pregnant on their own.
Thank you, Zelbless, for pointing out the mistake I made when typing a post, for calling me sexist, and for completely misunderstanding the point of that sentance. *sigh&facepalm*

Don't sigh and facepalm when somebody corrects your ignorance. Zelbess made an excellent point: You unwittingly committed an act of sexism. Your phrasing gave it away. You should have thanked her for pointing it out, and resolved to consider the admonition.
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: Lord J Esq on July 07, 2009, 08:18:28 am
Dear Moderators and Entities:

I request that every post in this topic from #3279 (http://www.chronocompendium.com/Forums/index.php/topic,4445.msg170669.html#msg170669) up till this point be split into a separate topic, so that we can get the Frustration topic back on-topic. (You can then delete this message entirely.)

Edit: Pft, except for Ramsus' just now.
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: Thought on July 07, 2009, 11:33:20 am
Hmm, I'm not sure if I should wait to respond until the moderators/admins separate this discussion into a new thread... but I might as well be hasty.

Your claim is merely a hypothesis. Have you checked it? I would doubt it, because a key part of your claim is wrong: Abortion has become less socially acceptable since it was nationally legalized, as indicated by a reduction in the national abortion rate by nearly one-third since its high around 1980.

I suspect we disagree on this issue because we are looking to different social indicators. You are correct, I hadn't looked up Gallup polls or statistics. Rather, I was looking to how concepts are portrayed in various forms of art. I have been unable to find books, movies, cartoons, songs, TV shows, radio shows, etc from the 70's or earlier that even bring up the issue of abortion. Admittedly, such records are not easily accessible over the internet (my preferred source of information since my geographical location does not lend itself to research in most fields that interest me). I'd probably really need to go to the national archives to be thorough, so I freely admit that any research I've done in such an area is quite incomplete. But utilizing such information, I then look to more current artistic expressions and I find a few instances our culture depicting abortion (indicating that the subject is no longer as forbidden to talk about as it once was). To offer two such instances:

1) http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/24513 (http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/24513) (to note, the actual inclusion of anything that could scientifically be called an abortion in her work is unlikely, but she termed it as such). Also, a follow-up story: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24189690/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24189690/)

2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juno_(film) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juno_(film))

I interpret the increased instances of artistic inclusion of abortion as a sign that society is more tolerant of the topic. The word itself isn’t something we talk of in hushed whispers, afraid that those eight letters might cause a breach of etiquette.

Also, consider the Gallup poll that you posted in light of the political swing of America during the time represented. Conservatives were on the rise, which is exactly when one would have expected to see a similar rise in pro-life numbers. Numbers have remained largely the same, however (the Johnston archives don’t seem to be too useful as I believe one would need to compare the number of abortions to the number of pregnancies in order to get useful data). Perhaps I am reading into that too much, but that seems significant to me. Oddly, 2009 appears to be a bad year, even though American politics are rather left-dominated at the moment. So perhaps where I thought public opinion on abortion would be directly related to political stance, it is in reality inversely related...

But I agree with you in that my estimation may have been overly hasty.

Most of us would indeed choose to exist than not to exist; we are all therefore thankful to some extent that our parents did not abort us. However, to argue against abortion on the grounds that those who are not aborted are appreciative of their existence is a logical fallacy, exposed by the reductio ad absurdum.

I agree. Please do note that I wasn't attempting to argue against abortion; I did, however, find Zephira's implication (which perhaps I imagined) that aborting a potential child would be doing them a favor to be likewise... improper.

Calling sex a “stupid mistake” strikes me as narrow-minded.

Perhaps I misunderstood Zephira, but I took it to mean that she was referring to having sex without taking proper precautions. That is, it isn't that the act of sex is stupid, rather it is that not using contraceptives and protection that is stupid.

On the subject of fat: I spend a lot of energy combating fat-bashers; fat acceptance is one of my bigger social justice commitments. And it's not only academic: I'm actually attracted to fat women.

Sometimes I wonder if you're a clone of myself (or vice versa); I too am attracted to fat women. That is one of those things I consider myself to be lucky about; being attracted to a non-socially acceptable body type has given me a wonderful opportunity to observe attraction in general and I believe I'm much more open minded to beauty because of it.

On the subject of “whore”: It should be pretty obvious that I am pro-sex. I don't think of it as disparaging if a person—or a female in particular—has had multiple sexual partners.

Ah, but multiple sexual partners isn't the full of that insult. It also implies that the individual has sex for money. There seems to be a social stigma that selling an act devalues that act (one sees this not just with prostitutes but also artists). Given that some people value things specifically because of their antiquity (maybe a result from our Roman heritage?), it is odd that the oldest profession should be an insult. I have no intention of visiting a prostitute myself, and I am greatly saddened by the state of many prostitutes (being in the profession unwillingly), but if an individual chooses it I can find no proper reason to gainsay it and believe that regulations ought to be in place to protect those individuals and the public health in general.

But maybe I've been watching too much Firefly...

I am amused that this is the only thing you bothered to demand of pro-choicers, almost as if you couldn't think of anything else. =)

Damn it, you're on to me! But aye, I guess that was really more of a bone to throw pro-lifers, trying to make it seem like I wasn't blaming them alone for us not living in a perfect world.
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: Thought on July 07, 2009, 12:14:20 pm
Ah, the Tyranny of the Center...
Oh, hell, I'll stop right there. The Three-Fifths Compromise...I can't top that. It was the ultimate centrist triumph. What better way to illustrate the tyranny of the center than to cut a person's democratic soul in two?

Thinking it over, the Three-Fifth Compromise actually illustrates that there is a third, usually ignored, extreme that is confused with being centerist. The issue that this compromise attempted to solve was between two undesirable extremes; the north which didn't want slaves to count for determining seats in the house, and the south which wanted them counted but had no intention of letting them be represented. Counting them as three-fifths of a person was a rather distasteful compromise, but neither extreme was desirable either. Either slaves were counted as people and weren't given a voice in government, or slaves weren't counted as people and weren't given a voice in government. We see the former in various countries around the world today, where democracy is used as a Halloween costume in hopes of keeping the rest of the world at bay. We saw the latter fairly frequently in History, taking the form of dictators.

There was a third way that the matter could have been resolved. Count slaves as humans, and give them the voice necessary to make that status anything more than a mockery. The south would have gotten what they asked for and something that made what they asked for worthless, while the north would have had a good laugh at their expense. We might call this a middle way since neither extreme would have gotten what they wanted. However this is more like points on a triangle; an equilateral triangle will have a point that is always in the middle of the other two points from a certain perspective, but which is also as far from either of those other two points by the same distance that they are from each other. It may be improper to think of politics only in terms of right and left, conservative and liberal. That imposes a binary framework on something far more complex.

I don't know, though. I just thought of looking at things in such a perspective so I'm not sure I even agree with it yet.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on July 07, 2009, 03:46:15 pm
Okay, split.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on July 07, 2009, 04:22:34 pm
With regard to my perhaps outlandish suggestion earlier, the logic of equality suggests to me that allowing abortion simply isn't enough of a promotion of sexual freedom, because we're still asking women to bear the greater emotional, physical, spiritual, and psychological burden of sexual activity...the burden is just far smaller with an abortion than with forcing women to carry the pregnancy to term. True, the medical risks associated with abortion have plummeted thanks to the replacement of dilation-and-curettage with vacuum aspiration, but still, there's got to be a huge difference between the decision: "Should I have an abortion today?" and the decision: "Should I eat a cheeseburger today?" Even if the decision to have an abortion does become as routine as the decision to eat a cheeseburger one day, after all sexist attitudes have vanished from our society, the fact remains it's the woman in a heterosexual relationship who has to undergo a special procedure tangent to her sexual activities in cases where contraception fails, and the male who does not. The cost-benefit scale is clearly in the man's favor.

What I've proposed would allow men and women to exercise their sexuality on as equal terms as human biology allows without re-engineering the reproductive system to either inflict the pains of menses on the male, or extirpate them from the female.

On a logical basis I would be just as satisfied with a solution that requires men to have some nonessential material vacuum-aspirated from their abdominal cavities after they engage in sexual activity that ends in their partner seeking an abortion, but on a moral basis, the change in sexual behavior would seem to promote the greater standard of living given a choice between these two solutions.

I hope I don't sound like either a masculinity-loathing feminist echoing from the 1970s or, at the other extreme, a monkish prude, or at least that was not my intent by any means. I've most likely borrowed my train of thought from a bit of lesbian-oriented feminist theory I was exposed to in college, one of the basic gists of which was that the lesbian sexual experience is no less rich for lack of "the good old V&P," if memory serves. In light of the rate of homosexual behavior both in humans and in non-human animal species, it appears that "the good old V&P" isn't so much the root of all sexual behavior as it is the root of all procreative sexual behavior. Procreative sexual behavior may be viewed as a subset of sexual behavior motivated by the desire for intimacy and closeness. It does not seem illogical to me, given the separation of romantic expression from procreation that the sexual revolution entails, that we should, perhaps, re-think what sex actually is, and how procreative sex could be functionally and structurally different from purely lovemaking sex.

Of course I realize that my proposition would make no difference except at the extreme margin; 99% of couples relying on condoms, vasectomies, and other low-risk birth control methods will get along fine with "the good old V&P." A number of feminists would be quick to remind us that in many cases, good sex will have to involve more than just that process since the male makes out far better pleasure-wise than the female, but that's getting off on a tangent not as inextricably related to the topic of abortion, and quite frankly, I worry I'm already putting the "FW" in "NSFW."
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 07, 2009, 05:53:08 pm
Sexism FTL!

Abortions For Some, Tiny American Flags For Others!

Etc, etc.

Thanks to V for pulling out that Simpson's reference. It was full of win.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on July 07, 2009, 06:25:32 pm
I find it funny that the guys are continuing to argue about this while the forum's girls (all three of us, wahoo) have basically called it quits....
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on July 07, 2009, 06:28:04 pm
On a logical basis I would be just as satisfied with a solution that requires men to have some nonessential material vacuum-aspirated from their abdominal cavities after they engage in sexual activity that ends in their partner seeking an abortion...

Interesting approach. Would a male have the choice to undergo this procedure? If not, then it doesn't seem equal (as a woman usually has a reasonable choice in obtaining an abortion). Indeed, if the male doesn't have a choice in that matter then it seems like it would be punitive.

Of course, as it stands a great number of men would opt out of such a procedure if they were given the choice. One would need to change the behavior of men in general to get a decent number to opt in. And if such a change could be brought about, why bother with crude physical procedures? If a guy is willing to undergo such a procedure to share in the abortion experience, then such a procedure would seem unnecessary... but perhaps I am missing the point?

I find it funny that the guys are continuing to argue about this while the forum's girls (all three of us, wahoo) have basically called it quits....

Well that is proper. Guys in general have further to go in this regard, or so it seems from my experience.

While I can't talk for Daniel, Josh, or Fausty, I'm also long-winded and love to debate. Give me half a topic and a vague opponent and I'll have hours of entertainment.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on July 07, 2009, 06:33:06 pm

I find it funny that the guys are continuing to argue about this while the forum's girls (all three of us, wahoo) have basically called it quits....

Well that is proper. Guys in general have further to go in this regard, or so it seems from my experience.

While I can't talk for Daniel, Josh, or Fausty, I'm also long-winded and love to debate. Give me half a topic and a vague opponent and I'll have hours of entertainment.
[/quote]

Why? Women are the ones dealing with these issues. That's not to say men are completely isolated, but women face the glass ceiling and women are the ones getting the abortions, so I'm not sure why guys have so much more to say. Is that what you're implying? Unless you're just saying that guys like to debate more in general...
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on July 07, 2009, 06:47:50 pm
Quote from: Thought
Interesting approach. Would a male have the choice to undergo this procedure? If not, then it doesn't seem equal (as a woman usually has a reasonable choice in obtaining an abortion). Indeed, if the male doesn't have a choice in that matter then it seems like it would be punitive.

Of course, as it stands a great number of men would opt out of such a procedure if they were given the choice. One would need to change the behavior of men in general to get a decent number to opt in. And if such a change could be brought about, why bother with crude physical procedures? If a guy is willing to undergo such a procedure to share in the abortion experience, then such a procedure would seem unnecessary... but perhaps I am missing the point?
Good question, I didn't consider the deeper issues of choice involved. If the couple wants to terminate the pregnancy in such a system, they would presumably undergo the procedure together and at the same time to maximize experiential equality. It actually sounds kind of romantic...


Quote from: ZaichikArky
I find it funny that the guys are continuing to argue about this while the forum's girls (all three of us, wahoo) have basically called it quits....
The Compendium has more than three female members. According to forum statistics there should be about 425 forum accounts registered to female fans, though of course some of those have fallen out of use (and it's still overshadowed by the 2500+ male accounts). However, I'm glad to see the Compendium drawing a more diverse crowd. The more cultural views that are pulled into a debate, the better off the participants and the audience are; this is precisely why I abhor single-gender or otherwise segregated learning institutions.

With respect to the fact that men are debating what might be considered traditional "women's issues," I'm much heartened by the degree to which we have flung aside societal expectations of men here. It's much easier for men to be feminist or pro-feminist (anyone in favor of sexual and gender equality is a feminist in my mind, though personally applied labels certainly vary) when they see other men comfortable with the kind of discussion we're having, so the Compendium is making huge social strides in that regard. It's also interesting how rich the feminist culture is even amongst male members here; feminism is anything but monolithic, and any feminist you meet seems to espouse slightly different beliefs -- even when you restrict the examination of feminist culture to the minor subset of male feminists.

Quote from: ZaichikArky
Women are the ones dealing with these issues. That's not to say men are completely isolated, but women face the glass ceiling and women are the ones getting the abortions, so I'm not sure why guys have so much more to say.
Men should absolutely debate these things amongst themselves and with women, because we're the half of the race that's been causing the difficulties in question xD. At the same time, androcentrism is holding men back as moral, nurturing human beings. Women's lib is our lib; we have a lot at stake here too. I think this is partially what Thought was getting at as well.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on July 07, 2009, 06:50:28 pm
I find it funny that the guys are continuing to argue about this while the forum's girls (all three of us, wahoo) have basically called it quits....

Ditto, but we're dealing with religion, which claims the right to invade all aspects of life to align them with its dogma.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on July 07, 2009, 07:43:27 pm
Quote
The Compendium has more than three female members. According to forum statistics there should be about 425 forum accounts registered to female fans, though of course some of those have fallen out of use (and it's still overshadowed by the 2500+ male accounts). However, I'm glad to see the Compendium drawing a more diverse crowd. The more cultural views that are pulled into a debate, the better off the participants and the audience are; this is precisely why I abhor single-gender or otherwise segregated learning institutions.

You can give me statistics all you want, but from observation, you should realize that my assessment is accurate. Of those 425 registered members, 3 of us actually post anything these days , and of those 3, 2 of us have registered in the last 3 months. You could argue that there is a 4th "female" member, but let's just say that this position is debatable. Something could be said about how this forum doesn't retain female members, but I think it's not really anything that is inherently sexist but due to the female population tending not to stick around forums that have to do with Japanese RPGS...

So I kind of do think that this whole argument has turned rather one-sided, similar as to how I think how religious debates are. There are people like Z who completely disrespect anything that has to do with religion and are not open to religious peoples' views, and people like Serge and Truth who cannot articulate their positions well enough to contend with the Atheist truism.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on July 07, 2009, 07:54:47 pm
Sorry if I seemed like I was trying to shove around statistics in poor form; what I was trying to do was show that a considerable number of female fans have dropped by from time to time, and encourage others to register. It's not like the 2500~3000 males who have registered here have kept up forever either. The dropoff rate's probably about the same I imagine -- it's ultimately Chrono that would lead someone here particularly, and with no new entries in the series, a high dropoff rate could be expected based on that alone. I honestly hope the ones who are still here or register in the future become as participative as you have been, because there's no reason to hold back.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 07, 2009, 08:07:01 pm
There are people like Z who completely disrespect anything that has to do with religion and are not open to religious peoples' views, and people like Serge and Truth who cannot articulate their positions well enough to contend with the Atheist truism.

Yes...unfortunately I'm not the best person to represent the religious community here. But here's my position, as clear as I can eloquate it.

1) Religious people, as a whole, do not promote sexism, destruction of the environment or the death of "infidels," subtly or otherwise.

2) I don't support abortion as a practice, but I do support a woman's right to choose what she does with her own body.

3) I cannot change the sense of morality of others to fit my own, so I accept that people disagree with me. Constantly.

4) Zeality is way too f-ing belligerent on the matter for his own good. 

5) Posting an American flag with a Bible quote on it is not religious dominionism, nor is it affecting anyone else's freedom to express or worship whatever religion or lackthereof they choose. I honestly don't see why that Bible quote would offend anyone other than Zeality.

6) Religious people don't typically like the thought of same-sex marriage. I do, but I'm different than the majority. Why they don't support it is their own private business, and they aren't automatically bad people because they believe differently than I do.

I'm sure there's more I encountered.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on July 07, 2009, 08:14:25 pm
Quote
1) Religious people, as a whole, do not promote sexism, destruction of the environment or the death of "infidels," subtly or otherwise.

You don't really believe that gender roles and cultural attitudes have any effect on anything, do you? Most religious people "as a whole" believe their texts which say women are the domain of men, which is only the start of so-called "moderate" sexist edicts that religion has on women. It seems you've learned nothing from these threads, which is heartbreaking.

Quote
4) Zeality is way too f-ing belligerent on the matter for his own good.

Hah, I guess it's only fair that I'm singled out, while the other ones (like Lord J, who argues with more experience and knowledge, and Zelbess and Zephira, who argue with more experience thanks to actually being female) get a free pass. Yes, of course I'm this way. This world is full of rape, murder, sexism, and ignorance, and religion is complicit in all of it. I'm fighting for a better future.

Quote
5) Posting an American flag with a Bible quote on it is not religious dominionism, nor is it affecting anyone else's freedom to express or worship whatever religion or lackthereof they choose. I honestly don't see why that Bible quote would offend anyone other than Zeality.

But it is indicative of religious dominionism, which was my point.

Quote
6) Religious people don't typically like the thought of same-sex marriage. I do, but I'm different than the majority. Why they don't support it is their own private business, and they aren't automatically bad people because they believe differently than I do.

They are "bad" because they violate separation of church and state by passing and supporting laws forbidding same-sex marriage, which is thrusting a religious belief constricting liberty on a group of humans who do not share that belief.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 07, 2009, 08:30:29 pm
You're singled out because they don't label every religious person as evil. They show a hell of a lot more tolerance.

You're a bigot, pure and simple. The only difference between you and an anti-Semite is that you bash their descendants as well and give yourself a free pass on the grounds that you're being "intellectual."

They aren't. They're passionate, and will get caught up same as anyone, but they don't think my beliefs should stop existing or that they preclude evil.

You're paranoid of some obscure pathology about religion and the flag, whereas they might have not liked it, but they respected my right to express my belief even if they thought it was stupid or wrong.

Unfortunately, I can't articulate my positions well, as Zaichi said. I dislike being the religious counter point to your inane rantings, but unfortunately, all of the seasoned people here seem to be atheistic as well and there would be no counter point if I stopped.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Samopoznanie on July 07, 2009, 08:44:40 pm
Good grief... Where do you guys find your energy? Or the spare time time, for that matter...? The expression, 'watering a cement garden' comes to mind.  :picardno
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on July 07, 2009, 08:54:00 pm
Truth, with time you'll find a sizable portion of the Compendium community to be just as vigorously atheist as ZeaLitY. The same trend goes with most videogame oriented forums, as far as I've seen in my limited experience. But the Internet is not the only place you'll encounter this, nor is it so very rare; Sam Harris' books (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_(author)) are likely to challenge the religious in more than one college course, and he is no less vigorous or unyielding in his pursuit of justice than ZeaLitY. Anecdotally, it seemed a ton of people my age at college were of atheist persuasion, whereas this would have been unheard of or highly discouraged only decades ago. I hope the vehement force of their reasoning does not dissuade you from participating in debate, but that it does cause you to question your relationship with your religion and better define what place that religion should have in your life, and what function it serves. I feel I've benefited enormously from atheist studies, even though I have not crossed over the theist/atheist divide. Consider it the ultimate test of faith.

Quote from: Samapoznanie
Good grief... Where do you guys find your energy? Or the spare time time, for that matter...?
Ahem! *gets back to studying*
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on July 07, 2009, 09:11:10 pm
Good grief... Where do you guys find your energy? Or the spare time time, for that matter...? The expression, 'watering a cement garden' comes to mind.  :picardno

BEST ARGUMENT IN THIS ENTIRE THREAD. Hahaha XD.

Ok, I guess I do have more to say.

Quote
You're singled out because they don't label every religious person as evil. They show a hell of a lot more tolerance.

Agreed. Lord J and Thought at least try to be more constructive in their arguments rather then just saying "religion is terrible due to X Y Z", acknowledging both sides of the arguement, while Z tends not to, and therefore can be seen as more belligerent.

Z, it seems like you have a very narrow view of the role of religion in the world based on your experience as a Mormon. I'm not entirely sure what happened to make you one day become the complete opposite of what you once were, but you can't just say "hey, you're not serious about religion like I was , so your view is discounted!" What makes you think that Truth is not serious about his religion because he doesn't believe that people not of his domination should go to hell? Is this REALLY what religion is about? Religion should not be thought of as one entity, it isn't. It is entirely more complicated than that. Obviously there are thousands upon thousands of denominations around in the world. Some are extremist and some aren't.

Many great civilizations were created throughout the world because it was a great rallying point for people. If religion could be the one binding-force in an area, then people could be subjugated under one empire under some god(or gods for that matter). There is evil and power inherent in the will of all people. Religion is just one method upon which it is enacted. However, by denouncing religion to just be a force of evil is completely ignoring all the "good" it has been responsible for throughout the history of civilization.

There unquestionably is a lot of death and destruction in the bible, but a lot of new age Christians tend to like to ignore a lot of that crap and focus on what they believe the highlights and lessons of the bible are- to love thy neighbor and all that jazz. By tolerance, they wish to go to heaven. You talk to most Christians, and they will tell you that they will go to heaven by doing "good deeds", by tolerating others and spreading their good Christian attitudes around. How are you to judge that they are not serious about their religion because they don't really care to focus on the part about others going to hell, instead focusing on what they can do in their lifetime to ensure that they/their family go to heaven? Sure, it may sound more selfish, but most of them believe that if others follow the way of God, they will go to heaven too, and they will be happy.

Religion isn't stagnant. Maybe you can say it has a will of its own because different people practice it in different ways. New denominations are born, people pass it down to their children differently. Religion is not the same as it was  hundreds of years ago, and it won't die down in the future(even if a lot of us wish it to). Religion doesn't denounce science, and the world will NOT be a better place without it. I guarentee you. If religion were suddenly eliminated from all corners of the earth, do you think that society's problems would go away? Oh maybe some would, but then others would just take their places. That is what I mentioned at the beginning- the inherent evil and power associated with the human race.

Z is just using religion as a scapegoat for basically all of society's problems. Religion is something that needs to be viewed much more constructively. Even though I am Jewish, I am non-practicing. As long as religious people don't try to convert me( and I really don't remember the last time that even happened), I am very tolerant of all religions that do not promote evil and extremism. While in the back of my mind, I still know that they are inherent with the religion just as evil is inherent in all of mankind, kindness and tolerance to others is as well. it all just depends how it is enacted in society.

Truth had a point. I am from the Soviet Union. My father and his family was discriminated against for being Jewish. In the USSR, religion was not common place and it was highly discouraged, actually. The same can be said for many functioning former USSR and Communist countries these days. So religion was completely taken out of the equation. You cannot blame it for anything that happened inside the country. Marx tried to make communism as Utopian as possible, and when it was first practically enacted inside of an actual country- look what happened. Millions of people died under Stalin's iron rule. And then forget Stalin, you know how it was like living under Maoist China? At least 100 times worse!

This is why I think most religion arguments are pointless. The world will suck with religion, and it will continue to suck without religion. The only thing we can do is try to push the inherent evil side of our human nature aside and focus on making the world a better place.

Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 07, 2009, 09:21:47 pm
Zaichi, FW, you two are soo freaking cool. Y'all keep me from being a complete idiot on the matter.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on July 07, 2009, 10:07:44 pm
It's an interesting complaint: women's issues getting hijacked by men. However, though frustrating it may be, walking away from the abortion debate in resignation, when it's your issue, is self-defeating. If people don't speak for themselves, someone else will.

That doesn't mean you would have to participate in "watering the cement garden," but it does bring to mind that memorable quote, perhaps mistakenly attributed to Thomas Jefferson: Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on July 07, 2009, 10:16:59 pm
Why? Women are the ones dealing with these issues.

Exactly. Personal experience makes a world of difference. Since men usually lack in experience in these regards, it takes us longer to understand and express the concepts.

Religious people don't typically like the thought of same-sex marriage. I do...

Huh, I didn't know that type of fetish existed ;)

Agreed. Lord J and Thought at least try to be more constructive in their arguments rather then just saying "religion is terrible due to X Y Z", acknowledging both sides of the argument, while Z tends not to, and therefore can be seen as more belligerent.

Odd getting lumped with J and Z, as I'm pro-religious. Perhaps it is because I'm quite willing to admit where religion (usually my own) isn't perfect and where it is harmful? But please don't take that as an indication that I don't think religion has been good or beneficial. I'm aware that in the Middle Ages the Church oppressed women, but I'm also aware that in the first century Christians pioneered social justice by treating women, slaves, and the poor as equals (indeed, they were mocked for this very reason). Like you, I think the world sucks with religion and it would suck without it.

Religion doesn't denounce science, and the world will NOT be a better place without it.

I'm a Francis Collins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins_(geneticist)) fanboy, but I highly recommend checking him out. I fully expect that he'll get a Nobel prize fairly soon for his work on the human genome project. He also started the Biologos Foundation (http://biologos.org/), which is dedicated to trying to bridge the gap between religion and science.

That and he has a double-helix on his guitar. That's pretty awesome.

(http://www.researchamerica.org/uploads/rockstars.jpg) (http://www.researchamerica.org/app/webroot/blog/?tag=francis-collins)

That doesn't mean you would have to participate in "watering the cement garden," but it does bring to mind that memorable quote, perhaps mistakenly attributed to Thomas Jefferson: Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

Are you sure you're not thinking of Mad-Eye Moody? CONSTANT VIGILANCE!
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: Lord J Esq on July 07, 2009, 10:30:07 pm
Please do note that I wasn't attempting to argue against abortion; I did, however, find Zephira's implication (which perhaps I imagined) that aborting a potential child would be doing them a favor to be likewise... improper.

We will disagree on this, of course. I suspect you know my attitude toward bringing unwanted children into the world, or toward bringing children into the world who cannot be provided for humanely.

Sometimes I wonder if you're a clone of myself (or vice versa); I too am attracted to fat women. That is one of those things I consider myself to be lucky about; being attracted to a non-socially acceptable body type has given me a wonderful opportunity to observe attraction in general and I believe I'm much more open minded to beauty because of it.

It is profoundly edifying to have a mindset that puts oneself in direct contradiction to another, universally-held mindset. I've written more on fat-bashing than I have on any other topic other than sexism (and the two topics overlap considerably). There is simply no end of insight and education to be realized when one is able to assume a position of objectiveness.

We may be long-lost twins, for all I know. I've wanted to dislike you from the moment you showed up on these forums, but I never could. You're too smart, too reasonable (at least outside certain topics), and we have too much in common, despite being religious antipodes. Brothers, in a sense...
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: KebreI on July 07, 2009, 10:34:51 pm
There can be only one... :shock:
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on July 07, 2009, 10:44:51 pm
Lord J and Thought at least try to be more constructive in their arguments rather then just saying "religion is terrible due to X Y Z", acknowledging both sides of the arguement, while Z tends not to, and therefore can be seen as more belligerent.

Then you don't know J.

Quote
Obviously there are thousands upon thousands of denominations around in the world. Some are extremist and some aren't.

No, it's not one entity. There are many flavors of evil. Muslims blow themselves up and force women to wear covers. Jewish traumatically mutilate male babies. And even Buddhists have had their share of religiously-motivated violence.

Quote
Many great civilizations were created throughout the world because it was a great rallying point for people. If religion could be the one binding-force in an area, then people could be subjugated under one empire under some god(or gods for that matter). There is evil and power inherent in the will of all people. Religion is just one method upon which it is enacted. However, by denouncing religion to just be a force of evil is completely ignoring all the "good" it has been responsible for throughout the history of civilization.

That was back when the logistics needed to manage an empire were too great for the technology of the time. Many old states didn't even entreat the concept of a "nation", but now we have nationalism, television, phones, and other ways of communication that make the infrastructure of an empire possible. Religion should be tossed out with yesterday's garbage, not solicited as an opiate for the masses so someone can build a less rebellious empire.

Quote
There unquestionably is a lot of death and destruction in the bible, but a lot of new age Christians tend to like to ignore a lot of that crap and focus on what they believe the highlights and lessons of the bible are- to love thy neighbor and all that jazz. By tolerance, they wish to go to heaven. You talk to most Christians, and they will tell you that they will go to heaven by doing "good deeds", by tolerating others and spreading their good Christian attitudes around. How are you to judge that they are not serious about their religion because they don't really care to focus on the part about others going to hell, instead focusing on what they can do in their lifetime to ensure that they/their family go to heaven? Sure, it may sound more selfish, but most of them believe that if others follow the way of God, they will go to heaven too, and they will be happy.

You sound as if you've never met Baptists and evangelicals. And we've already demonstrated well enough that even the "non-extreme" parts of religion are still scathingly sexist and anti-human.

Quote
Z is just using religion as a scapegoat for basically all of society's problems. Religion is something that needs to be viewed much more constructively. Even though I am Jewish, I am non-practicing. As long as religious people don't try to convert me( and I really don't remember the last time that even happened), I am very tolerant of all religions that do not promote evil and extremism. While in the back of my mind, I still know that they are inherent with the religion just as evil is inherent in all of mankind, kindness and tolerance to others is as well. it all just depends how it is enacted in society.

Bullshit. Humanity has a host of other problems, but religion is one of the greatest evils that plague it, and my chosen target (with sexism) for trying to improve the human condition. Nowhere do I claim religion is the root of all evil. It amplifies and perpetuates human evil, and the world would suck a lot less without it. Religious faith is a neurosis. When a child claims that 2 + 2 = 5, we correct him. When a group of people fly out to different locations to converse with the fairy realm and improve human / fairy relations (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/07/gosh_i_think_i_went_to_the_wro.php), we laugh at them. And yet, an elaborate mythology about a zombie carpenter somehow demands our respect? Ignorance is ignorance.

Quote from: Thought
I'm a Francis Collins fanboy,

"Whoa, this scenery is REALLY beautiful...therefore, God exists."
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Boo the Gentleman Caller on July 07, 2009, 10:49:02 pm
Rene Descartes provides a better explanation for God's existence. So does Soren Kierkegaard, for that matter.  It appeals to my logical side and leaves emotions out of it.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on July 08, 2009, 12:02:55 am
Wasn't this thread supposed to be about SEXISM anyway? I'm not sure why this turned into another debate about religion, but I suggest merging all of that into this topic- http://www.chronocompendium.com/Forums/index.php/topic,6967.0.html . And if possible, the frustration thread part of it too.

Let's go back to sexism for a moment.

I don't really like it when a guy claims he's very feminist and anti-sexist because it makes me slightly weary. Not because he's not a woman and how could he understand our plight and bla bla, but because women are sexist themselves and enjoy sexism to a certain extent. Holding the door open for a woman- is that sexist or polite?

Women are treated differently by men because of the sexist society, but it's not always bad IMO. I would not want to date a guy who didn't treat me differently just because I was a woman. Do I want a man who is a little sexist or a man who treats me like one of the guys? I'm a woman, dammit, and I want to be treated like a lady sometimes.

My boyfriend is sexist because he believes that I, as the woman in the relationship, should not contribute to paying for anything when we go out on a date... actually, any expenses really. He believes that the man should pay for everything and that the woman should not because she's the woman. Of course, it doesn't always work out that way because I'm stubborn and will pay anyway, but he puts up a big front about it. Now, probably both men and women will agree that the better way to deal with that is arrange an equitable way to pay for things when on a date. Like the girl pay one date, the guy pay the next date. But I kind of like it that my bf likes to insist he pay for everything not because he's trying to "hold me down", but because he's old fashioned in that manner and it feels more gentlemanly of him to pay for his lady.

Guys on the other hand, expect women to be "nurturing". When does a heterosexual guy go to his guy friends to talk about his "feelings" or any emotional problems he has? Is it sexist that he expects women to be more receptive to his personal problems than his best (guy) friend? No, I don't think it is.

I think that because society has certain expectations for men and women, sexism continues. There are two definitions of sexism, mind you.

1.    attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles.
2.    discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex, as in restricted job opportunities; esp., such discrimination directed against women.

So I am talking more about definition 1, treating someone different based on stereotypes of gender or sex.

I also don't think that it's entirely society's fault for instilling sexism. Men and women are wired differently, and with the exception of transgendered people, women tend to follow a *slightly* different course than men just because of programming.  It's why physical requirements are different for men and women. Women just cannot develop muscle as easily as men. You can't blame society for perpetuating sexism the same as you can't blame religion for perpetuating the evils in the world. People are born with gender differences as people are born with both good and evil. It's the balance of the two that is hard to achieve...
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: Exodus on July 08, 2009, 12:18:01 am
What if the women was impregnated by rape?
What if she and the man were being perfectly safe, pills and condoms and whatever else, but it still failed?
What if the family didn't have enough money for a child, and the kid would grow up and suffer in squalor?
What if it happened to you before you were prepared to start your life, or before you were finished with school?
Look, as I said before, adoption would be a very reasonable solution for the majority of the above cases.

 :picardno

Jesus Harold Christ, you sound like a broken record. Absolutely no effort put into your argument beyond HURRRRR DURR ITS DA WAY I THINX! I DONT NEED NO RAISN TO RAWK. She already explained (quite diligently) why adoption is not truthfully the wonderful alternative your typical fundy regurgitates to anybody willing to devour their mental poison.

The blindly religious are so quick to call out that a fetus is a living being, yet vehemently oppose the idea that they've committed murder simply by scratching themselves, thereby killing skin cells, or for another example, simply eating to sustain themselves. Oh, that's right, it's human life, isn't it? Well isn't that just fine and hypocritical isn't it? Doesn't stop any of you from suggesting other animals (Yes, that's right. I went there. Humans are just as much animals as your cat or dog or lizard or mouse or what have you) were put here solely for human benefit... And if we need the land a certain species is on, to hell with that species right? Such raw instinctual behavior from a species that holds itself above the rest of nature makes me sick.

I could go on and on about the religious mindset and why it disgusts me, but I'll save it.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on July 08, 2009, 12:49:58 am
Quote from: ZaichikArky
I don't really like it when a guy claims he's very feminist and anti-sexist because it makes me slightly weary.
Completely understandable. The phenomenon of male feminism is probably fairly new in public discourse and therefore "weird;" moreover, we should be subject to intense scrutiny at this nascent stage of the movement to ensure that we aren't just trying to pander to perceptions of female victimization; at that point male feminism can devolve into a kind of false paternalistic protectiveness, which would be sexist in and of itself.

The male feminist must prepare for an awkward road indeed, and be able to keep his footing whilst being viewed skeptically by both men and women. I'm glad that I had a male feminist professor for a women's studies class in college and that people like Lord J, ZeaLitY, Thought, and others closer to my own age are very comfortable with these types of discussions, otherwise I might have been dissuaded from choosing this philosophical path altogether.

And as a shameless plug to male feminists or at least pro-feminists in "mainstream" culture, I offer the filmmakers James Cameron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_cameron#Recurring_themes) and Hayao Miyazaki. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayao_Miyazaki) Note that with the topsy-turviness of James Cameron's personal life, the male feminist should not expect to suddenly find harmony with women or something; guy's been divorced five times. So much for the romantic ideal.

Quote from: ZaichikArky
Guys on the other hand, expect women to be "nurturing". When does a heterosexual guy go to his guy friends to talk about his "feelings" or any emotional problems he has? Is it sexist that he expects women to be more receptive to his personal problems than his best (guy) friend? No, I don't think it is.
All humans have equal capacity to be nurturing, and this should not be denied to men, in the same way that aggressive pursuit of success in the job market should not be denied to women. There are aboriginal societies in which men care for the young, which is highly suggestive of equal nurturing capacity. This is positive; the negative flipside to that is that the women in some of these societies seem to be more violent -- as if there needs to be some sort of bloodthirsty, hardened gender in every society. Feminists must eschew this notion.

As for the opening doors example specifically, I've had plenty of women open doors for me, and I've opened doors for men, and vice versa...why shouldn't everyone open the door for each other? Paying for dinners, ah, that's an interesting question indeed. I'm not sure how to solve that, as equality does necessitate going halfies or one partner treating the other on a turn basis.

Quote from: ZaichikArky
When does a heterosexual guy go to his guy friends to talk about his "feelings" or any emotional problems he has?
I actually did this once in high school after the emotionally jarring experience of seeing someone enter a seizure, and remaining to make sure the seizing person's back and neck were straight, etc (it was one of those situations where I got to do something I saw on the Discovery Channel, yay!). I was quite frankly surprised at how well a good male friend sort of talked me through the emotional and psychological aftermath of that event. And you know what? I left the experience with an astounding amount of respect for my friend, without losing any sense of my own masculinity or heterosexuality.


EDIT: Oh, I just have to drop a link to this:
(http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/2548/koreanwarfallensoldier1.png) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:KoreanWarFallenSoldier1.jpg)

Next to Rocco Morabito's photo Kiss of Life, this is probably the most jarring visual symbol of man's positive nurturing ability that I've seen, in that it immediately forces the viewer to confront sexist stereotypes. What!? Why isn't he in a woman's arms? Why isn't a woman in his arms? For that matter, why is that guy such a wuss? A soldier doesn't cry! ...Are these dudes g-g-g-gay!?. But the simple fact is, in the middle of this horrendous Korean War battlefield, this guy is all this other guy has, and at that moment this man was capable of a wonderful emotionally nurturing act.

Call it feminism, pro-feminism, positive masculinism...by any name, this is what it's about for me. It's about unlocking humanistic potential within men that traditional androcentric mores are suppressing, to the mental, physical, emotional, and spiritual detriment of all.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on July 08, 2009, 01:20:18 am
Quote
I actually did this once in high school after the emotionally jarring experience of seeing someone enter a seizure, and remaining to make sure the seizing person's back and neck were straight, etc (it was one of those situations where I got to do something I saw on the Discovery Channel, yay!). I was quite frankly surprised at how well a good male friend of mine sort of talked me through the emotional and psychological aftermath of that event. And you know what? I left the experience with an astounding amount of respect for my friend, without losing any sense of my own masculinity or heterosexuality.

Good for you! Yeah... it seems like girls can talk to guys about their emotional problems all the time and guys will be nurturing and supportive, but when it comes to guys talking to other guys, it just hardly ever happens. I'm not really sure why that's the case, but I think it would be great if men realized that other men could help them with their "problems" other than it being "GHEY"...

Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: KebreI on July 08, 2009, 01:25:40 am
I have never had a problem talking the other guys about anything, not even emotional topics of any sort.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: V_Translanka on July 08, 2009, 01:38:10 am
Yeah, jeeze, look at the forums. Mostly guys. We talk about a wide range of topics and, though the Compendium may or may not be an exception on the interwebs, are pretty supportive of one another...
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on July 08, 2009, 01:51:23 am
Yeah, jeeze, look at the forums. Mostly guys. We talk about a wide range of topics and, though the Compendium may or may not be an exception on the interwebs, are pretty supportive of one another...

The forums and real life are not the same thing. These forums are not very different from other forums on the internet, in that context. However, if you compare the forums and some other community like... high school or college or something, they are vastly different.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: KebreI on July 08, 2009, 01:54:54 am
Pet peeve, how is this not real life? Your talking to people still? your pressing keys, this isn't a dream. It isn't any less real then the phone.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on July 08, 2009, 02:12:48 am
Pet peeve, how is this not real life? Your talking to people still? your pressing keys, this isn't a dream. It isn't any less real then the phone.

God, I could go on and on about just that topic.

I have always viewed forums and real life differently. I frequent forums partially because I'm lonely and I like to talk to other people who share interests with me. Typing things out on a forum is not the same thing as having a conversation with a person or a group of people in a room. Hell, if I had it my way, I would have everyone here be nearby and meet all of you all the time instead of typing away. But maybe that's just me.

I've met people IRL who I first met on forums, and they don't act any differently than they portray themselves on forums/instant messenger, however the medium of communication changes so you learn a whole lot more about them.

I used to view internet friends and RL friends seperately. I'm not so sure if I do anymore, but when I talk about my online friends now, I generally try to use "friends" rather than "internet friend" or "online friend". Friends are friends no matter what... that is something I try to tell myself. However, a friend whom I've never met is not the same as a friend whom I've met. I guess it's just different experiences you share with people. People who know me IRL do not know how I feel about many topics where I express myself here. They're all a part of who I am, but through all the years I've been online, the two worlds just seem vastly different to me.

You can't honestly tell me that if the people who participated in just this thread ( I don't know, it's been about 10 of us?) would have a conversation even vaguely similar to this if it were in person? First of all, just being beside real people would put up a lot of inhibitions in most of us. Even Z, would he say all that shit to Truth's face about how he truly feels about a very important part of Truth's life? Even if he would do that in a similar manner as he typed here, I would think he was a prick, and so would most of us. Typing takes a lot of the humanity out of an equation. It's that simple.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: KebreI on July 08, 2009, 02:20:30 am
You can't honestly tell me that if the people who participated in just this thread ( I don't know, it's been about 10 of us?) would have a conversation even vaguely similar to this if it were in person? First of all, just being beside real people would put up a lot of inhibitions in most of us. Even Z, would he say all that shit to Truth's face about how he truly feels about a very important part of Truth's life? Even if he would do that in a similar manner as he typed here, I would think he was a prick, and so would most of us. Typing takes a lot of the humanity out of an equation. It's that simple.
Yes I act roughly the same, why because in both cases it me. I have many time met "internet friends" and I behave just the same, as did he. Do I think all of us act like this in person? I don't know its dependent on the person. That doesn't get rid of the fact that this is just as real, people all too often hid behind the false virtualness. I think PAX will be a good test to see if your right though.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on July 08, 2009, 02:22:11 am
I would have handled it a little differently, and probably have written off that person quicker in real life. I don't go around raising hell, but neither do I let opportunities slip for challenging some ignorant belief or correcting some insensitive comment.

This is what I consider the flip, positive side of male feminism. One of my friends decries how being feminist for her is the equivalent of announcing, "hey, look at me! I'm a man-hating dyke who doesn't shave or wear a bra because I consider these rules of man-pigs. I'm unloved and insecure and ugly, so I became a feminist! Roar!" But I don't have to deal with that. I can stroll in and humiliate other men by "playing for the other team" and eliminate their shallow idea of like-minded privilege. I have access to different avenues of expression and powers of impact.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Samopoznanie on July 08, 2009, 02:30:32 am
Pet peeve, how is this not real life? Your talking to people still? your pressing keys, this isn't a dream. It isn't any less real then the phone.
The internet is not 'real life', it's a break from real life. And you're not talking to people, you're writing to them, which makes a big difference.

It's very rare that you come off the same way in speech as you do on paper, or in typed words. And it's much easier to bullshit or play yourself up to be someone / something that you're not, online, due largely to the lack of tone of voice. The aural factor has a definite psychological effect. Not to mention the lack of a face or complexion. As well, when you're just sitting at home, typing up these long, drawn-out soapbox posts, you have a wealth of luxuries available to you, among them:

- you have all the time you need to put your thoughts into words;

- you have the ability to just hit up Google or Wikipedia if you don't have an answer or fact for something;

- you can go back and hit 'edit' if you realize you're mistaken, before folks notice your errors;

- you aren't bogged down by the volume / shouting factor ('cause let's be honest, by this point in a phone discussion, someone would've lost it by now), which tends to drown out reasonable debate;

- you can avoid hurt feelings or real grudges by just closing your web browser;

- if you're completely stumped in a debate or argument, you can just post an image or emoticon and say LOL in place of real commentary;

- finally, you have no need for patience or restraint online, as the posts will always be there and you can reply whenever you like. Because face it, after all the insults, condescension and beating a dead horse that we've seen in this thread, one of the parties involved would have simply hung up the phone - whether out of frustration, or the realization that they're exhausting the number of minutes that they have in their monthly plan.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on July 08, 2009, 02:39:00 am
Friends are friends, online or off. What's different online is that it's so much harder to read people's tone, and, as has been pointed out, people can be more aggressive online--although it comes down to the individual person. I've made friends online that I later met in real life, and there are definitely some differences, mainly in the form of me learning that I had misread their tone all those years. However, in no way does this diminish in my mind the value or worth of online friendships. And time spent online is not a "break" from real life, but simply another setting for it. There's no meaningful distinction, although I think it'll take a generational shift for people to realize this en masse.

As for the bit about male feminists...we're all on the same team here. Anyone working for sexual equality is an ally and welcome, as far as I'm concerned.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: KebreI on July 08, 2009, 02:55:02 am
Pet peeve, how is this not real life? Your talking to people still? your pressing keys, this isn't a dream. It isn't any less real then the phone.
The internet is not 'real life', it's a break from real life. And you're not talking to people, you're writing to them, which makes a big difference.

It's very rare that you come off the same way in speech as you do on paper, or in typed words. And it's much easier to bullshit or play yourself up to be someone / something that you're not, online, due largely to the lack of tone of voice. The aural factor has a definite psychological effect. Not to mention the lack of a face or complexion. As well, when you're just sitting at home, typing up these long, drawn-out soapbox posts, you have a wealth of luxuries available to you, among them:

- you have all the time you need to put your thoughts into words;
Most of what I saw is spontainuos, but not all. And thats true in person I will at times not say a word just because I want to phrase it right.

Quote
- you have the ability to just hit up Google or Wikipedia if you don't have an answer or fact for something;
I alway lose intrest in the post at that point, just as I would in a face to face discussion.

Quote
- you can go back and hit 'edit' if you realize you're mistaken, before folks notice your errors;
over 90% of them are gramatical or spelling errors though.

Quote
- you aren't bogged down by the volume / shouting factor ('cause let's be honest, by this point in a phone discussion, someone would've lost it by now), which tends to drown out reasonable debate;
It really shows your lack of conviction then.

Quote
- you can avoid hurt feelings or real grudges by just closing your web browser;
Or walking away.

Quote
- if you're completely stumped in a debate or argument, you can just post an image or emoticon and say LOL in place of real commentary;
LOL is pronounced Lawl.

Quote
- finally, you have no need for patience or restraint online, as the posts will always be there and you can reply whenever you like. Because face it, after all the insults, condescension and beating a dead horse that we've seen in this thread, one of the parties involved would have simply hung up the phone - whether out of frustration, or the realization that they're exhausting the number of minutes that they have in their monthly plan.
Once again that is just someones lack of conviction. I don't behave 100% as I do online but the only reason I don't is because I have actual trouble raising my voice to be that loud. So some of the time where I join in on moments of Passion, are slightly exaggerated but it is me none the less.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Shee on July 08, 2009, 04:11:43 am
When it comes to debates like these, I can admit that I like to find the middle of the fence and wedge it ever so firmly up my ass and try to please everyone with some comic relief.  I do like to be liked...CAN be a fault of mine, but this particular post is not about my numerous faults.  I also hate these opening disclaimers, kind of a "please don't call me stupid even if what I write is stupid..."  Anyway, here are my cents for the Thought Pot.

Sexism is easy, right?  It's bad, mmkay?

To look at sexism, at least in this country and on a surface level, you don't have to go too far past slang for someone who has sex frequently.

Female:  slut, whore, dirty this and that etc etc etc

Male:  pimp, player, mack etc etc etc

But why the difference?  You just don't hear "man-whore" tossed around all that much.  Especially in the last century alone, women have made massive strides...comparatviely to where they were before.  But there's still work to be done, and always more questions arise and more heads butt.  How do we fare worldwide?  Is that even relevant?  At first it seems like an obvious "YES IT'S RELEVANT YOU IDIOT!" but should it necessarily be comparative to the rest of the world?  In other words, is it a world culture or national culture that needs changing?  A world one I say, but it would have to be done differently in various parts of the world.  Hope that made enough sense.

As for abortion, trickier waters.  I was raised Catholic, and am not well versed in other religions so I'm not going to speak for or against them.  I am not a practicing Catholic these days...more out of apathy and laziness then some sort of religious or anti-religious epiphany.  Sure as I grew older I questioned MANY things, and still do.  I can admit to being part of that "brainwashing" type deal where there is an acceptance of my religion as the end-all be-all for all questions.  My general feeling on religion currently is, and has been for some time now, is that it is a good thing.  A good thing that has been warped by the enormus imperfections that are humans.  Catholics don't condone birth control/abortion because the sole purpose of sex (in Catholic religion) is for a married couple to procreate.  So there was never a need for birth control or abortion...why else would you be having sex anyway?  But on the flip side ( the ol' two way streets...), there are tons of Catholics who don't follow those rules.  Only marital sex and only when we want to have children?  Sheeeeit, pardner.  Flip it again and if you're having sex with anyone and everyone, then you're a fucking animal, male or female.  Sorry if that's blatantly obvious, just didn't really see that sticking out anywhere.

Getting back to abortion, I had gotten plenty of the "Abortion is The greatest evil" talk growing up and bought it.  I do really like what Z said, along the lines of it's possible to discuss a fetus without discussing God or religion.  I like that because I think both sides miss that point at times.  BUT I still have questions...

how many rights DOES that fetus have?  Are those rights relevant to the matter at hand?  For example, there's been some talk about having an abortion to keep one's career or life on the track it currently is.....now is this fair to the unborn baby?

WHAT IF THAT UNBORN BABY WAS YOU!!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Sorry for being SO lame, as that argument is drawn out and exaggerated and misused so many ways it makes my head spin.  But I think there is some merit to it, right?  Please understand that these are honest questions, not poking at either side here.  My tendencies lean towards pro-life, but I'm not going to stop a single woman from getting an abortion if she had thought it through, had discussed with her partner etc etc etc...I'm not going to stand outside of a clinic and block doorways while shouting at the women calling them baby-murderers.

Does that mean I lack convictions for my beliefs?  Do I not have beliefs anymore?  Or am I simply showing some compassion and not being a complete and obstinate asshole?  How much flex should there be or not be???

Before I moved to Los Angeles, I was involved with someone who I just shouldn't have been with for at least 30 bazillion reasons.  I gave in to the carnal stuff.  She eventually thought she might be pregnant.  Now, I want to have children of my own one day.  Very much so.  Not that day.  Or today, for that matter.  Not ready for a million different reasons.  Neither of us considered abortion, but there was that definite fear of losing the momentum, of forfeiting moving across the country to pursue my dreams, going back to the earlier question.....which is right?  Is it even about right or wrong at that point?  Again, what I mean is does the fetus have any rights in that situation, or is it entirely up to us?  If its going to grow up in a terrible situation, if it's a product of rape, then I can't say I feel any hatred whatsoever towards anyone who gets an abortion.  (She ended up not being pregnant.  I can admit that relief is not even the beginning of what I felt.)

But what if it's the product of the "fucking animal" I discussed earlier?  I suppose that they have the same rights, don't they?  But it leaves a bad tate in my mouth.  Not that I'm such an aweosme guy all the time.  The relationship in the last paragraph I brought up was some of the most adulterous, lustful, gross, shady things I've ever been a part of and if I was thinking with more that what was in my pants at the time I would have avoided muuuuch pain.  Did we end up sharing more than sex with one another?  Of course!  Much more!  But that started it all, and those consequences arose.  And when those consquences arose, I felt like abortion was some sort of "easy way out" for us, and she shared that sentiment.

I feel like I really just asked a bunch of questions here...but they were my thoughts.

As far as internet life and real life...what it is is what it is for you.  And only you.
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: Thought on July 08, 2009, 12:44:02 pm
I've wanted to dislike you from the moment you showed up on these forums, but I never could.

It's my raw sex appeal. (http://www.harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=120)

Jewish traumatically mutilate male babies.

Out of curiosity, what is your opinion on surgical treatments for polydactylism?

Religion should be tossed out with yesterday's garbage, not solicited as an opiate for the masses so someone can build a less rebellious empire.

Meh, any empire built around religion as an opiate will quickly fall anywho, as the founders are morons. Religion is a terribly ineffective opiate; it disrupts the daily routine of life, causing people to be more aware of the world and thus more likely to be driven to change it. If one wishes to suppress rebellion, it is far more effective and easier to simply keep people busy with mindless work; doesn’t matter if this is subsistence living, such as in the middle ages, or if this is office work, as in today. Any institution that even suggests that people should have one day a week of rest is counter-productive to suppressing rebellion.

"Whoa, this scenery is REALLY beautiful...therefore, God exists."

I see you're still lacking the passion to obtain absolute victory, Z.

Quote from: Biologos Foundation

While it is true that the fine-tuning of the Universe adds credence to belief in a creator, such recent scientific findings could hardly be called upon as the basis or justification of the long history of theistic belief ... Instead, fine-tuning can be understood as a feature of the universe that is accordant with belief in a creator... although these pointers to God should encourage one to consider God’s existence, they must not be placed at the foundation of faith. (http://biologos.org/questions/fine-tuning/)

In other words, "whoa, this scenery is REALLY beautiful... which is what I'd expect if God exists, but it doesn't confirm such a belief."

I would not want to date a guy who didn't treat me differently just because I was a woman.

What if he didn't treat you differently because you were a woman, BUT he treated you differently because he liked you and was attempting to show affection through action? Likewise, what if he didn't pay for dinner because you’re a woman and wouldn't have a job to provide funds to pay for yourself, but rather he paid because the very idea of spending a meal with you makes it seem like he's rich?

The reason behind the action is often more important than the action. I hold doors for both men and women as a sign that I acknowledge their existence. Someone else might hold doors for women not to respect them but because that person perceives women as individuals incapable of properly caring for themselves. We both hold doors for women, but I'd argue that one is undesirably sexist and the other is not.

And you know what? I left the experience with an astounding amount of respect for my friend, without losing any sense of my own masculinity or heterosexuality.

I am reminded of a quote from C.S. Lewis that goes something along the lines of "when I became an adult, I put away childish things, including the fear of appearing childish." In the same way, it might be said that when one becomes a man, one puts away emasculate things, including the fear of appearing emasculate."

The forums and real life are not the same thing.

Quite true. Forums give us anonymity and time, two things that one necessarily doesn't have in person. To use myself as an example; I'm much bolder on the forum than I would be if you met me in person. In person, around people I'm not familiar with, I'm shy, soft spoken, and reserved. Once I get to know people, I'm far more gregarious (more like I behave here). The anonymity of the internet for some reason eliminates that original shy stage.

There is that other element, though. The internet gives us time. You are quite right that this discussion wouldn't have occurred as it has in person, largely in part because we wouldn't have the time to think as we do here. I addressed something you said by quoting you, but in real life I might have never gotten the chance to say anything as the flow of the conversation would have carried us away too quickly.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 08, 2009, 01:06:32 pm
Shee, if its any consolation, I use the word man-whore frequently, because I think it sounds funny.

Secondly, I had a circumcision when I was a baby, more for health and sanitary reasons than religious ones. I don't consider myself mutilated, and a lot of women think that a circumcised male is more pleasurable.  

And, to put minds at ease on the religious debate, some words from our leader:

"the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over. Our progress as a nation – and our values as a nation – are rooted in free and open inquiry."
-Barack Obama.

America is indeed turning more secular. Whether 'tis good or bad our generation will see in due time.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on July 08, 2009, 04:18:56 pm
Wow, just did a bit of research on male feminism, and the discussion happening in these comments on Feministing.com is really fascinating (http://www.feministing.com/archives/015401.html), because it's like every possible angle and argument is covered.

That's quite a bit of food for thought (haha, missed a pun opportunity there). For Zaich and the other ladies here, I hope I and some others here didn't seem to be "invading" the cause of gender equality (intentionally or unintentionally) or speaking for you and other women; that is a most valid concern and that is most certainly not the intent. Rather, people of all genders, races, and social positions should take an interest in what the elimination of patriarchy means for them and the repercussions societal progression will have for their particular, unique cases.

Why should men be vocal on feminist issues and gender equality? Precisely to welcome fellow men into the progression of humanism and morality, and avoid warped responses to the feminist cause like the one posted by this frustrated feminist. (http://www.feministing.com/archives/015401.html#comment-255358) There's always going to be a ton of friction within the feminist community, as with any human community; there's already friction between white feminists and black feminists; between black feminists and Asian feminists; between Western feminists and third world feminists; between heterosexual feminists and homosexual feminists; so there's sure as heck going to be some friction when men want to join in too and expand the community.

Perhaps the greatest expressions of feminism amongst men are the kind that are done on the quiet and subliminally, so as not to draw attention to the feminist's particular gender, racial, or cultural identity and therefore stir up discord within a movement that desperately needs solidarity (IMHO). That's why James Cameron is my personal hero. He doesn't run around at feminist rallies with a megaphone or hold up one end of a "Fuck Sexism" banner at the head of feminist marches; he writes and directs movies like Aliens and Titanic that just get the message across to millions of viewers, without him or his white maleness anywhere visibly onscreen.

So, those of us who are vocal on women's issues and happen to be men automatically incur some cost to our credibility on the mere basis of our gender. Such is life; if any of this post's readers is a man and flirting with the idea of identifying as a feminist, don't let some of the attitudes within even the feminist community dissuade you or make you feel devalued. Barack Obama is able to combat partriarchalism and androcentrism just as well as Hillary Clinton could have, to the benefit of our society as a whole. Now let's gear up and bust down some sexist mores!
(http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/9512/unknownkojimacharacteri.png)

EDIT:
Quote from: Thought
What if he didn't treat you differently because you were a woman, BUT he treated you differently because he liked you and was attempting to show affection through action? Likewise, what if he didn't pay for dinner because you’re a woman and wouldn't have a job to provide funds to pay for yourself, but rather he paid because the very idea of spending a meal with you makes it seem like he's rich?

The reason behind the action is often more important than the action. I hold doors for both men and women as a sign that I acknowledge their existence. Someone else might hold doors for women not to respect them but because that person perceives women as individuals incapable of properly caring for themselves. We both hold doors for women, but I'd argue that one is undesirably sexist and the other is not.

Pretty awesome stuff all around Thought. I find the idea of "acknowledging the other's existence" really interesting; sometimes in this fast-paced, high-stress society we focus so much on our own issues, deadlines, schedules, etc., that we rush around from one place to another without really communicating with the people around us in any meaningful way. A couple days ago a fellow grad student walked up to me in class for no other purpose than to just say hi; and I was like, "whoa...that's different." But why should it be weird? Maybe we should all take time out to go out on a limb and do something crazy like that. I've always viewed opening doors for people, saying "bless you" when someone sneezes (even though it's medically nonsensical...I think?) as ways of establishing a human connection on-the-cheap and in a more socially acceptable way.


Quote from: Shee
I am not a practicing Catholic these days...more out of apathy and laziness then some sort of religious or anti-religious epiphany.
Hahaa, there's so many of us "derelict" Catholics that the religion is seemingly becoming synonymous with it. It's probably a sign that the religion needs to get with the times far quicker than its current organization allows, and extirpate the chaff from the wheat. The Catholic Church is not likely to survive in the developed West, at least, if it tries to wait for Vatican IV, V, and VI. Change needs to flow continuously.

There are number of canonical practices that I simply don't agree with, Confession being the primary offender in my case (with regard to what's expected of the parishioner, anyway). I mean, jeez, are we that sinful and inhuman that we honestly need to rake ourselves over the coals in front of an old dude? But Confession could still be a psychological help for some people who need it; it could be viewed as free psychiatry if the priest sitting in that confessional is skilled enough.

But I still love Communion, and that's what's drawn me to services every now and then and made them spiritually and psychologically beneficial to me. Now, in my weird semi-anarchic interpretation of Christianity, Jesus represents the forces that question authority and reveal the fundamental inner godhood of human beings. Perhaps there is absolutely nothing to support that in the canonical interpretation of the Old and New Testaments (I've found my religious philosophy shaped far more by Cornell West (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornell_West) in recent years), but there's something wonderful about the symbolic act of taking in the substance of someone I interpret as a great revolutionary figure. I just can't divorce myself from such an experience, and as long as I believe in a God or something comparable to it on logical grounds, I find it best to do what I can within this limited and flawed human institution, and contribute to its moral betterment.

The notion that a specific aspect of a religion rather than the underlying teachings would either attract someone to it or keep someone interested enough to identify with it may be strange, sacreligious, and shallow all at the same time, but I can begin to understand where Simone Weil (http://www.hermenaut.com/dev/a47.shtml) was coming from when she began to flirt with religion on the basis of hearing Gregorian chant.
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: ZeaLitY on July 08, 2009, 05:43:15 pm
Out of curiosity, what is your opinion on surgical treatments for polydactylism?

Justified, of course. It restores functionality, not eliminates it.

Quote
I see you're still lacking the passion to obtain absolute victory, Z.

Oh, but it would be an affront for me to tread on ground that Dawkins and the others have covered so well.
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: Thought on July 08, 2009, 06:01:59 pm
Justified, of course. It restores functionality, not eliminates it.

Not at all; polydactylism is something that usually does not impede function.

EDIT: Ah, it occurs to me that you might be referring to the genetic problems that polydactylism can imply, which can indeed be a health concern, but which surgery does not actually address.

Oh, but it would be an affront for me to tread on ground that Dawkins and the others have covered so well.

Agreed, it would be an affront. Particularly since the ground Dawkins et. al. covered so well was salted so well by Collins et. al. It would seem that new ground is necessary.

EDIT AGAIN: I'm sorry, I realized that the meaning of this comment could be easily mistaken. Dawkins has primarily targeted two sets of beliefs; creationism and intelligent design. He has covered these topics quite well and shown conclusively that they're bunk. Collins also targets creationism and intelligent design. The difference between the two is the amount of time spent on the subjects, not their conclusions. Your snarky summary was one that would have been pointed at an ID claim; Collins and Dawkins are not at odds in that regard. However, Dawkins has (at least to date, and at least that I am aware of) said very little regarding Collins' concept of "biologos." There is where they disagree, and there is new ground that Dawkins has not covered.

I apologize if all that was perfectly clear and an explanation was unnecessary. And I apologize if all of that wasn't clear and the explanation was necessary. It should have been better stated.
Title: Re: The $%*! frustration thread
Post by: ZeaLitY on July 08, 2009, 07:24:29 pm
Justified, of course. It restores functionality, not eliminates it.

Not at all; polydactylism is something that usually does not impede function.

EDIT: Ah, it occurs to me that you might be referring to the genetic problems that polydactylism can imply, which can indeed be a health concern, but which surgery does not actually address.

Even the cosmetic issues can be construed as impeding social functionality. The images I saw had messed up fingers and toes, so I assumed that a physical loss of function was part of it, too.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on July 08, 2009, 07:34:07 pm
Z, are you referring to circumcision? How is it traumatic to the baby and how is it any different than circumcision at a hospital? The only difference is that at the brit, it's a ceremony and at the hospital, it's not. 50 % of male babies in the US get circumcised, and even though the number is at a decline, a lot of it isn't religious reasons.

I used to be pro-circumcision, but in more recent times, I've become more open to leaving it alone. I'm not sure what I'll do if I ever have a boy, but I'll probably ask what the father thinks. Most likely if the father is cut, he'll say that cutting it is the way to go, and if he's uncut, then he'll say not to cut it. I think that if the boy is taught to properly clean it, it should theoretically not be a problem. I disagree with those who say that being circumcised looses feeling, but you know it's really hard to compare these things. Even men can't really compare it...

Also, Thought. Comparing circumcision to polydactylism doesn't make any sense to me. It is a birth defect that needs surgery so that the person can have semi-functional hands, having a penis isn't a birth defect 0_o.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 08, 2009, 07:41:33 pm
having a penis isn't a birth defect 0_o.

Well, according to some people, that's debatable.  :D

Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on July 08, 2009, 07:59:53 pm
^ lol speaking of feminism...

You should read Valerie Solonas - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCUM_Manifesto .
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Shee on July 08, 2009, 08:02:42 pm
Hmmm. If it WAS about circumcision, I would agree that today the majority of cases aren't at all religious, but hygenic.  If not, well then I guess I left the door open, didn't I?

Anyway, I was perusing a copy of "VAS: An Opera In Flatland" and found some good quotes in the section concerning human sterilization.

I wish very much that the many people could be prevented entirely from breeding...  The emphasis should be laid on getting desirable people to breed.
President Theodore Roosevelt


Whoever is not bodily and spiritually healthy and worthy shall not have the right to pass on his suffering in the body of his children.
Adolf Hitler


The rapid growth of the feeble-minded classes coupled as it is with steady reduction among all superior wstocks constitutes a race danger which should be cut off before another year has passed.
Winston Churchill


The immediate objectives are the total destruction and devestation of [Indian] settlements.  It will be essential to ruin their crops in the ground and prevent their planting more.
President George Washington
slave owner

Those are all taken straight from the book, which is a fantastic read if your head doesn't explode, even the "slave owner" after George Washington.  More food for the Thought Pot than anything else, really.

And Faust, if the Catholic Church were to "get with the times," wouldn't that be a destruction of their doctrine?  Or am I wrongeth about that?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on July 08, 2009, 08:21:16 pm
Quote from: Shee
And Faust, if the Catholic Church were to "get with the times," wouldn't that be a destruction of their doctrine?  Or am I wrongeth about that?
Most definitely a question for a Catholic theologian, and I don't feel anywhere near prepared to answer that. Vatican II brought a number of changes in daily practice, but I should do more research to see if there were any doctrinal changes, however slight. I would offer that what could be done in Nicea I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea) could be undone through the same means, but I'm not sure it's fair to call the Christian Church that gathered at Nicea the same body as the Catholic Church of today. Any change in doctrine would probably have to be based on that passage in the New Testament where Jesus says to Peter, "Upon this rock I will build my church," or something to that effect. Meaning that, since Jesus devolved huge godlike powers of scriptural interpretation unto the first Pope, all Popes (and Papessas/Popesses...?) thereafter should have the power of reform if only they are bold enough to exercise it.


I haven't read anything by Solanas -- probably because the women's studies course I had in college was geared toward a moderate form of feminism in which both men and women could find common ground -- but I've at least heard the name and some references to her misandry. She has a right to her beliefs of course, but I imagine it would become counterproductive to take her line of thought mainstream; it's liable to give the "fear of knife-weilding women" variety of women-villifiers more fuel.


EDIT: Just read some of Solanas after finding the specific text Zaich suggested via Wikipedia. Interesting stuff to be sure -- it does serve a purpose, since it subjects the male reader to some of the psychological pressure African slaves and even African American citizens had to endure from whites, and arguments similar to what the Nazis flung at Jewish, Gypsy, and other groups. Women specifically have probably been subject to some of this trash as well, though I'm limited as to examples there (I'm sure they're out there, probably authored by militant men's groups, and "softer" critiques of femininity in this vein probably abound in historical literature). It's interesting to have the tables turned for once, though we (white) men are extremely fortunate to live in a society where Solanas' views are pretty much limited to herself and some other really fringe militant feminists, and don't have to deal with it in everyday life.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on July 08, 2009, 08:24:49 pm
IIRC, the idea that circumcision reduced AIDs incidence in Africa was disproven, so circumcision is thankfully back on the "batshit insane religious mutilation" list.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Shee on July 08, 2009, 08:30:25 pm
Faust:  Indeed....

ZeaLitY:  Hm, didn't know that was the plan.  Don't really see how that would work, so I'm not surprised it didn't.  But I meant more of day-to-day hygene, I don't see any problem with circumcision in that regard.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: x_XTacTX_x on July 08, 2009, 08:52:50 pm
IIRC, the idea that circumcision reduced AIDs incidence in Africa was disproven, so circumcision is thankfully back on the "batshit insane religious mutilation" list.

Even though it does still increase the chance of infection and smegma buildup (egh).

I never really understood the fight against circumcision. I've never met anyone who's complained about not having a foreskin, and I've never thought about it in a negative light. In fact, I think having a foreskin would be worse than being cut, something about it just kind of grosses me out.

Find me someone who wishes they weren't cut and maybe I'll change my mind.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on July 08, 2009, 08:56:53 pm
It's fucking stupid. The foreskin is nerve-dense tissue that conducts pleasure like the rest of the organ, and not only are you fucking conceding it by virtue of some negligible hygiene benefit, but you're excusing entirely the reason it's performed, which is utter religious insanity. Idiot Christians can't even fucking argue it from a theological perspective because the New Testament says that both uncircumsized and circumsized people can receive the Lord. It's fucking stupid, stone age, Medieval-backwards, thoughtless, destructive ignorance. It also violates the human right to one's own body.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Zephira on July 08, 2009, 08:58:52 pm
On the subject of circumcision... I've always heard people say that it's better to circumcise at birth because the child won't feel it - he won't even cry! The thing is, this isn't true at all. He doesn't cry because he goes into shock. It's a lot more painful for a baby than it is for a grown man.
I never understood circumcision for religious reasons (god lives in your penis? What?), but it makes perfect sense for sanitary reasons (if you're too lazy to clean it). However, I think the person undergoing the operation should be given a choice instead of forced into it at birth. What until the boy is a little older, maybe in his teens, and ask him then. If he's fine with getting cut, then go ahead.

(EDIT: In fact, could someone please explain the religious reasoning behind circumcision? I honestly have no clue what the basis is here, aside from an old tradition that people uphold because their grandaddy did it too.)

And while we're in the sexism topic, I think we need to flip things around a little. So far it's only been sexism against women. But what about men? They lose most divorce or child custody cases and always end up as the ones paying child support, when they should have just as much right to their children as the wife. I'm not too versed in male sexism, but I know it's out there, I've heard people complain about it, and I know it's worth discussing. Let's see some equality here, people! :grimm
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: x_XTacTX_x on July 08, 2009, 09:03:37 pm
It's fucking stupid. The foreskin is nerve-dense tissue that conducts pleasure like the rest of the organ, and not only are you fucking conceding it by virtue of some negligible hygiene benefit, but you're excusing entirely the reason it's performed, which is utter religious insanity. Idiot Christians can't even fucking argue it from a theological perspective because the New Testament says that both uncircumsized and circumsized people can receive the Lord. It's fucking stupid, stone age, Medieval-backwards, thoughtless, destructive ignorance. It also violates the human right to one's own body.

But where's the real harm in it? I was cut, I think I've turned out okay. As for sexual pleasure, I think I'm getting along just fine, too. Besides, it's better than getting the job done when you'll be able to remember the experience if you get it done at all.

I think the parents have the right to decide if they want to circumcise their child or not. The mother hauled the thing around inside her for nine months, if she wants the child to be with/without a foreskin, she should damn well have the right to decide.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: x_XTacTX_x on July 08, 2009, 09:06:06 pm
On the subject of circumcision... I've always heard people say that it's better to circumcise at birth because the child won't feel it - he won't even cry! The thing is, this isn't true at all. He doesn't cry because he goes into shock. It's a lot more painful for a baby than it is for a grown man.

It's not like you'll remember it. If I remembered the pain of circumcision, then yeah I'd most likely have a problem with it, but considering it's done before memory is developed, I don't see the big deal.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on July 08, 2009, 09:09:46 pm
Fuck it. You people are fucking stupid. This is the classic resolution of things like this on the forums, where the humanists and idealists retreat as a flood of centrists come in to try and make everything better as the religious archvillains wait in the wings. Ever since this forum was founded, the balance of posters has shifted from rational secularists like Lord J and GrayLensman to moderates and idiots.

What's the real harm in cutting off part of a baby's penis because their family believes in fairytale nonsense? Yeah, what's the harm? The sheer brutality of that statement should be self-evident, and yet something like this gets respect because religion demands it.

Jesus fucking Christ. To any atheists or agnostics who agreed with what I've said but have chosen to stay silent, come out. Part of the reason change has been so slow is because humanists and atheists are afraid to out themselves for fear of losing religious family and friends or social prestige. Well, enough of that. We are the largest underrepresented and most hated minority in America. But there are more of us than you think. Come out.

(http://deyan.dyankov.name/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/atheist425y.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Shee on July 08, 2009, 09:23:37 pm
If I went into shock I sure as hell don't remember.  And since I've been circumcised I'll never know what foreskin is like....I can live with that...I don't think I've thought ONCE about if I had foreskin.  Okay maybe in puberty...

I'm not arguing that it's connection to religion is silly, at least now.  Is that religious insanity STILL going on?  In America?  Most indications point that circumcisions are down here, right?  But I just don't understand the rest of your vehement opposition, Z.  So what if the hygienical differences aren't astounding?  So what if the foreskin gives more pleasure?  Is pleasure all that drives you?  If a man was cut and wants his son to be cut as a baby, so what?  If that man was religious but did it simply out of the fact that he himself was cut, does it matter?  Would the Mother reasonably object to either?

Do you honestly, in your heart of hearts, beleive that some boys will grow up and lament, "IF ONLY I HAD SOME FORESKIN!!!!" 

IF YOU DO, then I must admit I gotta be missing something here.
IF YOU DO NOT, then I guess your anger arises from issues outside of the U.S., while valid, are vastly different. 

Or maybe I'm just being an idiot...but I'd at least like to think not so.

And male sexism....I see some of the same shit here that women go through everywhere, as far as having to look a certain way and act a certain way.  I like big jeans and hoodies and t-shirts, so I'm immediately some dirtbag since my jeans aren't stuck to me and my hair isn't 8 feet tall or whatever.  Just a part of the town and the nature of the Entertainment Beast that looms over it.
Also, the sterotype that all men are cheating bastards who will fuck anything with long hair and two legs.  Gets on my nerves!!!!
As far as child custody goes, and I hate to say this, I think every case is different. 
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: x_XTacTX_x on July 08, 2009, 09:24:00 pm
Fuck it. You people are fucking stupid. This is the classic resolution of things like this on the forums, where the humanists and idealists retreat as a flood of centrists come in to try and make everything better as the religious archvillains wait in the wings. Ever since this forum was founded, the balance of posters has shifted from rational secularists like Lord J and GrayLensman to moderates and idiots.

What's the real harm in cutting off part of a baby's penis because their family believes in fairytale nonsense? Yeah, what's the harm? The sheer brutality of that statement should be self-evident, and yet something like this gets respect because religion demands it.

Jesus fucking Christ. To any atheists or agnostics who agreed with what I've said but have chosen to stay silent, come out. Part of the reason change has been so slow is because humanists and atheists are afraid to out themselves for fear of losing religious family and friends or social prestige. Well, enough of that. We are the largest underrepresented and most hated minority in America. But there are more of us than you think. Come out.

Hey man, cool it. If you're going to resort to nothing but ad hominems then I don't see the point in talking to you, and I'm honestly kind of offended by what you're saying. From what I've seen, all you're doing is trying to make more chaos and conflict out of the situation between theists and atheists. You fail to help try and find a common ground between the two, and all you're succeeding in doing is causing the rest of us more bashing, regardless of what you think.

People are always going to believe different things when it comes to the cosmos, the afterlife, what have you, and really if it helps them have a happier life, save for biggotry and harm towards others (not unlike what you're showing here) there's nothing wrong with that. And really, you're kind of romanticizing the value of a foreskin, which in reality places right above only the appendix at best, serving for nothing of value in the modern world other than sexual pleasure, which really wouldn't change much for either party, because they're not experiencing the other side.

I can't believe I'm about to say this, because you've always been someone I've found myself to admire, but grow up, dude. You can better yourself by whatever means but what you're writing is nothing but prejudice. If you think atheists are being oppressed, you need to change your perspective for a little while, my friend.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on July 08, 2009, 09:39:17 pm
I'm reminded of the story of an Aztec priest who stood naked before the sun and slit open his manhood down the center and let the blood run freely to satisfy one of the Aztec gods (true story according to a college history book, I forget the name and edition now, because that one is cite-worthy). Uh, just wanted to toss that out there, make of it what you will.

Belief certainly has the ability to persuade people to inflict pain on themselves and others; this is not in the realm of fervent argument, like "Belief in a God inevitably stunts your intellectual development"; this is in the realm of you're cut and bleeding, dude(ette).

In light of the shock a male baby might experience during the procedure (anyone know what kind of anesthesia is typically used? What about circumcisions carried out in the third world?), and given the advances in hygiene since the inception of circumsicion, it would appear from cost-benefit analysis that the practice should be stopped. If men wish to be circumsized, it could become a matter of voluntary cosmetic surgery. I commend ZeaLitY for bringing attention to it, though I still feel that clitorectomy should be higher on our list of practices to eliminate. Not because one gender should be favored, but because clitorectomy inflicts a far more severe level of debilitation.

Quote from: Zephira
And while we're in the sexism topic, I think we need to flip things around a little. So far it's only been sexism against women. But what about men? They lose most divorce or child custody cases and always end up as the ones paying child support, when they should have just as much right to their children as the wife. I'm not too versed in male sexism, but I know it's out there, I've heard people complain about it, and I know it's worth discussing. Let's see some equality here, people!
We've touched on this briefly, but discussion could certainly be expanded. From a male point of view, I've felt pressure to keep my emotions cooped up till the point I go insane and start hurting things. This is fundamentally unhealthy. I'm much enthused by the anecdotes offered by Kebrel and V_Translanka with regard to this, and I think it shows we're making real progress as a civilization.

What other examples of socially or psychologically harmful anti-man attitudes can we find?


EDIT: With the specific example of circumsicion, I'm curious: does the pro-choice stance open the possibility that women should be able to choose to have their sons circumcised whilst in the womb? And clitorectomies performed on their daughters whilst in the womb? It would seem that if a pregnant woman has the right to choose to have the entire fetus destroyed at any point during its development, even barring a medical need, that she should also have the right to ask for an in-womb circumcision. Unless I'm missing something, the anti-circumcision position implies that children become full human beings with rights separate from the mother after separation from the mother, and that the fetus' lack of human rights flows from the fact that the fetus is physically integrated with the mother.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 08, 2009, 09:42:27 pm
Considering that only about 4% of the US population labels themselves as "atheist," against 83% that considers themselves Christian, 4% that consider themselves some other religion, and 8% who merely consider themselves non-religious, they are severely overrepresented. These numbers don't equal 100% because I truncated and rounded up as necessary.

Latinos and non-white Hispanics have become the minority majority and have zero senators and 1 representative. I can't say for sure about atheists in Congress, but there are a few that I suspect are "closet atheists," as well as a few who are openly atheist. Ernie Chambers, the senator who sued God, is an agnostic.

In any event, I was a moderate before, and I'm even more of one now. If there was one thing I learned from this is that women are indeed discriminated against. I won't say the word oppressed, because that's far too strong of a word to use, but Zeality, Lord J, etc. opened my eyes to certain things I had not thought of.

And you're getting upset over circumcision, a very common and well accepted medical procedure, even supported by the AMA.

In the end, you can't have what you want. The Christian majority in this country is far too large, you'll never get rid of all things with any sort of connection to religion.

You are way too much of a fire breather. Rational secularists at least acknowledge our right to exist and believe how we want. They understand that religion isn't evil, but the people who misuse it are.

At the same time, I realize that secularism isn't evil, just another world view. The general believers aren't evil, but the ones that abuse the beliefs to their anti-religious ends can be just as evil and misguided as the man who killed George Tiller.

I've said this before about government, but the same goes for society: You cannot have it all one way or the other. You need a mix and for that to happen, we need to respect each others differences, even if we don't particularly like them. Tolerance and cooperation is the true path to human progress, not a complete cut from our foundations, nor a complete cut from new ideas and progressive attitudes.

Extremists at all sides prevent us from solving problems and coming to solutions that will aid people who desperately need it. Both types of zealots are dumb and a butt. Stop being so dogdamned stubborn.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Shee on July 08, 2009, 09:50:02 pm
What, exactly, is debilitating about male circumcision.  I stand by the argument that if it is not remembered in the slightest there is no harm.  Is it any different from the tree that falls in the woods but no one hears it?  Is there a sound?

As far as male sexism goes, all the previous stuff stands as well for me.  I can "get real" with my male friends but I can admit I usualy open with some sort of "Dude, not trying to sound weak, but...." or something like that.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on July 08, 2009, 09:55:02 pm
I also wouldn't know what may or may not be debilitating about it; we'd have to ask a man who was old enough to remember being circumcized and experienced sexual pleasure both before and after. I think the major issue with male circumcision is the pain the child experiences during the procedure. Normally I wouldn't worry too much about this in developed-world clinics (c'mon, they use anesthesia, right...? Right...?), but the fact that it may be conducted without anesthesia in developing countries gives me significant pause. I've heard that female circumcisions are conducted without anesthesia in developing countries at least.

If we're worried about pain inflicted on a child in the hours after his or her birth, I wonder whether we should also be worried about the pain a fetus may undergo during late-term abortions that occur from time to time. Once again I'd like to see the need for abortion completely vanquished if at all possible precisely because I worry about this sort of thing on humanist grounds, but I wonder how other pro-choicers feel about the issue of fetal pain during abortions that occur ~22 weeks into gestation (I think that's the scientific community's loose consensus on when the proper pain receptors are in place, I could be wrong), and how it morally differs from pain inflicted on the child in the case of post-birth circumcision.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Shee on July 08, 2009, 10:01:13 pm
I also wouldn't know what may or may not be debilitating about it; we'd have to ask a man who was old enough to remember being circumcized and experienced sexual pleasure both before and after.

Ummm..I guess never say never but does this guy even exist?

As for the rest...okay.  I wanted some answers and got'em.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on July 08, 2009, 10:01:33 pm
Also, Thought. Comparing circumcision to polydactylism doesn't make any sense to me. It is a birth defect that needs surgery so that the person can have semi-functional hands, having a penis isn't a birth defect 0_o.

The point was largely academic. As noted, in most cases, the individual is fully functional (polydactylism includes toes too) if left untreated. Z isn't objecting to circumcision based on the fact that it mutilates or is traumatic, nor is he approving of it because it eases social interactions (as circumcision has a similar, though more limited, effect). The primary criteria that Z is judging circumcision is religion. As it is religious, it's guilty. This isn't to say that the trauma and mutilation isn't a concern of Z's, but even if those elements were removed, his primary objection would still remain. Indeed, even if science did discover some practical benefits to it, I suspect Z would still demand that the religious rites surrounding it be eliminated. So there is really no way, based on Z’s criteria, for circumcision to be given a favorable verdict.

As I said, this was largely academic. I don't think it reveals anything that would surprise anyone. And while I may be overly hasty in this estimation, I don't think Z would object too strongly to my assessment.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on July 08, 2009, 10:03:25 pm
Very good question Shee. I dunno. There's gotta be societies out there where men are circumcized relatively late in life, and also men who've had circumcision as voluntary cosmetic surgery. People have had themselves changed to resemble tigers (I saw it on the discovery channel once I think...maybe a documentary on furries?), so this shouldn't be too outlandish.

Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on July 08, 2009, 10:06:01 pm
Fuck it. You people are fucking stupid. This is the classic resolution of things like this on the forums, where the humanists and idealists retreat as a flood of centrists come in to try and make everything better as the religious archvillains wait in the wings. Ever since this forum was founded, the balance of posters has shifted from rational secularists like Lord J and GrayLensman to moderates and idiots.

And so you think that attacking people based on their beliefs is the way to do it? While you live in America, you are completely surrounded by the religious majority. And it STILL is the super majority. It may not be that way on the forums, but we're not arguing about how the forums represent real life this time around. The only way to make people change is to negotiate and to cooperate- something that the religious majority at least in the States does try to do. They are becoming more and more progressive as they speak. You want to convert the religious into Atheists? Or was it completely dismantle religion as a whole? Well good luck with the latter... as for the former, it can be done with a lot of education and immersion. Still, losing one's religion isn't always so easy. Didn't you go through that? I'm not sure how it was like for you, but completely denouncing your very foundation of your beliefs can't be easy. You typically don't just wake up one day and say "Hey, I don't believe in God anymore!" You went through a process, and the process starts with understanding how the world works and educating yourself.

Sorry that I'm a moderate and not some kind of Anti-Christ, but very few people go to lengths that you go to defend your beliefs. Partially it's because I don't find the religious majority so harmful because like I said, there would be still be evil and corruption in this world regardless if religion existed or not. Since it does exist, might as well use it to make the world a better place. And if it can't, then just lose your religion and practice what you do believe in- EDUCATING(not indoctrinating) others about your beliefs.

Quote
What's the real harm in cutting off part of a baby's penis because their family believes in fairytale nonsense? Yeah, what's the harm? The sheer brutality of that statement should be self-evident, and yet something like this gets respect because religion demands it.

Excuse me, but I think it is COMPLETE and utter bullshit that the baby is "traumatized" from the shock of getting a tiny piece of skin removed. Give me a fucking break. The baby is a new born and it doesn't remember and it will face many, many more painful things further on in its life that it also won't remember! As for the long-term terrible things about removing a sensual part of the male organ, I have not read any study where it has been conclusive that uncircumcised men perform better, or feel anything differently than circumcised men. It may be a useless procedure but that's all it is to me- a useless procedure that has no health benefits and no adverse effects either except for cosmetic differences. Some people prefer the look of a circumcised penis, I do, but does that mean I think babies should have it done? I used to think so, now I'm hesitant to make a strong stance on it.


Quote
Jesus fucking Christ. To any atheists or agnostics who agreed with what I've said but have chosen to stay silent, come out. Part of the reason change has been so slow is because humanists and atheists are afraid to out themselves for fear of losing religious family and friends or social prestige. Well, enough of that. We are the largest underrepresented and most hated minority in America. But there are more of us than you think. Come out.

I am more of an atheist than an agnostic, but I will respect everyone's points of views... to a certain extent. I think that your attitude is more harmful to the reputation of atheists and agnostics than staying silent.

EDIT:

Quote
Ummm..I guess never say never but does this guy even exist?

Yes, of course they exist. A guy I knew at a forum that I used to go to had circumcision when he was 18. I am not sure of the reason but I'd really like to ask him if it feels any differently. Also, in some Asian countries where water quality is poor, there is this strange plastic device that a guy can wear and it will remove the foreskin... they believe that circumcision will help cut down on infections. I'm not sure if it's true or not, but there are plenty of people who get circumsision later on in life, it's just hard to find them  in 1st world countries because of good water conditions and the like... Some men also do it for cosmetic reasons(though that is also rare)
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 08, 2009, 10:10:05 pm
I've seen male sexism before. Despite the fact that my father has supported both me, my brother(who suffers from an immune deficiency and needs monthly infusions), and his new ex-wife's kids, he doesn't get any assistance from the government, who is constantly requesting more aid for single mothers when trying to reform welfare.

If his divorce gets nasty, the stepmom will get the upperhand. In SC, the wife in divorce cases, especially if she gets the kids(me and my brother have or are about to move out) gets child support, and probably some form of alimony. Even nonmarried women can separate from their partner and demand "palimony."

To sort of tread back on the abortion topic, according to the law, the husband/boyfriend isn't allowed any input on the abortion process. If he opposes the abortion, well, tough crap for him. It's his kid too, with 50% of his genetic material, shouldn't he have a say in the matter?

I suppose it is the woman who carries it for nine months though, and should ultimately make the decision. But still, ideally we should aim to have both partners opt for the abortion.

There are double standards all over the place for men, but I guess I shouldn't consider it sexism, since the government's not trying to systematically take men's rights away. Of course, that's the same for women too.

On a lighter note, for every network like G4 or SpikeTV, that cater to men with such base things as video games, wrestling cars and scantily clad women, there's another Lifetime, Oxygen, WE, Lifetime Movie Channel, etc. where if any attractive man shows up in any movie, he's either abusive or a douche. I honestly don't see how it empowers women as much as it reinforces the negative patriarchal stereotype of men in general. Very rarely do the women survive their ordeals.

I'm certainly don't feel oppressed by this. I figure that women sometimes hate men and want an outlet for it, and men like cars and boobs and want something to satisfy that desire. Its human nature, not inherently sexist, and its certainly not hurting anyone of the opposite sex by it existing.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Romana on July 08, 2009, 10:21:55 pm
Jesus fucking Christ. To any atheists or agnostics who agreed with what I've said but have chosen to stay silent, come out.

Here.

Latinos and non-white Hispanics have become the minority majority and have zero senators and 1 representative. I can't say for sure about atheists in Congress, but there are a few that I suspect are "closet atheists," as well as a few who are openly atheist.

"Closet atheists" kind of worries me. Are there people out there that afraid to admit that they're atheist? I guess I can see why if the church is as aggressive and hateful as it seems.

And you're getting upset over circumcision, a very common and well accepted medical procedure, even supported by the AMA.

Accepted medical procedure or not, I think it's justified to be upset over it, considering that is in fact a violation of one's right to their own body. Baby or not, a human has their rights. Let's think of it this way -- being upset over the fact and basis for it rather than it actually being done to oneself. It has root in nothing other than religion; consider that along with this, a child, having its beliefs and religious standing decided by others, has no choice in a decision derived simply from a text that they may not even believe in upon growing up. It feels like an invasion of pride.

In the end, you can't have what you want. The Christian majority in this country is far too large, you'll never get rid of all things with any sort of connection to religion.

Just because something looks hopeless doesn't mean you can't try. I'd die with a smile knowing I tried rather than regret what I didn't fight for. If there's only one life, I'd rather not back down in any situation.

I've said this before about government, but the same goes for society: You cannot have it all one way or the other. You need a mix and for that to happen, we need to respect each others differences, even if we don't particularly like them. Tolerance and cooperation is the true path to human progress, not a complete cut from our foundations, nor a complete cut from new ideas and progressive attitudes.

I really can't see a "mix" happening with the religious condemning all those with even slightly-differing views to hell so they can burn for eternity.

"God forgives everyone" but he'll send people to hell still. "Everyone is equal in God's eyes" yet he seems to promote discrimination left and right in the Bible. "God loves everyone" yet he doesn't take a second of his time to stop thousands dying in disasters, or give food to the starving. And if said events are really "all just part of God's plan" or whatever, that's really fucking sickening. I could never follow someone like that.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 08, 2009, 10:37:55 pm
The condemnation of the atheists by the religious is no worse than the condemnation of the religious by the atheists.

The fact that your group is a minority does not grant you the special privilege of immunity from being criticized. In fact, the fact that your beliefs are so far on the fringe entails more criticism. You are, after all, attempting to over throw thousands of years of tradition and social order.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on July 08, 2009, 10:46:48 pm
Quote
Do you honestly, in your heart of hearts, beleive that some boys will grow up and lament, "IF ONLY I HAD SOME FORESKIN!!!!"  

There are several groups committed to stopping circumcision, and there's a popular surgery for restoring foreskin. I'm not the first one to care about it. What dawned upon me a minute ago is how hypocritical this is for religious people who are against abortion. It's bad to kill a "baby" who hasn't achieved life yet and won't feel anything, but it's A-OK to torture a living one?

You fail to help try and find a common ground between the two, and all you're succeeding in doing is causing the rest of us more bashing, regardless of what you think.

There is no common ground between the two. Many religious people believe the earth is doomed, women are inferior, etc. and this is strictly incompatible with humanism and reason. It's the same for religions coexisting with one another.

Quote
People are always going to believe different things when it comes to the cosmos, the afterlife, what have you, and really if it helps them have a happier life, save for bigotry and harm towards others (not unlike what you're showing here) there's nothing wrong with that.

Look up opportunity cost. How much better would this world be instead of idly waiting for the next, people realized that this is all we have, and poured their passion into making this a better place? And I'm sorry, but you might as well be advocating something like the Matrix, where humans are connected to some pleasant virtual reality instead of facing the truth. I want the truth, every time. That's real living and real intelligence; that's science.

Quote
I can't believe I'm about to say this, because you've always been someone I've found myself to admire, but grow up, dude. You can better yourself by whatever means but what you're writing is nothing but prejudice. If you think atheists are being oppressed, you need to change your perspective for a little while, my friend.

I'm not the one saying "it's okay to cut off part of a baby's flesh to appease an invisible sky-God." That speaks volumes about who needs to grow up.

Quote from: Thought
Indeed, even if science did discover some practical benefits to it, I suspect Z would still demand that the religious rites surrounding it be eliminated. So there is really no way, based on Z’s criteria, for circumcision to be given a favorable verdict.

You'll notice that I qualified my criticisms with "IIRC the reduction of AIDs incidence in Africa from circumcision has been proven false" beforehand.

Quote from: Zaichik
Excuse me, but I think it is COMPLETE and utter bullshit that the baby is "traumatized" from the shock of getting a tiny piece of skin removed.

Make an incision on your clitoris, right now. As a male, I can't even imagine the pain of someone cutting my penis, but perhaps you can empathize. And female circumcision is also a religious practice in some parts of the world. It is not "skin", but part of a sex organ with very dense nerve fiber.

Quote
I think that your attitude is more harmful to the reputation of atheists and agnostics than staying silent.

To this, and your other criticisms: http://www.chronocompendium.com/Forums/index.php/topic,7106.0.html

I used to think the same. I worried on a personal level, too, that criticizing religion openly would make me seem shrill and hateful. Well, that kind of cowardice is useless.

Quote from: Truthordeal
In the end, you can't have what you want. The Christian majority in this country is far too large, you'll never get rid of all things with any sort of connection to religion.

You're on the wrong side of history. The same words have been said about other majorities and religious powers that have since disappeared into history. George W. Bush was the last serious hurrah the religious right had in politics. You admitted yourself that secularism is on the rise.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 08, 2009, 10:50:39 pm
Secularism's on the rise for the next eight years. Overall, a trend seems to be heading that way, yes, but to say that George Bush was the last big hurrah is a bit presumptuous.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on July 09, 2009, 12:37:19 am
Circumcision as a flashpoint for the sexism topic. Interesting. Male circumcision is one of those subjects I could almost not care less about. For what it's worth, I was circumcised shortly after birth. I remember nothing of the experience. I do not feel that I am missing out on anything by not having the extra bits. I am in favor of the procedure due to its hygienic qualities, which is to say that I support it being covered by health insurance. I don't necessarily think that it should be a mandatory procedure, though.

The "anti-circ" (pertaining to male circumcision only) really creep me out. They're mostly made up of the same luddites and conspiracy theorists who tell us that our milk is mostly pus and that vaccination makes children sick. It's easier to be in favor of circumcision with people like that advocating for the other side.

Lastly, perhaps this is a bit hypocritical coming from me, but, ZeaLitY, I think you're crossing the line from valid aggressiveness to plain old rabies. It's okay to loathe loathsome people and loathsome ideas--I certainly do--but it seems to me that your (justifiable) wrath is degenerating into (embarrassing) rage.

Then again, only you know what you are truly after. In the past I have deliberately pressed a point far enough that it cost me the support of the audience. There are times when preserving decorum or even reputation is less important than pressing a point or pursuing a cause. My advice is that you make sure that that's really what's going on in your head, and that you're not simply getting carried away by your own emotions.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on July 09, 2009, 01:31:19 am
It's just depressing seeing abject ignorance. Hating it feels productive as opposed to letting the idiocy stand (if only because the opposite side's already won valid arguments and retired).
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Samopoznanie on July 09, 2009, 01:53:14 am
The foreskin is nerve-dense tissue that conducts pleasure like the rest of the organ... **snip** <-- no pun intended
That's my basic reason for being against it. I think of it as taking out your retainer -- you get that extra bit of sensation to the touch of things.

I also think it should be a personal choice, as opposed to the parents'. If you want the cosmetic or sanitary benefits, or convert to a religion that demands it, by all means, reach for the nearest pair of scissors and have at it. I don't like the idea of parents deciding such things before their kids are old enough to think for themselves. I feel the same way as far as religion goes.

The sanitary argument, I've never gotten. For crying out loud, if you can't be bothered washing, you deserve to go under the knife.
The whole debate over whether it's healthy or unhealthy has been going back and forth for decades now, and likely won't end anytime soon. Last I read, the medical community was discouraging it, but at the same time, it's been found that snipped guys in Africa have a lower rate of HIV/AIDS, so who knows what will come of that.


Whatever. My elephant still has its trunk. I could care less how others' look.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on July 09, 2009, 02:11:02 am
Oh, I forgot to add: About the trauma of being circumcised shortly after birth: Birth itself is a far greater trauma. I wouldn't worry too much about this angle.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Samopoznanie on July 09, 2009, 02:27:04 am
Oh, I forgot to add: About the trauma of being circumcised shortly after birth: Birth itself is a far greater trauma. I wouldn't worry too much about this angle.
That's a moot point as far as I'm concerned. Women know what they're in for and choose to give birth. If they want a kid without the pain, they can go and adopt one. A mother's decision to give birth doesn't give her the right to tailor the kid's genitalia to her own liking,  IMO.

It's just the issue of choice that does it for me. Women have the right to choose, so should their sons in this case.

Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Zephira on July 09, 2009, 02:33:06 am
Why would she want to tailor her kid's genitalia to her own liking anyway? It's not like she's the one who's going to be liking it. And even though most circumcised men do say they don't regret it, I still think it's a choice to be left up to the child. What if he decides he doesn't want to be a part of that religion anymore?

And I've never heard of this clitoral circumcision. The sound of that really scares me. Do they just cut the whole clitoris off?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 09, 2009, 02:41:28 am
Zephira, yes, they do. In a lot of the cases, they do cut the entire thing off. Most modern practitioners though, will only cut off the hood. But unlike the penal circumcision, it leaves the woman practically devoid of all sexual feeling.

As for penal circumcision...just let them do it. Y'all are acting like its some form of primitive barbarism, when its a perfectly reasonable medical procedure.

Who honestly cares? Will it wreck anyone's life for being circumcised, or left without? Will it show up on a job application? Will you be blacklisted or forbidden to play sports in school because of it?

Circumcision is  not going to affect anyone's life any great deal.

Speaking of which, since when is it wrong for parents to make decisions on behalf of their children? We could discuss this issue further with religion, specific types of education, nutrition or ethics to great depths, but circumcisions? Come on!

If it weren't for the religious aspect of it, many of you wouldn't even care.

Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Zephira on July 09, 2009, 02:51:15 am
For the moment, let's leave the religion aspect out of it. What I'm worried about is the parents choosing to give the baby a mostly cosmetic operation that will last his whole life, before he's old enough to make that decision himself. Along those same lines, what about tattoos? If I carry a baby in me for nine months, wouldn't it be within my right to have him tattooed as soon as he comes out? Ooh, or maybe put him through that plastic surgery that gives him elf ears. And while we're customizing my baby, let's give him fangs and split his tongue, too. It's only cosmetic, right? He's too young to make that decision so it's up to me, right? Hey, he's getting his penis cut, might as well go the extra mile.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Samopoznanie on July 09, 2009, 02:51:28 am
And I've never heard of this clitoral circumcision. The sound of that really scares me. Do they just cut the whole clitoris off?
To my understanding it's practiced largely in paternal societies in Africa (Sudan is the example I've usually heard) and some parts of the Middle East. It's a much more crude and dangerous procedure sometimes called FGM or Female Genital Mutilation. There are a number of variations on it; sometimes they cut the whole clitoris off, sometimes just the hood, other times they'll go for some of the labia too, maybe poke around inside the vagina while they're at it. Another big difference is that it's usually performed during childhood, i.e. 5-10 years old -- that's a trauma that will stick with you, I'd bet. I've never read the cultural justification for FGM and certainly nothing about alleged health benefits, similar to male circumcision. It's a different ballgame by all accounts. The UN and WHO have even taken action to try and ban it / raise awareness.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on July 09, 2009, 03:05:00 am
The only legitimate rationale for circumcision of newborn males is medical, not religious or aesthetic. Thus, comparisons like tattoos are not relevant. Vaccination is a better comparison.

Here, in about three seconds I googled some statistics from a reputable source (the NIH) as to some of the benefits of the procedure:

http://www.nih.gov/news/health/mar2009/niaid-25.htm

Addendum: Technically, we could leave circumcision to await one's teenage years, when the individual in question is presumably capable of making an informed choice, but before he becomes sexually active. In practice, however, the immaturity and ignorance surrounding human genitalia, especially at that age, combined with the many social stereotypes about (male) circumcision, would discourage many people from making an unbiased decision. That's why I support making the procedure available to mothers of newborns, but not enforcing it like a vaccination regimen. This is one of those areas where I feel comfortable with the parent(s) making a decision affecting their child: from a public health standpoint, it's the smart thing to do, and it carries almost no credible risks whatsoever (provided that the procedure is administered professionally). But if the parents are against it, then the kid himself will still have the option of seeking it out later. He'll just be that much less likely to do so because of the cultural crap.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 09, 2009, 03:10:30 am
In tandem with Lord J., Zephira, tattoos and elfin ears will get you blacklisted and probably will come up during a job interview.

The only situation where I think it would be detrimental to have a circumcision is if your a porn star and no one wants to hire you because of that. That's a far stretch though.

Lord J explained it far better than I did though.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: IAmSerge on July 09, 2009, 04:45:31 am
Ernie Chambers, the senator who sued God, is an agnostic.

Just wondering... how the hell do you even do that?

And on topic: I was circumcised.  I haven't heard of any circumcised man having any problems with sexual pleasures.  Most of the males in the US are circumcised (I think, don't quote me.  In fact, disprove me!  =D )
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 09, 2009, 09:02:50 am
Our justice system may be the pride of the world, Serge, but there's still a lot of leeway for morons to make it through.

Anyway, about the circumcision numbers:

"Nobody really knows but organisations(sic) campaigning against it estimate that worldwide about one in four males are circumcised. National rates vary widely from about 80% of males in the USA to 2% in Sweden, where non-medical circumcision is now illegal in children. In the UK, the number of circumcisions for medical reasons has fallen from 35% of English boys in the 1930s to 6.5% in the 1980s and today some 12,200 such circumcisions are performed annually. Some doctors consider that this is still far too many."

http://www.malehealth.co.uk/userpage1.cfm?item_id=1352

That's all the info you'll need on the matter. Or, more specifically, all you'll ever want.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Boo the Gentleman Caller on July 09, 2009, 09:37:54 am
If it's a child's decision to get his pee-pee cut, then it can also be argued we as parents should give the child the decision making control for everything in his / her life. 

Let's let them chose what they want to eat for dinner; let's let the kiddies choose what time we go to bed; let's let them entirely choose who and what they do in their free time, whether it be drugs, sex, booze, video games, painting, karate, farming, shitting; let's let them choose to get vaccinated or not; let's let them choose to take their own life if they see it a proper decision.

Point being, children often don't know how to make proper decisions; they aren't mentally capable of grasping the importance of many concepts.  As such, giving a child the right to choose whether or not to be castrated is like giving an elephant caviar: entirely pointless.  Of course, you could always argue that they could "wait until they're, like 18, to have it done".  Well, then that's another story.

Now I have to go to work.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on July 09, 2009, 01:40:52 pm
Boo, did you mean "circumcision" when you said "castration," or were you making a point by increasing the severity of the procedure?

We could bring up issues of sexism in the old imperial Chinese system, where you had to be castrated to get a state job at the imperial palace (obviously excluding women too, if "castration" was an absolute requirement in the job description). And not just removal of the testes -- everything in some cases. Like, everything. Solanas would have been proud. I think it was an attempt to keep the empress pure or something, but I seem to recall at least one case in which an empress kept a fully castrated man as her lover on the side. Hahaa, this is why college history classes are so fun. You just don't get this stuff in high school.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 09, 2009, 01:53:38 pm
FW, I believe that practice is where the English gets their word for eunuch.

Boo, just as Zephira took it too far in one direction, you're taking it a bit too far in the other. I agree with you, but you're setting yourself up.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on July 09, 2009, 02:31:18 pm
Quote from: Thought
Indeed, even if science did discover some practical benefits to it, I suspect Z would still demand that the religious rites surrounding it be eliminated. So there is really no way, based on Z’s criteria, for circumcision to be given a favorable verdict.

You'll notice that I qualified my criticisms with "IIRC the reduction of AIDs incidence in Africa from circumcision has been proven false" beforehand.

Yup.

The hilarity is that you are using a god-of-the-gaps-like argument against a religious practice.

To inform our readers (since you're familiar of Dawkins I am quite sure you're familiar with this phrase as well, so feel free to skip to the next paragraph), the God of the Gaps argument essentially claims that when there are elements that science can not presently explain, those most be instances in which God is directly interfering with the universe. I believe it was Newton who, having established a model for gravity, actually hypothesized that God must have set everything in motion because his model of gravity did not provide a reason for why the planets move in a uniform direction and why they do so on a single plane. God was the explanation for the gap in his scientific knowledge. That gap has subsequently been closed as science has determined how the solar system (and the galaxy) formed. In short, it is claiming that because we don't know everything, God exists in what we don't know.

So, Z seems to be make a similar argument, but with important differences. Instead of God existing where Science does not yet have answers, he is inadvertently implying that justification for religious practices might exist where Science hasn't yet closed the gap. We don’t know, so hope can be kept alive. To attempt to be totally ridiculous, if science discovers that circumcision raises a child's IQ by 30 pts, cures cancer, and ends world hunger, then the practice of circumcision will have found a degree of justification.

The problem is that though there might be a degree of justification for the practice, under Z's criteria, there can be no excuse for the religious element of that practice. That is, if science discovers that circumcision does those outlandish things listed above, then science gets the honors and religion is just considered lucky for having blindly stumbled upon something advantageous. Consider the Jewish dietary laws regarding the consumption of pork; eating improperly prepared pork can cause more health problems than many other meats. Is kosher law praised because of this? Not really, the standard non-religious approach is that they reached this practice through observation (observation being the foundation of science). Doesn’t excuse the unwillingness to eat a cheeseburger (and Jews are totally restricting the experiences of a child and the possible culinary pleasures that come from combining meat and cheese… or something like that).

The religious rites surrounding circumcision would still be, to my understand of Z's stance, despicable and worthy of eradication. Better to have it done in a sterile hospital with a machine that goes PING! than by some religious figure with no "real" medical training, right Z?

So Z's justification-in-the-gaps implications for circumcision is really just a false hope for religion. It doesn't matter if it mutilates a child, it doesn't matter if it is traumatic, it doesn't matter if it initiates an individual into a society, it doesn't matter if there is even scientific evidence to suggest that it is beneficial. All that matters is that it is religious. Because it is, it is damnable.

... holy crap, Z's an LOLCat!
Passionate Zeality is Passionate.
Religious Circumcision is Religious.
Do not want (religion)!

It all makes horrible sense now.

Anywho, this means that for the religious aspect of the practice of circumcision to be justified, it must be done so on religious grounds. Since Z's labeled those grounds as unjustifiable, it can't be done.

As a totally unrelated side note, ritual scarification might be more analogous to circumcision than tattoos, and if there are no medical reasons for circumcision, it might also be more analogous than vaccinations as well. Just throwing that out there.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on July 09, 2009, 02:59:20 pm
You try to paint a caricature; I haven't denied that religion does some good things. My point is that it does more ill than good, and has so historically. And of course, science should take the credit! The same observation that led the Jews to denigrate pork for being unclean led them to write all that material in Leviticus about women being unclean after childbirth and needy of purification, or the banishment of men from the camp for a couple days for nocturnal omissions. The root of these example practices was superstitious fear, with disease and pain seen as punishment for offending God; it was nothing so idealistic and noble as wanting to understand the universe and improve humanity. No, humanity was always to blame, best represented by the flagellants who thought that beating themselves was the best way to stave off the bubonic plague.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Samopoznanie on July 09, 2009, 03:01:37 pm
To inform our readers (since you're familiar of Dawkins...
A guy like Dawkins, I just find irritating, borderline embarrassing. The man gives atheists a bad name.  :picardno

That he'd be as spiteful and condescending as to write a whole friggin' book called 'The God Delusion'... I just don't see the point. That sort of contempt for others' beliefs is largely what turned me off of religion in the first place. Is the man really so insecure that he needs to write a whole book on the damn thing? What, and use science to try and disprove a concept that's closer to a philosophy or a culture? What's the point? If it was just a reaction to the last 8 years of having too much religious influence in the White House, maybe I could understand it. But the man just seems like a dick, an atheist's Jimmy Swaggart or Pat Robertson.

It's a pity that a guy like Dawkins is hailed as the poster boy for atheism these days. Whatever happened to the days when we produced folks like Bertrand Russell? His essay, Why I Am Not A Christian, is a more persuasive and articulate commentary than Dawkins will write in his lifetime. The man was infinitely quotable to boot.

"If there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence."

^^^ That's always been a favourite of mine. Sad to see athiests taking on just such 'uneasy vanity' these days. Maybe the collapse of the USSR has thrown us into a state of insecurity.  :?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on July 09, 2009, 03:07:46 pm
Quote from: Lord J
About the trauma of being circumcised shortly after birth: Birth itself is a far greater trauma.
Touche, I hadn't thought of that; all too seldom do we (or at least I) consider the flipside of the mother's pain, which is the child's pain. The moral rubric upon which I was basing my agreement with ZeaLitY on the issue of male circumcision was this: human beings should avoid inflicting pain if it can be avoided, and whether an individual remembers physical pain is of little consequence in that rule. You've forced me into a corner logically, and now I must advocate the creation of children solely through means of laboratory pods. Problem is, while this should become technologically feasible within a few decades, it willl likely only be available to the wealthy, taking centuries to propagate worldwide (or galaxywide, depending on what stage we're in in the great escape from our temporary home planet). Large parts of Africa still lack drinking water and basic plumbing, for chrissakes.

I should also advocate the synthetic creation of meats. Should be possible with animal stem cell research, should it not? Imagine, carnivores and vegetarians finally in harmony, while un-embodied animal muscle tissue flexes in response to electrodes in lab-farms until they reach perfect muscle tone. From my understanding, cattle are typically slaughtered in the developed world nowadays by having some kind of iron bar shot through their skulls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captive_bolt_pistol). While the idea is probably an improvement over simply shooting them or the old "slit their tracheas and let them run around until they bleed to death," I imagine it's far more imperfect than what the manufacturer advertises. It's probably about as humane as forcing the animal into a plane crash.

Come to think of it, a diet consisting entirely of cheese pizza, rice, and veggies doesn't sound all that bad in the meantime.


Truth, looks like the Assyrian Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunuch) may have had China beat by a few centuries with regard to eunuchs. I totally forgot it was the Ming Dynasty though.


Hey, get this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijra_(South_Asia)) I'm sort of having trouble wrapping my mind around the whole concept of a third sex; probably my Western cultural training. Move over, girls and boys, and make way for...these people!
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 09, 2009, 03:13:27 pm
"If there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence."

^^^ That's always been a favourite of mine. Sad to see athiests taking on just such 'uneasy vanity' these days. Maybe the collapse of the USSR has thrown us into a state of insecurity.  :?

That's my entire point behind religious reconciliation. Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Zoroastrians and even atheists all share a belief in a basic moral and ethical code.

So why should it matter if we call our deity God, Yahweh, Allah, Buddha, Shiva or Barack Obama(I know I'll piss some people off for that one)? They all want us to do pretty much the same thing; do good works and live morally.

If Jews think that the "true" path to Heaven is not eating pork and celebrating the Sabbath on Saturday, then why condemn them to hell for that?

There's no logic  behind the rationale that our small nuances are damnable.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on July 09, 2009, 04:29:05 pm
You try to paint a caricature;

Try? Not at all, and I am sorry if anything I said did not reflect reality.

Rather I was attempting to point out a degree of futility in the present discussion. It seems that to you, where religion does good, it does so in spite of being religion. Therefore, if circumcision is good, it is good in spite of the religious rites surrounding it. Perhaps I am wrong, but it seems that there is no logical way for an individual to convince you that the religious nature of circumcision is good.

Thus the entire discussion on if there is a medical benefit to circumcision is a red herring, at least insofar as to your original statement: http://www.chronocompendium.com/Forums/index.php/topic,7769.msg171032.html#msg171032

To inform our readers (since you're familiar of Dawkins...
A guy like Dawkins, I just find irritating, borderline embarrassing. The man gives atheists a bad name.

He's an ass, but a lot of scientists are asses (James Watson being my perennial favorite example). Supposedly, his treatment of religion is not significant different than his treatment of his scientific competitors.

Dawkins' science is good, though in my estimate the conclusions he draws from it are at times zealous and often untenable, and his rhetorical style is reminiscent of Erich von Daniken. I'd still recommend reading his work, though; he does have some very good and very valid points. But I'd also recommend reading Francis Collins' The Language of God; the book has a fundamentally different focus than anything Dawkins writes (he attempts to illustrate that religious and scientific perspectives can coexist without compromising each other), and Collins affable style is wonderfully cooling after the heat of Dawkins' text. The Biologos foundation's website also has some interesting material.

Just because a book pisses you off is no reason to not read it. Indeed, the fact that it envokes such a strong negative emotional responce means that it can be particularly useful to read, so that you might gain a better understanding of that perspective.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on July 09, 2009, 04:41:16 pm
Quote
It seems that to you, where religion does good, it does so in spite of being religion.

Yes, I don't deny this. If a tree's rotten, then any good fruit is in spite of the sprout's corruption.

I'm also going to defend Dawkins and the New Atheists; I think it's an overreach to call them vain. Atheists and agnostics have been downtrodden for centuries, and only recently in human history has it been possible to be one without risking persecution and execution from religious establishments. Atheists are still the most hated minority in the US and the least electable, and meanwhile, the religious thrust themselves into every decorum they can. Religious leaders make the staggering claim of moral authority on human affairs. The Pope cows populaces and demands respect when he makes his travels. The Dalai Lama attracted hordes of trendy nirvanists when he came to New York City. And Obama had to talk to pastor Rick Warren to appease religious voters. Criticism of religion is seen as rude at the lightest, and blasphemous at the worst. And most of this comes from religion's idea that it knows best, just as it presumes to answer metaphysical questions without a scientific basis; just as it prescribes and enforces prohibitive ways of living on its followers and others.

And yet, when atheists finally call out this state of affairs, we're hellraising bigots. I suppose we should just retreat into the closet and accept our persecution and any malice directed to us silently, and no longer concern ourselves with the folly of the religious, even though religious policy worsens our lives, too.

Lies. Dawkins is brave for rallying and inspiring the irreligious to criticize anti-human faith, and religion should be treated as a matter of reason, like every other phenomena or event in this universe. The policies of science, organization, and other humanity are debated and forged through reason, and religion shouldn't get a free pass because it holds itself to be sacred. That is vanity.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 09, 2009, 04:54:26 pm
You want us to respect your opinions, unpopular though they may be, but still want to constantly condemn us and our ideals for the sins of our ancestors?

Sure, go on ahead. That makes perfect sense. Oddly enough, I'm in favor of it.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on July 09, 2009, 06:16:26 pm
You've forced me into a corner logically, and now I must advocate the creation of children solely through means of laboratory pods.

Mission Accomplished. =)

Actually, I don't know that removing the trauma of birth would automatically be a good thing for people...

If it's a child's decision to get his pee-pee cut, then it can also be argued we as parents should give the child the decision making control for everything in his / her life. Let's let them chose what they want to eat for dinner; let's let the kiddies choose what time we go to bed; let's let them entirely choose who and what they do in their free time, whether it be drugs, sex, booze, video games, painting, karate, farming, shitting; let's let them choose to get vaccinated or not; let's let them choose to take their own life if they see it a proper decision. Point being, children often don't know how to make proper decisions; they aren't mentally capable of grasping the importance of many concepts.

That's a logical fallacy. You are arguing that any attempt to control a child would justify every attempt to control a child, thus setting them up for future inadequacy. Your assertion is completely indefensible.

A guy like Dawkins, I just find irritating, borderline embarrassing. The man gives atheists a bad name.

Richard Dawkins is a good scientist, and he's good at helping people who already agree with him to better understand why, but I'll give you that he is also good at making heavily religious people feel defensive. I suspect, however, they are not specifically his intended audience. Religious people are terribly egocentric when it comes to religious arguments: it's always about them. In truth, no it isn't always about them. Maybe Dawkins has calculated that most of the people who are going to be most offended by his books and speeches aren't viably persuadable anyway, and so he has opted to appeal to those who already possess either: A) the critical analysis framework, or B) a friendly philosophical position. Maybe his intent is to give voice to the nonbeliever community. Believers have done this for a long time: Using their special-order language and imagery, they say far worse things about nonbelievers than Dawkins has ever said about them. That doesn't in itself justify Dawkins, but it does make it more difficult for religious people to complain about him on those grounds, since they'll end up taking a lot of fire themselves.

What justifies Dawkins is not that he's aggressive, but that he's right. However, if you're looking for my seal of approval, Carl Sagan did the best job of appealing to the religious.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Boo the Gentleman Caller on July 09, 2009, 08:09:29 pm
(Yes FW, it was tongue-in-cheek.)
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Radical_Dreamer on July 10, 2009, 06:05:28 pm
Oh, I forgot to add: About the trauma of being circumcised shortly after birth: Birth itself is a far greater trauma. I wouldn't worry too much about this angle.

That birth is more traumatic in no way justifies the trauma of circumcision. The value of the procedure (and it is in some cases medically beneficial) is independent of the subjective experiences of the mother of the boy in giving birth to him.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on July 10, 2009, 06:22:00 pm
While it might not justify it, it does make evaluation difficult. To offer an analogy, if some's been hit by a bus, it is a little difficult to figure out the trauma caused by a bowling ball that hit them shortly afterwards.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 10, 2009, 07:19:16 pm
While it might not justify it, it does make evaluation difficult. To offer an analogy, if some's been hit by a bus, it is a little difficult to figure out the trauma caused by a bowling ball that hit them shortly afterwards.

Doesn't mean you should hit them with a bowling ball though. :D
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on July 10, 2009, 09:01:46 pm
That birth is more traumatic in no way justifies the trauma of circumcision. The value of the procedure (and it is in some cases medically beneficial) is independent of the subjective experiences of the mother of the boy in giving birth to him.

The one does not directly justify the other, you are correct. But, inasmuch as people use the "trauma" of circumcision as an argument against it by relying upon the implication that a newborn baby cannot handle that level of trauma, the reasoning is invalidated by the proximity of the truly traumatic experience of being born. Thus, the one indirectly justifies the other on these narrow terms.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Radical_Dreamer on July 11, 2009, 02:53:43 pm
That birth is more traumatic in no way justifies the trauma of circumcision. The value of the procedure (and it is in some cases medically beneficial) is independent of the subjective experiences of the mother of the boy in giving birth to him.

The one does not directly justify the other, you are correct. But, inasmuch as people use the "trauma" of circumcision as an argument against it by relying upon the implication that a newborn baby cannot handle that level of trauma, the reasoning is invalidated by the proximity of the truly traumatic experience of being born. Thus, the one indirectly justifies the other on these narrow terms.

I'm still not buying it. One person volunteered for a traumatic experience; this does not justify said person causing another person a non freely chosen traumatic experience.

I find the "x has it worse" type of arguments troubling in principle. Should we not strive to make all things as best as possible, regardless of the existence of other, potentially greater problems?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 11, 2009, 05:10:25 pm
I wish someone would give me one decent drawback to having a circumcision.

And no, the "mutilation" and "religious" arguments don't work on me.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Exodus on July 11, 2009, 05:35:40 pm
I wish someone would give me one decent drawback to having a circumcision.

And no, the "mutilation" and "religious" arguments don't work on me.

It has no medical benefits, desensitizes and deforms/disables the penis and was used widely in America during the so-called "masturbation hysteria" as a tool to control male sexuality, which obviously didn't work.

It's an antiquated, barbarous act of mutilation for which I still hold a grudge against my parents for allowing to happen.

Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 11, 2009, 07:49:14 pm
Didn't hear a drawback other than the "durrr, it's mutilation, durrrr" complaint, which is more subjective than an objective drawback.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: alfadorredux on July 11, 2009, 08:12:06 pm
If the doctor slips up, he could end up castrating the kid he's supposed to be circumcising (it's unusual, but it has happened). Is that good enough for you?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on July 11, 2009, 08:28:37 pm
I wish someone would give me one decent drawback to having a circumcision.

And no, the "mutilation" and "religious" arguments don't work on me.

It has no medical benefits, desensitizes and deforms/disables the penis and was used widely in America during the so-called "masturbation hysteria" as a tool to control male sexuality, which obviously didn't work.

It's an antiquated, barbarous act of mutilation for which I still hold a grudge against my parents for allowing to happen.



Hm... didn't Lord J just post an article describing benefits? I think that there aren't really any benefits either, but this is to say the same as it isn't mutilation. It isn't traumatic and it isn't mutilation, it's just one of those perhaps unneessary procedures that don't really do anything at all except make the penis look bigger. Hey, that's a benefit! Do you seriously expect me to believe that you are desensitized because your parents "castrated" you? Do you actually experience ANY lack of sensation, or are you just saying that because you're against the procedure?

Also, I have had something happen to me that is very similar to circumcision and almost all women have it happen to them later on in life when they do remember it. It's called... BREAKING THE HYMEN. It is almost always done very voluntarily, because the woman wants it to be "cut" and it hurts a fucking lot. Sure, I bled and it hurt , but I don't regret the "procedure" happening. I think that it has a potential of being just as "traumatic" as circumcision, but most women don't view it that way- they view it almost as a necessity.  So to me, it is very comparable.

So then if women remember that experience and circumcision is NEVER remembered by the infant, why the hell aren't we calling breaking the hymen mutilation? My hymen was really pretty and round before I lost my virginity. Now it is ugly and torn up. It LOOKS mutilated. Does a penis look mutilated after it's circumcised? I would argue that in America, a cut penis is much more attractive-looking than an un-cut penis. 

So what does that say? Circumcision is very subjective. I'm not for it, and I'm not against it, really. No, I absolutely do not agree with anyone who says that it's "traumatic mutilation" because a far more traumatic mutilation is the breaking of the hymen for a woman, and no one ever even considers that when all they are thinking about is making a tiny incision on an infant when it will remember nothing that happened the next day, and certainly not later down in life. It has NOT been proven that men who are cut lack sensation on their penises. People may point out the fact that all this sensitive nerve tissue is down there, but does that make it any different to compare an uncircumcised man's "pleasure" to an uncircumcised man's pleasure? I really do not think so, and it is incredibly difficult to prove otherwise.

Edit:

Quote
If the doctor slips up, he could end up castrating the kid he's supposed to be circumcising (it's unusual, but it has happened). Is that good enough for you?

Absolutely NOT. That is complete bullshit logic(if I were even to call it that). Doctors can fuck up in ANY minor operation. It applies to EVERYTHING in the field of medicine. That's just like saying someone goes in to have their tonsils removed and instead comes out with their voice box removed. Does that happen? Maybe, but really freaken rarely... These days, since they got rid of the "burning" method of circumcision a while back, it's really really rare to even think about fudging up that procedure and then going back to what I said, it is absolutely no different from doctors scewing up on ANY other medical procedure.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on July 11, 2009, 11:49:29 pm
"Incredibly different" is relative. Simple logic dictates that more pleasurable tissue = more pleasure compared to less, and several studies have advocated this position, regardless of anecdotal reports from circumsized men. If it's truly impossible to tell the difference, why can't this simple logic of nerve tissue versus no nerve tissue be accepted? I wonder why some of you are struggling so hard to be passionately indifferent about this.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 12, 2009, 02:18:11 am
Because with the economy tanking, cap and trade being passed, universal healthcare being considered, education staying abysmal, the Iraq War coming to a close, another front in Afghanistan beginning, revolution brewing in Iran and Honduras, Al Franken making a mockery of the electoral process, Mark Sanford cheating and not shutting up about it after two weeks!!, North Korea going nuclear, Iran going nuclear, the G-8 summit meeting, stem cell research being researched, pot possibly being legalized, taxes rising, global warming rising or falling, depending on whom you ask, the press servicing Obama at every stop and gay marriage being passed or pushed through in several states, there are more important issues right now than whether or not we should stop chopping off some random baby's wee-wee.

So, I'll let my Libertarian values do my talking:

I don't care. And the government should stay out of it. Let the parents and a licensed doctor(both groups are much more capable of making this decision than anyone here) make that decision for themselves.

Either the government stays out of the medical field completely(meaning not regulating any practice, be it abortion or stem cell research or circumcision) or the government heads the medical field(letting it regulate abortion, stem cell research and circumcision to its heart's content).

You cannot realistically have it both ways. You can't say that this needs to be regulated and this does not.

Here's my take on the entire idea of government intervention in the medical field: stay out. No funding abortion, stem cell research or any other medical treatment with taxpayer money. Let Bono and the free market handle that. And let doctors decide what is a proper treatment when because they, unlike bloggers or politicians, know what the right way to treat someone is.

I cannot support the notion of forcing a pro-life doctor to perform an abortion, or an anti-circumcision doctor to perform a circumcision, which is exactly how it will be if the government keeps meddling in the medical field.

I realize at this point I've rambled far from the topic, but let me be blunt. Let the doctors and parents decide their individual cases, just as they do for abortion.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on July 12, 2009, 03:00:55 am
Because with the economy tanking, cap and trade being passed, universal healthcare being considered, education staying abysmal, the Iraq War coming to a close, another front in Afghanistan beginning, revolution brewing in Iran and Honduras, Al Franken making a mockery of the electoral process, Mark Sanford cheating and not shutting up about it after two weeks!!, North Korea going nuclear, Iran going nuclear, the G-8 summit meeting, stem cell research being researched, pot possibly being legalized, taxes rising, global warming rising or falling, depending on whom you ask, the press servicing Obama at every stop and gay marriage being passed or pushed through in several states, there are more important issues right now than whether or not we should stop chopping off some random baby's wee-wee.

So, I'll let my Libertarian values do my talking:

I don't care. And the government should stay out of it. Let the parents and a licensed doctor(both groups are much more capable of making this decision than anyone here) make that decision for themselves.

Either the government stays out of the medical field completely(meaning not regulating any practice, be it abortion or stem cell research or circumcision) or the government heads the medical field(letting it regulate abortion, stem cell research and circumcision to its heart's content).

You cannot realistically have it both ways. You can't say that this needs to be regulated and this does not.

Here's my take on the entire idea of government intervention in the medical field: stay out. No funding abortion, stem cell research or any other medical treatment with taxpayer money. Let Bono and the free market handle that. And let doctors decide what is a proper treatment when because they, unlike bloggers or politicians, know what the right way to treat someone is.

I cannot support the notion of forcing a pro-life doctor to perform an abortion, or an anti-circumcision doctor to perform a circumcision, which is exactly how it will be if the government keeps meddling in the medical field.

I realize at this point I've rambled far from the topic, but let me be blunt. Let the doctors and parents decide their individual cases, just as they do for abortion.

Hm, you do drive very valid points, but I am still somewhat of a socialist and I prefer the government to become MORE involved with health care. Health care in America is abysmal. Despite having the most educated and professional doctors in the world, thousands of Americans are not getting the right treatment they need because of insurance hoops that they have to jump through, and if they DO get the treatment, many go in debt because they either don't have insurance or their insurance will not cover the procedures. That coupled with the astronomical price of prescription drugs makes this country a pretty shitty place if you get sick.

I really wanted Hillary Clinton to win presidency because she would have given health care the reform it needs. Obama is not serious about straightening the health care crisis in this country and with most of the media talking about the economy, no one really cares about health care when IMO it's probably one of the biggest problems we have as a country.

As for the part about the government staying away from circumcision and abortion, I don't think that was really ever in question. The only thing the government does is legalize both procedures. No one is really arguing that abortion and circumcision be illegal, and abortion isn't really funded as it is.

If taxpayers' money wasn't helping fun the medical field altogether (which is what you seem to be suggesting), our health care would basically become third world because right now, it's bad enough as it is.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on July 12, 2009, 03:38:37 am
Quote
there are more important issues right now than whether or not we should stop chopping off some random baby's wee-wee.

This is a fallacy, and it's also inaccurate. One's right to one's own body is a fundamental right that "give me my rights and stay the hell away" libertarians should be particularly interested in.

Quote
Let Bono and the free market handle that.

As a sidenote, I'll let you in on something about business and the free market: it can be abused just as badly, if not worse than governmental power. Libertarians, by hating government and endorsing business, are simply endorsing one kind of institutional feebleness over another. The free market is not some kind of savior. Where was the free market when Enron took advantage of deregulated electricity in California to manufacture brown-outs and conduct unethical trading on the chaos? Where was the free market when Goldman Sachs knowingly contributed to the economic crisis in advance through their own arbitrage? Where was the free market when new, poorly-understood derivatives were created, and where was it when bad debt was segmented and sold as good debt? Where was the free market in real estate when an unprecedentedly huge bubble developed over the last several years?  I could go in interminably about corporate and business abuses of human rights and ethics, and I'd probably end up breaching the per-post character limit of this forum. I wouldn't even begin to have touched market efficiency, and why markets aren't efficient and economically sound, but are instead dominated by wealth-capture arbitrage, human irrationality and fallibility, and greedy motives that cross economic self-interest into piracy—best exemplified lately by massive hedge funds.

Business is capable and willing to commit evil in the name of the "free market" and self-interest. It was government that stepped in and cleaned up and moved out Love Canal in New York after its corruption. It was government that stepped in and cleaned up the food processing industry around the turn of the century. It was government that codified into law essential labor standards. It was government that established the SEC to crack down on insider training that punished stockholders. It was government that created the Sarbanes-Oxley act after the crises of the turn of this century (an act that business has bitched about ever since). And it was government that injected liquidity into the system and narrowly prevented a worldwide economic meltdown last September. If you'll notice, these are all reactionary events in which government is cleaning up business's mess. Government has also failed many times to curtail the excesses of business, most recently providing too much forbearance to institutions in the S&L crisis and championing deregulation that helped create the current problem.

Business is even arguably more capable of evil than government because of globalization. Multinationals can cow third-world governments, operate sweatshops and other deplorable practices, and commit other abuses; their activities have been one of the strongest reasons that governments and unions have called for international accounting standards. Things like Bayer's dumping of contaminated medicine in poor countries that caused widespread disease, Rio Tinto's destabilization of Papa New Guinea, or United Fruit's rapacious activities in South America fly under the radar of the American public's concern. The last big shakeup here over an American multinational's actions I can remember is the outrage over Blackwater in Iraq.

I'm not surprised by the lack of criticism of business, since criticizing it, the free market, etc. is inviting accusations of being a "socialist" or unamerican or a hippie, and because Libertarians and Republicans have utter, blind faith in business. It's the same shills in business school; my classmates are almost all unfailingly red-blooded boors who dream of owning their mini-mansion and fast cars, humanity and social policy be damned. We watched the documentary on Enron in one of my recent classes; the two tax major libertarians next to me smiled wide when a clip of Reagan played, and then disappeared into some kind of catatonic shock as the evidence of Enron's abuses of the "free" market mounted. Finance majors are taught how to arbitrage the most money; tax majors are taught how to deny the government its taxes, with the justification that "if a loophole exists, we're doing a good job by exploiting it"; marketing majors are taught how to tap into the lowest common denominator and unleash consumerist idiocy; management majors are taught how to whip inferiors into shape. I'm thankful I'm an accounting major, because anything other than accounting or business information systems would have probably repulsed me out of business school.

I just wonder how these free market advocates can despise the government so much while ignoring business's long and morbidly disturbing history of abuse and the good work government has done curbing them. When I came out of being a religious Republican fuckwad, I passed through my own libertarian phase, and it really just feels like a cult of tying in self-determination and individualism with the romantic idea of business and the American dream, with the total, irrational demonization of all government. It's very easy to feel that way; at the most basic level, government is gonna TAKE UR HARD-EARNED CASH that you earned working at a business, and most people don't give enough of a damn about politics or humanity to comprehend why taxation, government, and social policy are tremendously good things. If they bothered with an actual business education or a serious understanding of the Federal Reserve, they might realize that the market isn't as efficient as it's romanticized to be, or the Federal Reserve as evil. They might also realize how much of it is insane financial wizardry and runaway falsity; if more people knew, perhaps the CNBC channel would be taken off the air to celebration. Gordon Gekko summed it up well in Wall Street:

Quote
Gordon Gekko: The richest one percent of this country owns half our country's wealth, five trillion dollars. One third of that comes from hard work, two thirds comes from inheritance, interest on interest accumulating to widows and idiot sons and what I do, stock and real estate speculation. It's bullshit. You got ninety percent of the American public out there with little or no net worth. I create nothing. I own. We make the rules, pal. The news, war, peace, famine, upheaval, the price per paper clip. We pick that rabbit out of the hat while everybody sits out there wondering how the hell we did it. Now you're not naive enough to think we're living in a democracy, are you buddy? It's the free market. And you're a part of it. You've got that killer instinct. Stick around pal, I've still got a lot to teach you.

It's the same thing that finance majors dream of: manipulating the market to steal wealth created by the businesses and employees involved. It's like foreign exchange; a diversity of currencies only creates inefficiencies in civilization. Some exchange arbitrageur is getting rich off exchange transactions while millions of people depending on them to travel or commute (like in Europe, where people live close to borders and commute often) get screwed over bit by bit.

Business is not some infallible dream of self-determination, efficient markets, and sensible economics, and it has no better claim to be the driver of humanity than government does. Both human institutions have committed good and evil, and should be approached rationally and neutrally in debate. This is too great a leap required of most Republicans and Libertarians, and the situation only got worse when wingnut Ron Paul and other tin-foilers categorically attacked the Federal Reserve and espoused ludicrous economic policy like the restoration of the gold standard. This was all done with the same infatuation with business and hatred of government. Though it's not necessarily the position I advocate, any libertarian should be able to realize that all institutions and organizations, not only governments, amplify human effort for better or worse, and that business and government should have checks and balances on each other, just like the intra-government checks and balances that they adore.

A good starting point for realizing the market is inefficient is http://www.amazon.com/Animal-Spirits-Psychology-Economy-Capitalism/dp/0691142335. And Gordon Gekko will return in Money Never Sleeps, a sequel to Wall Street focusing on the abuses of hedge funds: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1027718/
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 12, 2009, 03:44:49 am
All the medical system needs is two words: Tort Reform.

Stop the idiots from winning multi-million dollars over a $30 procedure and artificially inflating medical malpractice insurance and that'll do a hell of a lot of good.

And most hospitals are run by the private sector right about now anyway, but that's probably for the best. One swift kick to the kneecap of the medical malpractice insurance debacle and things will start picking up.

But, you're a statist and I'm a libertarian, so we're probably going to advocate different approaches and solutions. Meh.

And of course Zeality tries to twist my views against me, after specifically stating that it should be the parents and the doctors decision not the government's. Libertarians love the individual and the family structure, and we know when we should take advice from people who have more knowledge(i.e., doctors on whether or not to circumcise or have an abortion).

And no, Zeality, the free market is much less vulnerable to corruption due to the infinite number of checks and balances. If one party gets too powerful, others collude against it. If one becomes corrupt, it won't last long without shaping up.

And yes, you can bring up an infinite number of examples against the free market. But the difference between the free market and the government is that you can take away power from the free market, but once you give power to the government, it stays there. That, and the free market appeals to the needs of the people. Why should the government, after that new power is commandeered? The answer is it doesn't, which is where we are right now.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on July 12, 2009, 04:03:59 am
Heh, well, I just won a bet among friends. You're good at completely writing off arguments and leagues of compelling evidence with sheer intellectual incuriosity. You've done it now for religion, abortion, sexism, and economic theory. To put it in business terms, you'll soon have a monopoly of ignorance on current issues, oh-hoh!

Quote
that it should be the parents and the doctors decision not the government's.

It should be the person who's getting the circumcision's decision. If you're so bent on individual rights, give them to the individual, especially when they involve painful amputation of part of a sex organ.

Edit: Whoops! I forgot to post something above. Here's a real Republican:

(http://gfsnet.org/msweb/historyweb/images/charles/threequarter-Roosevelt.jpg)

Committed to American ideals such that he busted abusive trusts and laid the foundation for the Food and Drug administration.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: IAmSerge on July 12, 2009, 06:40:40 am
I stopped arguing because you guys care WAY too much about this shit.

Oh, sorry, correction.

You guys care alot about it, but rather than getting out there and doing something about it all you do is sit on your computer and argue about it over the internet, which really gets you no where.
Springtime of youth my ass....
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on July 12, 2009, 07:08:46 am
Serge, you're kind of right, but there is somewhat of a purpose to arguing about things on the internet. The argument between me + Truth vs Z is not really going anywhere, but I can say that by reading about others opinions and "facts", we learn more and become more educated and thus our perception of the world changes. So by having these arguments on the internets, we are actually doing something about the problems that occur in the world. Z said himself that one reason he became completely atheist is because Lord J and some others helped him "see the light" or whatever. He might have come to where he is without them, but they helped him along and that's what matters.

I think that if people can influence you to change your mind, the world will change. Maybe Z believes that the more people who understand about how circumcision is traumatic mutilation, the practice will occur less and less. I don't really know what he hopes to gain by arguing this, but that's my guess anyway. But since me and Truth have already established our own opinions of the matter, Z's adamant stand is not really affecting us, however it could affect others...

I honestly don't have the passion to try to do something about the terrible things happening in the world. I leave that up to others for the most part. I donate money, and I've gone to protests before, but I'm not going to dedicate my life to fighting some cause that I'm not passionate over. I'm most passionate about the degrading state of the environment, however if I was a real environmentalist, the most I could do to help the environment on a personal level is to become vegetarian, and I'm not really willing to make such a life change.

So arguing about things on the internet doesn't really do much, but it at least exposes people on other peoples view points and sometimes it helps change minds... so it does enough for me. Besides, I like debate. I don't like pointless bickering so much which is kind of what this is boiling down to...
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on July 12, 2009, 09:48:03 am
I stopped arguing because you guys care WAY too much about this shit.

People thrive on validation; you didn't get any here; now you're resorting to attacking other people's passions. I've encountered that tactic many times; it is very poor form.

I don't think you're working out on these forums, Serge. Maybe you should go find some other place to hang out, or at least limit your discussion to Chrono-related topics.

Springtime of youth my ass....

You're trying to start a fight, aren't you? I remember that tone. Not an intellectual or ideological fight; you're trying to start the online version of a plain old fistfight. Grow up or get lost, won't you?


Back on topic...I am really not interested in a debate on male circumcision, so I think I'll bow out for now. I'll check back in when the topic changes again.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 12, 2009, 12:43:36 pm
Despite the fact that his prior post proves he's a statist, Zeality of course is trying to tell me how to be a decent libertarian. Not a shock, seeing as how he's probably the most rabid atheist on here and constantly tries to tell me how to be religious. And of course, I'm ignorant since I don't accept your worldview.

But for once at least we have something we can agree on and that would be Teddy Roosevelt. He was the bomb.

And yes I can take his position on anti-trust matters as a libertarian, because the 1870's-1900's were riddled with the government's suppression of labor unions and allowing corrupt enterprises to build monopolies. Right now its easy to hate labor unions, but the fact of the matter is that the pendulum swung too far the other way, so that now the government is suppressing enterprises and allowing corruption among the labor unions, which led to Detroit ending up in the shape its in.

If we could repeat the economics of the 1920's, with all of the modern protections on the stock market and sans the draconian tariffs, both of which were the primary causes of the Great Depression, we might not have been hit so hard this business cycle.

But I've gone off topic again, haven't I?

In any event, circumcision's the least of our worries right now.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on July 12, 2009, 01:23:29 pm
Quote from: Zaichik
So by having these arguments on the internets, we are actually doing something about the problems that occur in the world.
Much agreed. Certainly a type of soft power, and still below the power of movies, videogames, and other pop culture artifacts to reshape society -- mostly for the limited audience we get on a videogame board for a series without a single new entry in 10 years. Hopefully the kind of arguments we've been having are thought provoking enough that the audience goes off and starts researching the issues themselves, to better define their personal stances.

I think we've got a pretty good chance of having a good economic/health care/environmental debate, if someone wants to start that up. I'm actually really surprised at the criticism of Obama's cap & trade proposal for cutting carbon emissions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cap_and_trade); it's a far more market-oriented solution to the perceived carbon emissions crisis than taxation or pollution abatement requirements, and is typically advocated in undergrad econ textbooks.

However, I've always felt the government ought to hire all the unemployed to plant trees, which should take care of the perceived carbon crisis through their own physiology. Shazam, two problems solved at once!
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 12, 2009, 02:18:37 pm
To be honest, FW, I don't know enough about the cap and trade plan, its implications or why it is being used to argue for or against it.

I don't know much about the environmental debate as a whole, except what I've heard about DDT's help in Africa. Until last year I wasn't even aware that people, reasonable, respected people considered the fact that man made global warming didn't exist or that there were theories regarding climate change as cyclical, like the economy.

My public school education basically hid those arguments from me for years, and now after 10 or so years of straight global warming indoctrination, I don't know what to believe. All I know is that I don't trust Al Gore any more to tell the US how to react on climate change.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on July 12, 2009, 02:53:40 pm
I actually had an econ professor who worried the global warming consensus wasn't backed up with enough evidence, and we might be worrying over something we really have no control over. His main issue was with the "hockey stick," (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy) and the fact that I haven't done enough research on it myself is why I lean toward calling it the "perceived carbon emissions crisis." If you're interested in examining possible flaws in the prevailing Global Warming consensus, the "hockey stick debate" is a good place to start.

Still, it seems to me that there's a definite scientific relationship between the amount of carbon in the atmosphere and global temperature, Venus being the prime example of a runaway greenhouse effect. If humans don't have an appreciable amount of control over the environment (compared to the Sun) and Earth is just destined to become like Venus no matter what we do, all the more reason to find other home planets.

EDIT: Briefly looking at the wiki article, it seems that the scientists behind the hockey stick have responded to the questioning of their methodology, and their original conclusions are pretty robust in light of new datasets and such. Interesting stuff to be sure, and everyone would do well to educate themselves more on the subject.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on July 12, 2009, 06:27:59 pm

However, I've always felt the government ought to hire all the unemployed to plant trees, which should take care of the perceived carbon crisis through their own physiology. Shazam, two problems solved at once!

We think alike, Mr Faust. I always thought similar things. I really think that FDR's public works projects did a lot of good for the country and it would be really nice if Obama could do something very similar. New jobs... wooo! I like to take it a step further, if you will. I always approved of how in the good ole days, the government made prisoners actually... you know... WORK. I think that this needs to be employed again. The prisoners should be made to plant trees and clean up parks. You know, make being a prisoner actually feel like being kept in jail rather than being kept on vacation.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on July 12, 2009, 07:07:39 pm
Most agreed, though I'd prefer that prisoners be made to farm and revamp/teardown and rebuild homes for the poor. Since prisoners disproportionately come from the ranks of the poor and their activities can be attributed to...frustration and stuff, making prisoners provide for the poor might promote a self-limiting cycle where the standard of living for the poor gets better with larger prison populations, which in turn causes the prison population to decrease. Damn, I foget the name of the concept now. Self-limiting...feedback...something.

What kind of activities are prisoners engaged in nowadays? Can we find hints of sexism prevailing within Western prison systems? Watching Michael Moore, you'd think prisoners are mostly engaged in telemarketing and taking airline reservations.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on July 12, 2009, 07:18:37 pm
I stopped arguing because you guys care WAY too much about this shit.

Oh, sorry, correction.

You guys care alot about it, but rather than getting out there and doing something about it all you do is sit on your computer and argue about it over the internet, which really gets you no where.
Springtime of youth my ass....

Ha, except my fourth dream is to make a career out of humanism, and if I can't, to promote it other ways by fighting religion and sexism. Public and motivational speaking is on the table, too.

(Uhoh, the secret's out! The religious cabal just updated their conveniently color-coded atheist threat assessment level of me to "Apricot".)
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on July 12, 2009, 07:19:36 pm
I will reply to you for my 200th post! I'm moving up the ranks, hurray~

Prisoners do give back to their communities at SOME prisons. There are stories of prisoners being employed as dog trainers for  service dogs. It really helps out the prisoners become motivated to change their lives around. There are some other examples like that that don't come to my head, but I believe the prison system in this country is kind of a mess. Millions of dollars in governmental funds are used to "upkeep" the prison system and to keep people on death row. I'm not sure if I'm a fan or not of execution, however I'm not a fan of all these funds going to prisons. Prisons should be given far less funding. They should be given only the necessary funding to make prison a safe place. There shouldn't be cable or anything promoting entertainment. And there is also the thing about prisoners being forced to do work. Planting trees or farming, doesn't matter, as long as they're being forced to work through their sentences. The committed the crime, they should be made to feel like they're being punished. And I really do think that like the guide dog training, it will give them a new perspective on life. If I ever ran anything, I would really try to push for programs like that.

I've watched a lot of programs about prisons , especially womens prisons, because I find it all rather interesting. Though I don't know the michael moore flick which you speak of... which one is it? I can't really come up with any examples of sexism inside prisons, but that's because I don't really look for that. Sexism is really not something I'm so entirely motivated to argue about just because I think that my country has far bigger problems and sexism actually is low on the totem pole...  
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 12, 2009, 07:32:25 pm
I suppose the homoeroticism normally associated with prison life doesn't count as sexism?

And now I agree with you guys. I can't honestly support the government hiring people, simply because we don't have the money. But using the prison system as a means to find cheap labor...that's both clever and productive.

But before doing any of that, the US prison system needs to take out exercise equipment. That's possibly the most inane and counter-productive
idea anyone ever came up with ever.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on July 12, 2009, 07:58:31 pm
Good one truth. I wonder how prevalent the homoeroticism really is in..."The Pokey." Could be a sexist pop culture perpetuation of the "gotta-have-my-sex-even-if-I-have-to-stick-my-pickle...in-a-freaking-PIE" stereotype of men.

Zaich, I think it was The Big One I was referring to. Michael Moore likes to grandstand of course, so he was probably blowing up the perception of prison populations doing things like taking airline reservations.  I realize that I'm entirely uneducated on Western prison systems now.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Mr Bekkler on July 13, 2009, 01:59:28 am
I hate the expression TLDR but this thread is really very long and I'm pretty sure it's just fighting back and forth after the first few pages, which i did read. I just wanted to toss in my idea on the topic the best way I know how: with "fun" comparisons and metaphors.


1. If somebody crashes their car into a tree, and totals the car, should they be allowed to drive again?

Yes. Just because they fucked up once, does not mean they are too immature to control a vehicle.
(Similarly, if someone has an abortion, it doesn't mean they are too immature to have sex. It's called "learning from mistakes" and it happens to a lot of people. Even Christians, Republicans, and men!)

2. If somebody is a vegetable in a hospital bed, with no brain function whatsoever, is it wrong to pull the plug?

No. Hardware with no software is useless and a body with no life is not a person.
(Similarly, a fetus with a heartbeat is human hardware, but the OS doesn't boot till it's pushed out of the baby factory. Unless you remember being in the womb. I sure as fuck don't.)

3. As a man, do I have any right to tell women they can use maxi pads but cannot use tampons?

No. I have no right to tell a woman what to do with her body, nor should I act like I personally know what it's like to experience gender-specific bodily functions that only happen to the opposite gender.
(This relates more to the fact that most of the people who debate about abortion and make laws pertaining to the subject are old, rich, white, male, and are not necessarily upstanding citizens themselves. It's all about the "pro-family" public view.)

You can tell I'm not against abortion by any means, and I do think Pro Choice is a great way to describe the view, albeit a little vague.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Samopoznanie on July 13, 2009, 02:06:37 am
I hate the expression TLDR
I've never even heard of it. Dare I ask what it stands for...? The 1-2 year generation gap strikes again...  :picardno
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on July 13, 2009, 02:08:22 am
"Too Long, Didn't Read."

...IIRC. AFAIK. 1337.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: IAmSerge on July 13, 2009, 02:10:30 am
might I ask you what the former two of the three that you stated stand for?

I could never get IIRC...
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on July 13, 2009, 02:44:22 am
IIRC: If I Remember Correctly.

AFAIK: As Far As I Know.


It's the new linguistic age of phrase compression! If we compress entire paragraphs into a few acronyms, we'll get past the phenomenon of TL;DR. That is my belief...at least for now.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Uboa on July 13, 2009, 03:25:14 am
Back on topic...I am really not interested in a debate on male circumcision, so I think I'll bow out for now. I'll check back in when the topic changes again.

Just been bopping in and out of this thread, but... is it just me or do topics veer off course in this direction way too often?  Not limited to here either; it happens on a lot of forums.  I'm not really knocking the sensibility or appropriateness or anything, just making a statistical observation...(Fascinating!)

I guess now I have to say something worthwhile, but forgive me for hitting on some points in snippet format rather than forum essay format.  Just don't really feel like getting into that quite yet since I've only been back a couple of days.  (Sorry for being one of those flaky posters.)

First, I guess it's time I come out of the "closet"...  I'm of the, er, female species, to put it evasively.

Second, as far as abortion goes, I don't think that the act of performing an abortion can be examined philosophically in itself at all.  The decision to carry a child to term or have an abortion would always be circumstantial and deeply personal.  To detach the issue of abortion from everybody involved just doesn't make sense.  That's all I really have to say on that subject for now, and I know it's probably not even enough to warrant a comment.  Just felt it should be said.  I'll probably add more later.  

Third, removing the burden of carrying a child and the pain of childbirth seems to remove a great deal of the sense of gravity of bringing a child into the world.  Also, the "baby pod" issue that keeps rearing its head here is somewhat misguided in that it's part of a movements towards absolute equality between the sexes.  Absolute equality between the sexes is more of a vapid concept/vision than a lot people give it credit for.  To quote XKCD, "People are complicated!" (http://xkcd.com/592/)  These kinds of envisioned alterations to society don't always pan out for the best when they're enacted...

Fourth, the current "new atheism" (of which Richard Dawkins is the intentional god-like figurehead, and I don't knock him for it -- a brilliant move on his part to counter the hypnotic effect of religious figureheads) is largely a reactionary movement against the mainstream religions of today.  While it isn't as guided toward self-understanding as I wish it was (it does idolize "science" to a degree that I find burdensome, if not a little scary) it is more than necessary given the sickening amount of religious oppression in the world today.  I imagine that out of the post-secularist era there will be a new movement to try to come to a real deep understanding with human spiritual roots, and to learn from them.

Fifth, as far as deciding whether or not to be sexually active given the possible consequences, I respect anyone who puts as much thought into the decision as Daniel does.  I wish more people put one hundredth of the amount of thought into their actions.  However, as turbulent and risky as human sexuality is, it is also a catalyst for personal growth if you're high minded enough...

Finally, I have no problem with men arguing about feminist issues.  That you guys give a damn makes me happy.  Debate on.

:) Feels good to be in the arena, and back on the forums for that matter.

Edit -- Here's something:  Since this thread is about sexism, how does knowing my gender, if you thought otherwise previously, change your perception of me?  Don't bother writing it (really), just think about it.  I wondered to myself how people might perceive me differently after I posted this, and I figured I'd just note my observation of my own subtle sexist thoughts coming to the surface at the time, directed at both my own gender and at men.  I don't want specifics from anyone, and likewise I'm writing no more than just that!

Edit 2:  This is a great documentary about the abortion debate.  (I should warn you that it is very graphic.)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0841119/
It's available to watch online on Netflix... I think.  It was a while back, but I haven't checked its status lately.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Exodus on July 13, 2009, 04:51:45 am
I wish someone would give me one decent drawback to having a circumcision.

And no, the "mutilation" and "religious" arguments don't work on me.

It has no medical benefits, desensitizes and deforms/disables the penis and was used widely in America during the so-called "masturbation hysteria" as a tool to control male sexuality, which obviously didn't work.

It's an antiquated, barbarous act of mutilation for which I still hold a grudge against my parents for allowing to happen.



Hm... didn't Lord J just post an article describing benefits? I think that there aren't really any benefits either, but this is to say the same as it isn't mutilation. It isn't traumatic and it isn't mutilation, it's just one of those perhaps unneessary procedures that don't really do anything at all except make the penis look bigger. Hey, that's a benefit! Do you seriously expect me to believe that you are desensitized because your parents "castrated" you? Do you actually experience ANY lack of sensation, or are you just saying that because you're against the procedure?

Also, I have had something happen to me that is very similar to circumcision and almost all women have it happen to them later on in life when they do remember it. It's called... BREAKING THE HYMEN. It is almost always done very voluntarily, because the woman wants it to be "cut" and it hurts a fucking lot. Sure, I bled and it hurt , but I don't regret the "procedure" happening. I think that it has a potential of being just as "traumatic" as circumcision, but most women don't view it that way- they view it almost as a necessity.  So to me, it is very comparable.

So then if women remember that experience and circumcision is NEVER remembered by the infant, why the hell aren't we calling breaking the hymen mutilation? My hymen was really pretty and round before I lost my virginity. Now it is ugly and torn up. It LOOKS mutilated. Does a penis look mutilated after it's circumcised? I would argue that in America, a cut penis is much more attractive-looking than an un-cut penis. 

So what does that say? Circumcision is very subjective. I'm not for it, and I'm not against it, really. No, I absolutely do not agree with anyone who says that it's "traumatic mutilation" because a far more traumatic mutilation is the breaking of the hymen for a woman, and no one ever even considers that when all they are thinking about is making a tiny incision on an infant when it will remember nothing that happened the next day, and certainly not later down in life. It has NOT been proven that men who are cut lack sensation on their penises. People may point out the fact that all this sensitive nerve tissue is down there, but does that make it any different to compare an uncircumcised man's "pleasure" to an uncircumcised man's pleasure? I really do not think so, and it is incredibly difficult to prove otherwise.

Edit:

Quote
If the doctor slips up, he could end up castrating the kid he's supposed to be circumcising (it's unusual, but it has happened). Is that good enough for you?

Absolutely NOT. That is complete bullshit logic(if I were even to call it that). Doctors can fuck up in ANY minor operation. It applies to EVERYTHING in the field of medicine. That's just like saying someone goes in to have their tonsils removed and instead comes out with their voice box removed. Does that happen? Maybe, but really freaken rarely... These days, since they got rid of the "burning" method of circumcision a while back, it's really really rare to even think about fudging up that procedure and then going back to what I said, it is absolutely no different from doctors scewing up on ANY other medical procedure.

It removes sensuality for the sake of religious bullshit.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 13, 2009, 10:36:04 am
Exodus, we've had that argument up and down. There's never been any definitive proof of it. If you can find a report from a respectable source supporting that supposition, I might be more inclined to believe you. Until then, it gets the same anecdotal merit that it did the last 100 times someone said it.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on July 13, 2009, 12:52:42 pm
There shouldn't be cable or anything promoting entertainment.

To be fair, which would you rather criminals do: watch cable TV or organize crime cabals in their spare time? True, it isn't very effective, but it is a cheap sedagive.... I mean, sedative.

It removes sensuality for the sake of religious bullshit.

Pish posh, that is a very self-centered argument concerning a social act. Men are generally incapable of multiple orgasm, yes? Like the Death Star, we need some recovery time. Increased pleasure could logically decrease the build-up time. The experience is more intense for that guy, but not for the partner (the gender of which is here unimportant). A lot of guys (if one trusts anecdotal accounts) are already selfish when it comes to sex; being uncircumcised would seemingly make the matter worse. Desensitization is a useful tool for sex.

Though to be fair, I have no scientific evidence to suggest that circumcision does increase the average time from original arousal to orgasm. It just seems like it would.

Given the physiological implications of sex (orgasm being something that releases various hormones that are conducive to emotional bonding and trust formation), it seems that one's primary concern ought not be one's self, but that is where your argument inherently lies. Though to be fair again, I suppose it would be improper to physically alter an individual in order to encourage common courtesy.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on July 13, 2009, 02:19:59 pm
Quote from: Uboa
Third, removing the burden of carrying a child and the pain of childbirth seems to remove a great deal of the sense of gravity of bringing a child into the world.  Also, the "baby pod" issue that keeps rearing its head here is somewhat misguided in that it's part of a movements towards absolute equality between the sexes.

I think there's a line that could be drawn between social equality and experiential equality as well. Social equality being, "woman who isn't pregnant gets same pay for given work as man who isn't pregnant"; experiential equality being, "woman never gets pregnant thanks to baby pods, so there's no need for maternity leave and thus there's absolutely no market rationale for valuing her less as a worker." I don't agree with the obviously sexist mommy track market rationale, but I've heard men express that as a supposedly viable business reason for why women might be turned down for certain jobs or else paid less than their male or even transgender counterparts. I think that's the major reason why I tend to go gung-ho on experiential equality; I'm not completely confident that social equality can be achieved in its absence. I dearly hope that I am mistaken.

I still like the idea of birth pods though. When we develop this technology (it has to happen eventually, just like landing on the Moon), I wonder if it will catch on like wildfire or if women will stick to the natural way more often than not?

Uboa, I imagine there's a number of Compendiumites who are undercover women, non-Westerners, etc. First rule of the Internet is that the only thing one knows about a person is what he or she posts, and they should be judged by the quality of their content and nothing else. That's the way I think of it anyway, and in that way there's a certain amount of empowerment to "the mask." Perhaps the Internet is the one place where humanity can gather free of ingrained prejudice...uh, with the exception of those skinhead sites that news channels like to flash around from time to time.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on July 13, 2009, 02:33:28 pm
Perhaps the Internet is the one place where humanity can gather free of ingrained prejudice...

That deserves a post of its own.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 13, 2009, 02:48:32 pm
Perhaps the Internet is the one place where humanity can gather free of ingrained prejudice...

That deserves a post of its own.

Hells yeah. With you all the way there, man.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on July 13, 2009, 03:02:43 pm
Perhaps the Internet is the one place where humanity can gather free of ingrained prejudice...

Sorry to be a pessimist today, but I must disagree; the internet has its own prejudices. While they are significantly different than those that you might experience in the “real world,” they are still there. Consider a poster who misspells words regularly, forgets punctuation and capitalization, only uses capital letters, and perhaps even uses texting-speak commonly. Such and individual would tend to be ignored or ridiculed in a lot of threads on the compendium and elsewhere, based not on his/her thoughts, but on the appearance of those thoughts.

Humanity's ability to overcome our prejudices is rivaled (but, I hope, not surpassed) by our abilities to find new ways in which to be prejudiced.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 13, 2009, 07:57:08 pm
There's a reason for that, Thought. If you can't be bothered to make your argument readable, then chances are the reasoning being your argument isn't worth the reading.

We shouldn't expect people to use FW's level of English, sure. I have trouble with the word necessary often. That's why FireFox and probably IE have spell check built into their browsers.

But the fact of the matter is that proper diction and grammar are essential if you want to have any sort of informed debate. You can't argue against something you can't understand.

Besides, its just common courtesy.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on July 13, 2009, 08:31:09 pm
English-as-second-language users might still have a problem though, plus paraplegics using inaccurate voice-to-text diction systems. If the reader doesn't understand the situations of those users, to tell them apart from users like  :fuk, then I could see where there'd be issues of (unjustified) discrimination. Language-ism maybe. So Thought has a good point in that regard.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 13, 2009, 08:43:50 pm
Yes, but I don't wasn't talking about those types of people. Kid123 has writes some of the best posts around here.

And WTF is it with that damn cowboy pic?!
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on July 13, 2009, 09:12:23 pm
That dude is one of the great mysteries of the Compendium. I have no clue who he is or why he shows up in the smilies box from time to time, though he has a resemblance to Kelsey Grammer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelsey_Grammar) that I find highly disturbing.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on July 13, 2009, 09:38:43 pm
Okay, I've had it up to here with these Evony (http://www.evony.com/evonyg1.html?google2&gclid=CO6EhsP405sCFQoMDQodk2L5KA) ads you always see...everywhere I frequent nowadays. Why is it that I can't visit a videogame news site without being bombarded by images of scantily-clad, fake-proportioned, photoshopped women? Where are the scantily-clad, fake-proportioned, photoshopped men? Oh, nevermind. (http://www.wallpaperez.net/wallpaper/games/m/God-of-War-2-1220.jpg) Bust But still, why the hell are videogame companies in the twenty-first century making an assumption about what drives me as a man? Don't they know that I'm looking for strong storyline and gameplay mechanics, and furthermore, that I'm studying for an econ test while surfing the web half the time? Even Team Ninja is gradually learning the lessons (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ut_8qkC2KUQ) taught by a hopefully less-sexist market...however gradually.

I guess this opens up the conversation about sexism (and furthermore, the possibility of promoting gender equality) in videogames, ironically an issue we haven't covered in this thread yet.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 13, 2009, 09:53:52 pm
Demographics, FW, demographics. Most of the people who visit those sites belong in the 18-35 nerdy male demographic, and that's who they target to.

Stereotypically speaking, 18-35 year old men are interested in cars, wrestling, video games and scantily clad women. That's why Spike is as popular as it is. If there weren't some truth to this stereotype though, basic economics says that these commercial agencies wouldn't use those ads on those particular sites. Seeing as they do, there's probably a good reason and good profit margin for them.

Here's something I realized recently, though. Women in Square-Enix games suck.

It was always in the back of my head, but it didn't really manifest itself until I started complaining that the main character in FFXIII was a female and how well that did in the past. *cough cough 10-2 cough*

The only real exception to this is FF 12 where everyone was equal, and Crono Trigger where you had Ayla. You might say the same for Chrono Cross, but as far as the best characters strategy wise, I'd pick Fargo and Glenn over Kid and Poshul.

Even then, the characters themselves were either vapid or simply uninteresting(Ayla was the least liked character of CT, according to the Compendium polls, and all of the females from FF12 were pretty dumb and boring).
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on July 13, 2009, 10:09:16 pm
Yeah, the video game industry thinks that guys are into scantily clad women so that's how they market a lot of games... It's all rather stupid because they need to accurately take surveys for what kinds of adds their demographics REALLY wants to see... Maybe that will cause better sales.

For the longest times, video games were marketed towards boys from age 6 to 18, just in recent years has the industry even though to market games to girls. I think nintendo is a little ahead on that because I notice that more girls like to play games from nintendo consoles than others and they market a lot of really stupid teeny-bopper games to young girls. Bratz games, anyone? ugh. Stuff like making a pink DS and actually doing commercials for games that girls are typically into shows a change in the industry.

Also, I watch Spike tv for Star Trek and the best show ever- MXC. Not all shows on Spike tv are action-packed, pointless, idiotic stereotypes. I like to watch the ones that aren't. Just cause a channel's for guys, doesn't mean it has all stereotypical crap that only stereotypical manly man like to watch : ).

On a side note, I think Squeenix actually handles gender issues in their games quite well. There are a lot of interesting female leads in different final fantasy games, and in their other franchises as well. There aren't a whole ton of games where the main character is a girl, and squeenix has a lot of titles where that is the case. And even if there is a male lead, there are plenty of other interesting and powerful female characters.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Uboa on July 13, 2009, 10:26:32 pm
Perhaps the Internet is the one place where humanity can gather free of ingrained prejudice...

Sorry to be a pessimist today, but I must disagree; the internet has its own prejudices. While they are significantly different than those that you might experience in the “real world,” they are still there. Consider a poster who misspells words regularly, forgets punctuation and capitalization, only uses capital letters, and perhaps even uses texting-speak commonly. Such and individual would tend to be ignored or ridiculed in a lot of threads on the compendium and elsewhere, based not on his/her thoughts, but on the appearance of those thoughts.

It's easy to pick up on idiosyncrasies online just as it is in the "real world".  Strange forum posting habits are kind of akin to strange clothing or awkward gestures.  Still, internet communication can be devoid of the traditional prejudices surrounding race and gender, which creates an interesting and probably more ideal environment.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Romana on July 13, 2009, 10:32:22 pm
Okay, I've had it up to here with these Evony (http://www.evony.com/evonyg1.html?google2&gclid=CO6EhsP405sCFQoMDQodk2L5KA) ads you always see...everywhere I frequent nowadays.

That. Ad. Is. Everywhere. I. Go.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on July 13, 2009, 10:34:59 pm
On Sexism in Video Games:

Chrono Trigger is a mixed bag. It definitely has some strong points: Lucca was written very well as a character; maybe the most well-done female RPG playable character of her time. Ayla was the strongest unmodified physical fighter in the party...which I also think was unprecedented at the time for a female RPG character. Robo was remarkably sensitive and emotionally open. There were no sexist subplots and, at least in the English, there was no overtly sexist background dialogue that I can remember.*

These qualities make it impossible not to acknowledge Chrono Trigger as a progressive game for its time. However, it is still riddled with sexism. The worst of it by far is that the supporting cast is overwhelmingly male. Sex-specific character omission from stories is one of the strongest forms of misogyny, second only to the most grating female character stereotypes. It is almost universal in video games--except, maddeningly, in some games that are targeted specifically to women. Look for yourself at the disparity:

http://chronocompendium.com/Term/Characters_(Chrono_Trigger).html

Schala would be the next worst instance of sexism in the game. She was written in a sterotype that is quite popular in Japan and also fairly popular here: the pure of heart, suffering female. She seems like a person whose spirit has been completely broken; she never acts on her own behalf and has no obvious sense of self-worth. This goes beyond kindness and mere altruism; it's revolting. There are moments in the game when I just want to kick her; then I realize that she was written this way by male scenario writers, and want to kick them instead.

Crono is another example of sexism in the game, albeit a more benign one. His character is a very common stereotype, especially in Japanese culture. He's one of those people whose mouth-to-face ratio would be quite high. (I tried to google for an example of what I'm talking about, but was taken aback by an unbelievable amount of pornography in the search results. Go figure.) In any case, the stereotype is diluted somewhat because there are so many other male characters, and thus for one character to behave that way is not as glaring. But, without that context, it's a pretty blatant sexist stereotype.

Going down the list, we have the fact that Marle and Lucca have low power stats and use ranged weapons--a common female stereotype in RPGs. Of all the sexism in the game, this is the instance I personally find most annoying.

Speaking of Marle, she's got a sex-specific stereotype of her own going on: the free-spirited, tomboyish princess who loves baubles and behaves emotionally. I'm thankful that it's an "empowering" stereotype (i.e., the princess is getting out there and tackling the world on her own terms), but, really, I could do without a stereotype in the first place. Then it wouldn't need to be apologetic.

Radical Dreamers was a step down. There was something about Kid's spunky streak that struck me as dismissive or patronizing on the part of the (male) writers, and of course Riddel and Shea were Schala clones. For what it's worth, though, I rather enjoyed the scene where Serge asks about Kid's measurements.

Chrono Cross was more neutral, which I suppose is a good thing. Honestly, I only played it once, several years ago, and I don't remember it well enough now to recall what kinds of sexism might be present in the game.


* Except for one nitpick: At the end Gaspar referred to Queen Zeal as "that poor woman," which could be read in several ways depending on the tone, but the most typical of which is derogatory. However, in the Japanese, Zeal is not referred to with any qualifiers, so it is quite possible that Woolsey's tone for Gaspar was sympathetic; thus it is a very minor nitpick.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 13, 2009, 10:41:19 pm
Well, Zaichi, if the video game industry were losing in sales, I'd be inclined to agree with you. But as it stands, prices are still going up on video games despite the fact that prices have fallen on many luxury items over the last year due to the recession. In fact, despite most businesses shrinking, Nintendo expanded over the last year. So, whatever their marketing plan is, it's doing well for them.

And after my last post I thought about the Final Fantasy games in sequence about their gender roles. And I realized by doing this that I'm probably wrong about Squeenix anyway.

BTW, I'm only referring to gameplay, not necessarily the storyline.

FF1-The only female PC was White Mage, who's attacking was abysmal and could only heal. All of the characters were pretty uninteresting in FF1 though, so I can't really hold that against them.

2 and 3 I've never played to completion.

4 had Rosa, who played the generic Damsel in Distress for practically the entire game, while Rydia's summons were ok, but generally came back to bite you if you used them too much, as most summons do.

5 was excellent in its discussion of gender roles. First of all, you had three females who had equal power to the male cast, plus you see Faris's struggle with becoming accepted among the pirate culture despite being a female.

6 had Terra and Celes, who were both decent female characters. Relm was pretty useless and annoying though, playing to the generic little girl model, sans the kawaii(I hate myself for using that word).

7 you had Tifa and Aeris. Tifa was awesome, bar none, probably one of my favorite RPG characters ever. Aeris was...Aeris. Blah. Oh, and Yuffie. She was alright.

8 had three very useless female PCs in Rinoa, Selphie and Quistis.

Let's not get into 9...

10 involved Yuna(summoner) and Lulu(black magic woman), both of whom I honestly could not stand. Plus there's the fact that the entire damn game was basically a romance novel produced by Square Enix. Worse thing to tarnish my PS2.

10-2-*vomits*

12 as I said, everyone was equal.

Like I said, I was wrong. Though, it's probably my own biases. I don't typically like the magic casting and summoning types if they can't attack worth a crap, which is basically what every woman in a Square-Enix title, save a few exceptions, is.

I'm simple more of an offense guy, and, at the risk of sounding like I'm ripping off 8-bit Theatre, I like swords.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Uboa on July 13, 2009, 10:42:58 pm
Yeah, the video game industry thinks that guys are into scantily clad women so that's how they market a lot of games... It's all rather stupid because they need to accurately take surveys for what kinds of adds their demographics REALLY wants to see... Maybe that will cause better sales.

For the longest times, video games were marketed towards boys from age 6 to 18, just in recent years has the industry even though to market games to girls. I think nintendo is a little ahead on that because I notice that more girls like to play games from nintendo consoles than others and they market a lot of really stupid teeny-bopper games to young girls. Bratz games, anyone? ugh. Stuff like making a pink DS and actually doing commercials for games that girls are typically into shows a change in the industry.

Also, I watch Spike tv for Star Trek and the best show ever- MXC. Not all shows on Spike tv are action-packed, pointless, idiotic stereotypes. I like to watch the ones that aren't. Just cause a channel's for guys, doesn't mean it has all stereotypical crap that only stereotypical manly man like to watch : ).

On a side note, I think Squeenix actually handles gender issues in their games quite well. There are a lot of interesting female leads in different final fantasy games, and in their other franchises as well. There aren't a whole ton of games where the main character is a girl, and squeenix has a lot of titles where that is the case. And even if there is a male lead, there are plenty of other interesting and powerful female characters.

I'm hoping that in the future it's not just the powerful female characters who are iconized by video games and sci fi shows, but the ones who are not as powerful, and even the powerless.  Women who have an aspect of chaos to their lives, who aren't in control and who pay the price, need a mirror in this culture.  

I've been watching the full series of Battlestar Galactica that I borrowed from a coworker, and I'm deeply pleased with their portrayal of Starbuck as an actual realistic chaotic female protagonist.  Likewise, I've been watching all of Homicide, a series where all of the characters have these kinds of dark aspects, and it's played out amazingly well.  But, really, in the realm of sci-fi I'm hoping that BG is the shape of things to come.  :)
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on July 13, 2009, 10:44:51 pm
I was actually pleasantly surprised by Lightning and the dude with the Chocobo chick (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/Day_old_chick_white_background.jpg) nesting in his afro, but I'm still writing off FFXIII for its apparently vapid gameplay and over-reliance on special effects. I feel like, if I bought a PS3 just for that, I'd be walking into the theaters to see The Phantom Menace all over again. Why did Square ditch near-perfection in its battle systems after Xenogears? A few tweaks to that, and...agh, boggles the mind, IMHO. If FFXIII has an interesting scenario and the kind of triple-A character development a high-budget RPG should have, it might draw me back in.

One of the more interesting videogame heroines I've seen lately is Resident Evil 5's Sheva. (http://checkyourhud.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/sheva.jpg) Her attire is probably appropriate to the African locale in which she's slaying zombies (though I cluck my tongue at a game mode that lets the player play as her nearly nude...although under the presumption that it's "tribal wear," but it still seems to cater to the typical geek's interests just as much as Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball). Too bad she had to take a backseat to the bulky, white, player's-been-through-this-in-a-hundred-other-games-since-the-NES-days Chris Redfield storyline-wise.


EDIT: Truth, I very much agree with you with regard to Tifa. I thought she'd just be "the big-busted, short-skirt-wearing hot chick" at first, but she turned out to be extremely deep psychologically, and it's amazing how much stress she put up with from Cloud. One could say Tifa's is a "stand by your man" story that's sexist on some level in its own right, but she's still my fave female character bar none, I'm pretty sure. Truly someone both men and women can look up to.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 13, 2009, 11:00:17 pm
I got off on a rant about Square-Enix, but I think Scott Ramsoomair captured the general idea of women in Nintendo games.

(http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l242/Truthordeal/080211.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Uboa on July 13, 2009, 11:25:04 pm
Quote from: Uboa
Third, removing the burden of carrying a child and the pain of childbirth seems to remove a great deal of the sense of gravity of bringing a child into the world.  Also, the "baby pod" issue that keeps rearing its head here is somewhat misguided in that it's part of a movements towards absolute equality between the sexes.

I think there's a line that could be drawn between social equality and experiential equality as well. Social equality being, "woman who isn't pregnant gets same pay for given work as man who isn't pregnant"; experiential equality being, "woman never gets pregnant thanks to baby pods, so there's no need for maternity leave and thus there's absolutely no market rationale for valuing her less as a worker." I don't agree with the obviously sexist mommy track market rationale, but I've heard men express that as a supposedly viable business reason for why women might be turned down for certain jobs or else paid less than their male or even transgender counterparts. I think that's the major reason why I tend to go gung-ho on experiential equality; I'm not completely confident that social equality can be achieved in its absence. I dearly hope that I am mistaken.

Is it bad for me to say I hope you're mistaken as well?   :P

In line with the market rationale, I don't think that it is entirely a bad thing.  I'm essentially a socialist for the reason that I want to minimize the market rationale for as much as possible for many peoples' personal situations, but I think that there's something to be said for the incentive to have a large support network for a child who will be born.  Be that a working husband or wife, community support, church support, la leche league, or anything else.   

Quote
I still like the idea of birth pods though. When we develop this technology (it has to happen eventually, just like landing on the Moon), I wonder if it will catch on like wildfire or if women will stick to the natural way more often than not?

I really wish I could say I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but I see a lot of troubling issues with birth pods, just from a developmental perspective.  Like infant formula will never provide all of the same benefits as human breast milk (and infants born in pods will likely be formula fed as well), I don't see how these pods could provide the most suitable environment for a developing infant.  I have this tinfoil hat theory that the recent rise in autism is due in part to a rise in working mothers and thus a rise in formula feeding and decrease in beneficial attention.  I guess my thinking is that women are already becoming closer in experiential parenting to men, and it's not working out too well.  Just my thinking, but I do wonder.

Quote
Uboa, I imagine there's a number of Compendiumites who are undercover women, non-Westerners, etc. First rule of the Internet is that the only thing one knows about a person is what he or she posts, and they should be judged by the quality of their content and nothing else. That's the way I think of it anyway, and in that way there's a certain amount of empowerment to "the mask." Perhaps the Internet is the one place where humanity can gather free of ingrained prejudice...uh, with the exception of those skinhead sites that news channels like to flash around from time to time.

I've been to forums that are "havens" for people who think a certain way and often have their points of view mocked on other forums.  I was actually denied re-registering on an ethical vegan forum because I became too involved in the "vegan for health reasons" culture, and my request to be let in mirrored that.  When I did post there, I do remember it being a place where ethical vegans could really let out their frustrations with mainstream culture where people usually don't think twice about using products which inherently involve animal suffering in their production.  While my sentiments still mirror theirs, I guess my route to dealing with it didn't so much, and I respect their decision in requesting that I post elsewhere.  Ethical vegans and vegans in general, now that I think about it, are one group that is often mocked on the internet.  (Thanks PETA. :()

(I did say in one post on here that I had been eating a bit of meat for health reasons... Well, I figured out that hemp protein worked just as well for me, so I switched to that.  So, vegan again.  Woo.)
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on July 13, 2009, 11:25:36 pm
Truth, what I meant to say that the video game industry could potentially see an increase in sales in they would actually market better. I didn't say that bad sales were a reflection of poor marketing.

Lord J, that is a very interesting analysis. I always thought of Chrono Trigger as a more progressive game in terms of gender and sexism. This was because , like you mentioned, an unheard of FEMALE character was the strongest physically in the game. I though that was very interesting and more games should follow CT's stead. As for Lucca and Marle having poor attack stats, I too noticed that it's very common in games for female characters to suffer from this and thought it was basically the norm. Things like non playable characters never really crossed my mind. It kind of sucks that the most interesting female non playable character in the game was a walking stereotype. There are a lot of Schalas out there in the Japanese entertainment industry.

FF12 actually had one of my favorite female characters- Fran. She was really awesome and her English VA was so good. I'm excited for FF13. I think it has the potential to be a really good game.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: skylark on July 13, 2009, 11:29:32 pm
Schala would be the next worst instance of sexism in the game. She was written in a sterotype that is quite popular in Japan and also fairly popular here: the pure of heart, suffering female. She seems like a person whose spirit has been completely broken; she never acts on her own behalf and has no obvious sense of self-worth. This goes beyond kindness and mere altruism; it's revolting. There are moments in the game when I just want to kick her; then I realize that she was written this way by male scenario writers, and want to kick them instead.

And it's obvious Kato isn't going to (or planning to) change that anytime soon, though some could say Kid was an attempt. (I say it's a cop-out.)

The problem with changing those stereotypes is that it's possible to change the character too much. At least with things such as fanfiction *cough*shameless plug*cough*, there are those who would be willing to give it a shot, myself included. Same goes for any character really. (Was just using Schala as an example... because... ummm... Hey, is that a bird?)

(I just hope I managed to incorperate that into my synopsis. Hopefully, I'll get a reply from FW soon.)
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Uboa on July 13, 2009, 11:36:25 pm
Schala would be the next worst instance of sexism in the game. She was written in a sterotype that is quite popular in Japan and also fairly popular here: the pure of heart, suffering female. She seems like a person whose spirit has been completely broken; she never acts on her own behalf and has no obvious sense of self-worth. This goes beyond kindness and mere altruism; it's revolting. There are moments in the game when I just want to kick her; then I realize that she was written this way by male scenario writers, and want to kick them instead.

I think they turned this around quite well when her dark side was allowed to come out in the end of CT DS.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on July 13, 2009, 11:40:50 pm
I always thought Schala was awesome just because she had blue hair.

<.<
>.>

That, and she has this completely awesome name. Had she just been "Sara," she wouldn't have had half the mystique Woolsey gave her. But it's most definitely tempting for the cross-cultural fanfic author/scenario designer to be revisionist with Schala. She did have the guts to "turn [her] back on that evil device," so she may have an inner ninja yet!

Speaking of which skylark, it'll be awhile because I'm just hugely backed up with projects, but I'll be interested to examine your synopsis from this standpoint.

Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: skylark on July 13, 2009, 11:42:07 pm
I think they turned this around quite well when her dark side was allowed to come out in the end of CT DS.

Yeah, but it's still sort of the whole 'my suffering, why me' mentality. As much as she was (and still is) my favorite character, even I can see how flawed she is.

I agree though, that it was a nice touch regardless.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Uboa on July 13, 2009, 11:46:07 pm
I think they turned this around quite well when her dark side was allowed to come out in the end of CT DS.

Yeah, but it's still sort of the whole 'my suffering, why me' mentality. As much as she was (and still is) my favorite character, even I can see how flawed she is.

It's a realistic portrayal.  She acted strong and properly for so long in the face of all of this madness going on around her.  I can definitely see how she would harbor selfish and destructive tendencies underneath it all.  Heh, I loved it.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 13, 2009, 11:52:53 pm
Lord J, personally, I don't see these tropes as sexist either way. I do tend to use women less in RPGs because they have low attack power, and yes that is annoying as sin, but its hardly sexist.

Its like the stories we heard as children: "A long time ago a knight saved a princess from a dragon and they lived happily ever after." It's not sexist. It can be boring, but its not subjugating women to enjoy that traditional yarn.

Kato knows how to tell a story is all. If you're on this site, you obviously think its entertaining. And at least in this story the princess helped the hero kick the dragon's ass instead of sitting back like a helpless damsel.

As for Schala, well... http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YamatoNadeshiko (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YamatoNadeshiko), http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ShrinkingViolet (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ShrinkingViolet), http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ShyBlueHairedGirl (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ShyBlueHairedGirl).

*shrugs* Its Japan. Their attitude towards women isn't what I would call progressive.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on July 13, 2009, 11:54:23 pm
Schala would be the next worst instance of sexism in the game. She was written in a sterotype that is quite popular in Japan and also fairly popular here: the pure of heart, suffering female. She seems like a person whose spirit has been completely broken; she never acts on her own behalf and has no obvious sense of self-worth. This goes beyond kindness and mere altruism; it's revolting. There are moments in the game when I just want to kick her; then I realize that she was written this way by male scenario writers, and want to kick them instead.

Kid kicked their asses to the "moons" in Chrono Cross! The things you mentioned about Schala are why she's one of my least favorite characters in the series. Now Queen Zeal, there's someone interesting...
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Uboa on July 14, 2009, 12:08:34 am
Kid kicked their asses to the "moons" in Chrono Cross! The things you mentioned about Schala are why she's one of my least favorite characters in the series. Now Queen Zeal, there's someone interesting...

Too bad we never get to see her childhood...  Who in the real world could we compare her to in order to speculate about it?  

Why is Sarah Palin the first person who comes to my mind?  Doesn't even really fit, but it's kind of funny to think about.

Edit:  Maybe it does fit...
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 14, 2009, 12:15:08 am
Uboa, I'm going to take a stab here, put myself into fanboy mode and say that Schala's childhood probably wasn't all that happy. No I cannot prove this, as its mere speculation. Judging by how her mother acted during the course of the game, plus Janus refusing to call Zeal as mother, I'm assuming that there was some abusive behavior going on there.

It is possible that Kato didn't mean for Schala to be the Shrinking Violet trope, rather than just having an inferiority complex brought on by her mother.

And now, I remove myself from fanboy mode.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Uboa on July 14, 2009, 12:23:03 am
I'm totally on board for Schala's childhood being utter hell, and with the inferiority complex speculation.  Mix that with trying to play mother to her brother and you've got a fascinating emotional concoction that just brims with insanity.  I wish that her madness could have been played out a bit more in the end of CT DS.  She probably would have ended up much crazier than Janus.

Edit:  Alright so I was in fan mode here, too.  Maybe I shouldn't be so apologetic.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: skylark on July 14, 2009, 12:24:20 am
To Truthordeal - No, it's Japan. I'm sure Kato made it intentional.

And the worst part is that Schala has no 'best friend or lover' for her to put her faith into. (And one can argue that Schala and Kid merge, so it's all moot.)

It just doesn't seem fair to me, that's all, cause I can really relate to her at points.

*looks back at the train tracks... and finds the train has crashed into the station*

O_O

Man, did I derail this sucker or what? :lol:
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Uboa on July 14, 2009, 12:26:24 am
I don't think you derailed it at all.  This is all pretty in line with the topic at hand.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 14, 2009, 12:37:23 am
Wouldn't Schala's relying on a male character to inspire her be more sexist? Personally, I don't think so as its a love story trope, and that Magus seems to rely on her heavily for moral support as children and even in the new ending of CT:DS.

But if I didn't say it, someone would have and they probably wouldn't have been as nice about it.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on July 14, 2009, 12:51:00 am
And the worst part is that Schala has no 'best friend or lover' for her to put her faith into.

That would have been even worse, in my opinion. But Truthordeal beat me to it.

For the record, though, I like Schala. I think she's one of the most interesting characters in the game, and she definitely has loads of potential. She is, after all, the center of countless fanfics, and she did, indeed, go on to star in the next two Chrono games (albeit with blonder hair). I just don't like the almost sadistic totality of the writers' commitment to making her suffer. Indeed, in Chrono Cross they came up with something even worse for her than watching her family go mad and her world get destroyed: they fused her for thirteen thousand years to the most angst-ridden being in the galaxy.

Jeez, writers!

Edit: It's not the suffering per se that's so disturbing (although it is disturbing): It's the connections we're supposed draw between the magnitude of her suffering and the quality of her spirit.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Uboa on July 14, 2009, 12:54:30 am
Edit: It's not the suffering per se that's so disturbing (although it is disturbing): It's the connections we're supposed draw between the magnitude of her suffering and the quality of her spirit.

Out of apologetic fan mode, I can agree with this 100%.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 14, 2009, 01:08:49 am
Well, I'm glad that the people here are reasonable enough to not fall into the dangerous trap of declaring any woman that acts passively or in the traditional sense of femininity as a sexist depiction. The fact is with CT you get three strong women archetypes as PCs in the form of Marle, Lucca and (especially) Ayla, and then you have Schala who is more...for lack of a better word, submissive, to round it out. Hell, you can even go so far as to say that surviving her own ordeals makes Schala much stronger than the other three, despite never fighting, herself.

And as I've said before, the "girl relying on her boyfriend" trope isn't inherently sexist, as the main idea is probably romantic and the opposite happens quite frequently too.

Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on July 14, 2009, 01:12:11 am
Quote
Quote from: skylark on Yesterday at 11:24:20 pm
And the worst part is that Schala has no 'best friend or lover' for her to put her faith into.

That would have been even worse, in my opinion. But Truthordeal beat me to it.

Is it the mere circumstance of Schala having a lover or super-best friend that would make it sexist, or rather great emotional dependence on said lover/superfriend that would make it sexist? I imagine it's the latter truth and J were referring to, but I'm interested in clarification on what's being insinuated.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Uboa on July 14, 2009, 01:16:10 am
Well, I'm glad that the people here are reasonable enough to not fall into the dangerous trap of declaring any woman that acts passively or in the traditional sense of femininity as a sexist depiction. The fact is with CT you get three strong women archetypes as PCs in the form of Marle, Lucca and (especially) Ayla, and then you have Schala who is more...for lack of a better word, submissive, to round it out. Hell, you can even go so far as to say that surviving her own ordeals makes Schala much stronger than the other three, despite never fighting, herself.

And as I've said before, the "girl relying on her boyfriend" trope isn't inherently sexist, as the main idea is probably romantic and the opposite happens quite frequently too.

WRT Marle, Lucca, and Ayla, all I can say is that I wonder about the realism of their represented archetypes.  Likewise with the male characters.  Of course, we're analyzing a 90's videogame, so realism was probably not front and center in development.  

WRT Ayla in particular, I doubt you'll find too many tribal cultures with an Ayla running around.  She was a funny character, but definitely not my favorite female for that reason among others.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on July 14, 2009, 01:17:11 am
You, you've got the idea, Faust. Look at how badly they handled Celes' relationship with Locke. That could have been done so much better. As it is, it came off like a classified ad in the paper: Woman: In need of Man

At least Schala wasn't constantly melting for some guy. In fact, the only needy-needy in the game was Magus.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 14, 2009, 01:19:32 am
But Magus is cool and a man so its ok. In fact, it shows how non-sexist Kato is because the evil guy is so super sensitive as to care for his sister to such a degree.

I was about half sarcastic in that rant.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on July 14, 2009, 01:23:31 am
But Magus is cool and a man so its ok. In fact, it shows how non-sexist Kato is because the evil guy is so super sensitive as to care for his sister to such a degree.

I was about half sarcastic in that rant.

It's not that certain behaviors are inherently sexist (although some are). It's that, oftentimes, the thinking by which such behaviors are written is sexist. This usually comes through in the subtext, where emotionally needy women are revealed to be caricatures more than characters.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Uboa on July 14, 2009, 01:25:01 am
Thank you!  I was trying to figure out the best way to articulate that point. 
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 14, 2009, 01:30:08 am
Given her (possible) past, and (known) future, I think Schala's neediness(wait...was she?) or inferiority complex are completely justified.

But, I suppose that's what you were getting at earlier. I just needed to fully explain that point, roundabout though my method was.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Uboa on July 14, 2009, 01:32:17 am
Given her (possible) past, and (known) future, I think Schala's neediness(wait...was she?) or inferiority complex are completely justified.

But, I suppose that's what you were getting at earlier. I just needed to fully explain that point, roundabout though my method was.

Right, and I agree that it's not necessary that she would have been needy after everything she went through.  Just insane in one way or another.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on July 14, 2009, 01:35:39 am
Uboa: Off-topic, but by any chance is your user avatar a picture of No Face from Spirited Away? And, is your username connected with the avatar picture in any way?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 14, 2009, 01:36:39 am
It looked like that meme owl to me.

Edit: The Orly Owl, that's it.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on July 14, 2009, 01:40:17 am
Quote from: Lord J
Look at how badly they handled Celes' relationship with Locke. That could have been done so much better. As it is, it came off like a classified ad in the paper: Woman: In need of Man
But...but she's a GENERAL, not some opera floozy!

But I'll take a look at the script of FFVI now that I found it on teh google, I'm really interested. Did you have a particular weakly-written scene in mind that seemed to lean on common stereotypes J, or did you just get that impression overall? As I recall, Krispin had a high opinion of Celes; I'd be interested to hear his take on the character now that she's been brought into question. I don't remember enough to argue either way, but I did think it was cool how she...hunted for fish for Cid after the world blew up...? I seem to remember something about that, and getting my arse handed to me by zombie dragons during that part of the game.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: skylark on July 14, 2009, 01:41:23 am
Wow, I did not mean to sound sexist when I wrote that. O_O

What I meant is that she doesn't really have anybody - she's all alone, technically.

I don't think anybody should be by themselves. It's a horrible feeling. I know.

If it's a friend, lover, pet, anything (within reason, that is), I guess with someone supportive around you , life is always at least a little more bearable. At least that's my stance.

That's all I meant by it.

Of course, if the matter's been cleared, then nevermind. :p
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Uboa on July 14, 2009, 01:45:56 am
In reply to Lord J:
Uboa is actually a "character" from the indie game Yume Nikki.  It's a pretty obscure game with an even more obscure plot and a depressing but fitting ending.  Uboa, is a kind of genderless and terrifying ghost that appears suddenly in place of one of the other "characters", leaving open a wide field of speculation on the connection between the two of them.  Of course all of Yume Nikki's "plot" is pretty much speculation. :)
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on July 14, 2009, 02:09:36 am
Quote from: Lord J
Look at how badly they handled Celes' relationship with Locke. That could have been done so much better. As it is, it came off like a classified ad in the paper: Woman: In need of Man
But...but she's a GENERAL, not some opera floozy!

But I'll take a look at the script of FFVI now that I found it on teh google, I'm really interested. Did you have a particular weakly-written scene in mind that seemed to lean on common stereotypes J, or did you just get that impression overall? As I recall, Krispin had a high opinion of Celes; I'd be interested to hear his take on the character now that she's been brought into question. I don't remember enough to argue either way, but I did think it was cool how she...hunted for fish for Cid after the world blew up...? I seem to remember something about that, and getting my arse handed to me by zombie dragons during that part of the game.

Don't get me wrong: Celes is my favorite video game character of all time, which is really saying something. Just thinking about my last sentence, my left hand found its way over my piano, and all of a sudden Celes' theme came out. I'd never played it before...I don't even like Celes' theme. But as far as characters go, she made enough of an impression on me that I would do spontaneous stuff like that even at the mention of her.

Anyhow, to answer your new question: It really is a sign of the progress we've made that you didn't immediately and clearly understand what I meant. Your confusion deserves a fuller reply than I could write tonight, so I'll let it go for now. Perhaps somebody else will cover it for me. If not, and if my schedule permits, I'll write about it in the near future.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 14, 2009, 02:28:11 am
My guess is how devoted she was to Locke, to the point where she jumped off a cliff to try to kill herself, and then gave that up when she saw a bird wrapped in his bandanna(or at least a bandanna that looked like his). At the beginning of the World of Ruin half of the game she does seem a little...shall we say, desperate, to find him. Not to mention Locke always swearing to protect her.

Or maybe it has to do with Locke seemingly using her to replace his late fiancee Rachel, even as he finds a way to bring her back from the death?

I can only assume what your getting at. None of that really seems inherently sexist to me, so much as its the makings for a great romance, which easily became probably one of my favorite subplots of FF6.

But of course, Lord J can eloquate his own thoughts much better than I can.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on July 14, 2009, 11:36:53 am
I'm slightly surprised that Samus hasn't had more of a discussion. Sure, she's not a SE character, but she's an odd case that seems worthy of at least a few comments.

On one hand, she is a wonderful example of female excellence: she'll save the day, rescue the princess (well, baby/giant metroid thingy), and break the awesomeness scale while doing it.

But on the other hand, she's still often depicted as a stereotype. In order to survive in a man's world, she's had to lose most traces of being a woman. She's an awesome character who happens to be female, not an awesome female character. Though, to be fair, the games don't give her much character development. And let's not even talk about the bikini shots that are traditional for beating the games under certain time limits.

FF1-The only female PC was White Mage...

Negatory, good buddy. White Mage was male (at least in the original).

4 had Rosa, who played the generic Damsel in Distress for practically the entire game, while Rydia's summons were ok, but generally came back to bite you if you used them too much, as most summons do.

Rydia's character really deserves more credit. She had a crappy childhood but wasn't waiting around for some man to save her, she was busting heads and callin' monsters. At the time, that was pretty kick ass for a woman's role in a game. Take THAT, Princess Toadstool!

10 involved Yuna(summoner) and Lulu(black magic woman), both of whom I honestly could not stand. Plus there's the fact that the entire damn game was basically a romance novel produced by Square Enix. Worse thing to tarnish my PS2.

Bah, FFX is one of my favorites due to its delicious level system (the sphere grid) and the return of unique character roles. Lulu's look was totally designed to be a boy's wetdream (most sexist victory pose ever), but she had a strong personality and tended not to take crap from anyone (Auron was really the only one she'd defer to). He BF died, but she carried on. Her charge died, but she carried on. Sure, she could have used more character development, and a redesigned character model, but she was a surprisingly strong character. Possibly because she was the black magic user, and those tend to be harsher individuals.

As for Yuna, while she shared a lot of Schala's self-sacrificing nature, she was still very head strong and independent. I'm particularly reminded of her decision to marry Seymour being leverage to getting him to confess; she was turning the stereotypical female role upside down and she used it to dominate, rather than be dominated. Then later she goes through a marriage ceremony to get the chance to re-kill Seymour. And she was the one who made the final decision not to get the final aeon and find another way to defeat sin: Spira's history did a 180 based on her. In a male-dominated society, she was challenging the power structures. Not even Auron could keep her in check when she made up her mind.

There are a lot of interesting female leads in different final fantasy games, and in their other franchises as well.

It aught be noted that, in general, having a lead role doesn't mean it's not a sexist role. It just generally means that there is more screen time for that role to develop, sexist or otherwise.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Zephira on July 14, 2009, 02:23:38 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090714/lf_nm_life/us_couples (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090714/lf_nm_life/us_couples)
I just saw this on Yahoo! news and thought it was interesting. According to that study, only the employment status of the husband affects the longevity of marriage, and it doesn't matter whether or not the wife is employed. I'm curious, is this because most men don't care about job status, or because most women are pushing that man-must-be-the-breadwinner stereotype?

And about Samus: The first time I played Super Metroid, I thought she was a man named Metroid. At that age, if the character had a gun, ship, or other big weapon, I expected it to be a guy. (Though honestly, Metroid is a much cooler name than Samus  :lol:)
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 14, 2009, 03:15:10 pm
Let's try to not be too hard on them, Zephira. I honestly wouldn't want a deadbeat for a spouse either.

Now, hypothetically, if my wife wanted to be a stay-at-home mom, do house work and be there for our children during the day, I certainly wouldn't mind. That'll probably provide a much healthier family life for the children themselves. The second income would be missed, sure, but love is more important than a supplementary income, a lesson many couples could learn from today.

In the traditional stance, yes, the male is usually expected to be the one to bring the bacon home, while the female is the one that fries it. Its more acceptable for a woman to be the one that stays at home and watches the children than a man. I suppose as long as the woman chooses to be the housewife rather than have a career, its ok. That sentiment appeals a lot to some women.

But, if you are going to be a housewife, please get a marketable skill. If there's one thing that the "Men are Terrible and Will Hurt You Because This is Lifetime" channel has taught me, its that your husband will abandon you and the kids, run off to Maine and you'll lose everything and have to rely on your female friends.

Sarcasm is so underrated. Haha.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on July 14, 2009, 03:49:37 pm
In the traditional stance, yes, the male is usually expected to be the one to bring the bacon home, while the female is the one that fries it.

Sorry, I failed my save check vs history rant:

That is about as traditional as white wedding dresses (which is to say, it is totally not traditional). Before the rise of the middle class, it was expected that women would work outside of the home. Course, it was expected that children would work outside of the home... and of course, pre-industrial revolution it was expected that everyone would work inside the home, except for harvest times, when everyone would work outside the home. Anywho, point being, the wife being unemployed bit is largely a modern invention that originated as an economic status indicator.

That sentiment appeals a lot to some women.

Meh, that sentiment appeals to me, and I'm not a woman (at least last time I checked; I'll let you know if I go all Kafka on y'all). Maybe that's why I married someone who will almost assuredly always make more money than me (people tend to pay scientists since they contribute to society. Historians, not so much).
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 14, 2009, 04:15:25 pm
Remember Betty Friedan and the Feminine Mystique who argued that women that stayed at home were crushing their souls and feminism. There is some truth to that, and I can see how a stay at home mom can feel that way.

But, then again, Friedan was what you would refer to as a Feminazi, and very against women choosing their roles in society inasmuch as every woman dedicating themselves to feminism and supporting an absolutely equal society between men and women, even though her vision implied oppressing men.

So, yeah...I don't know what I was trying to prove there...

Oh yeah, housekeeping is not necessarily a beloved career choice among some of the more diehard feminists.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Zephira on July 14, 2009, 04:32:17 pm
To be honest, housekeeping and cleaning is not that fun at all. Being a stay at home mom sounds glamorous, but if it involves long hours of cleaning, dirty diapers, the smell of detergent and pine sol, I'd rather go out and get a real job.
Not saying I won't clean my own home, but it's not something I'd dedicate my life to.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 14, 2009, 04:53:43 pm
That's the point, Zephira. But that appeals to some women, and if they're doing something that makes them happy and feel fulfilled, then God speed to them. Feminism be damned if it gets in the way of their individual happiness.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on July 14, 2009, 05:28:22 pm
That's the point, Zephira. But that appeals to some women, and if they're doing something that makes them happy and feel fulfilled, then God speed to them. Feminism be damned if it gets in the way of their individual happiness.

You have a skewed idea of feminists if you think they're out to force women to do what they feel is right. As a woman growing in America today, it's a social risk to declare to yourself that you're not going to ever do housekeeping or things like that. Many men expect you to (and expect themselves to the breadwinners while also having pressure to be achievers and not be seen as "whipped" or soft as a stay-at-home parent), which limits your dating pool, and even many women who accepted sexist convention in their lives will frown upon your career-woman path. There are social and cultural attitudes that make it more difficult for women to take a career path outside of the home, and those are what feminists are fighting. We have not yet reached equality. The point you're trying to make comes right out of Rush Limbaugh's playbook for "feminazis".
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 14, 2009, 06:51:40 pm
If having a career is so detrimental to the dating pool, then why do most families have two incomes nowadays?

And if you don't believe that feminazis, not to be mistaken for feminists, don't try to capitalize on feminism over free choice, then you're equally as ignorant as what you painted me out to be.

Consider Linda Hirshman, a gal who got on 60 Minutes on a special about well educated women deciding to be housewives rather than corporate powerhouses. More or less, she decided that since she was a philosophy professor, as well as a card carrying member of the feminist movement, she should criticize these women for choosing for themselves rather than following in some extremist feminine dogma.

That's what I meant by feminazis, and there are plenty of them out there. Just as you use the Pope to ridicule religion, I use the heads of these organizations to ridicule that form of extreme feminism.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Mr Bekkler on July 14, 2009, 06:58:24 pm
Yeah, but you did say Feminism be damned if it gets in the way of their individual happiness.

The whole point of feminism is to achieve individual happiness.

If it gets in the way, it's not feminism. It's just somebody being a bitch. And that goes for both genders.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on July 14, 2009, 07:00:33 pm
If having a career is so detrimental to the dating pool, then why do most families have two incomes nowadays?

Come on now, give the mental effort necessary to differentiate the jobs. Women traditionally held secretarial or minor labor work, while men became businessmen, bankers, engineers, etc. on actual high-paying career paths.

Quote
And if you don't believe that feminazis, not to be mistaken for feminists, don't try to capitalize on feminism over free choice, then you're equally as ignorant as what you painted me out to be.

I believe you don't know the difference between feminists and feminazis, and I'm not surprised, given that a few days ago you still believed that there is no oppression of women in America.

Quote
That's what I meant by feminazis, and there are plenty of them out there. Just as you use the Pope to ridicule religion, I use the heads of these organizations to ridicule that form of extreme feminism.

Except religion is a) founded upon an irrational premise and b) a case of actual support from congregation right up to leadership. Mormons pay tithing to the church and First Presidency. Catholics give collections to the church and Pope. Same with Anglicans. Evangelicals make donations and their own fundraising. And religious people in general defend the actions and views of their leaders. These are all connected, versus individual idealists with a couple crazies in the mix.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 14, 2009, 07:17:33 pm
There is no oppression of women in America. That word is overused as it is. The only people you can make a case for as being oppressed are the consumers, against the government and corporations that don't have their interests at heart. Even then I don't believe the word "oppressed" is justified.

I'm not stupid here, there is discrimination. There's discrimination of everyone though, so either we're all oppressed or none of us are. Women can become CEO's, bankers, etc. Hell, one almost became President, and vice president in that order. There's nothing stopping them besides their own attitudes and ambitions or lackthereof.

If you want to talk about society, well, there's nothing you or I can do about that without reducing America to some morbid Orwellian state, which is far worse than what we have now, because then no one's ambitions are worth it.

And its surprising that you're able to pick out the "individuals and crazies" in feminism but not in religion. In the same way that you relate Christians with their church, I might relate feminists to NOW and other organizations, which are headed by people far more ideological than the Pope is.

Maybe social equality doesn't exist yet. But women are not being oppressed by anyone except themselves.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Mr Bekkler on July 14, 2009, 07:29:36 pm
Wow. Just wow. You are wrong. You're very wrong. It would take hours to get you to understand all the reasons, and I'm too busy at the moment to detail them. But wow. I disagree with you, Tordeal.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 14, 2009, 07:36:32 pm
(http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l242/Truthordeal/Magus-PonderFront.gif)

Nope, you're wrong Mr. Bekkler. I don't know how, since you won't tell me how I'm wrong, but you're wrong.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on July 14, 2009, 08:32:55 pm
Alright guys, let's just take into account what "oppression" actually means.

Dictionary Definition..

op⋅pres⋅sion
  /əˈprɛʃən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [uh-presh-uhn] Show IPA
Use oppression in a Sentence
–noun
1.    the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner.
2.    an act or instance of oppressing.
3.    the state of being oppressed.
4.    the feeling of being heavily burdened, mentally or physically, by troubles, adverse conditions, anxiety, etc.

Synonyms:
1. tyranny, despotism, persecution. 3, 4. hardship, suffering.

Does that describe the position of women in America? As a woman, I don't feel oppressed in this country. I don't even really feel discriminated against. I do know of facts and statures and all the talk about the glass ceiling to understand that some women do feel discriminated against. However, taking into account the etymology of the word "oppression", I would not argue that women are oppressed in this country.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on July 14, 2009, 08:34:54 pm
There is no oppression of women in America.



(http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/776/doublefacepalm.png)
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Samopoznanie on July 14, 2009, 08:50:21 pm
Alright guys, let's just take into account what "oppression" actually means.
The verb escapes me at the moment, but in my second-year Russian class. we learned an older, lesser used term for "To Oppress". It's conjugation was unique, as it had no past tense -- because as my teacher put it, "In Russia, oppression never ends!"  :lol:
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Uboa on July 14, 2009, 09:48:16 pm
There is no oppression of women in America.

I wish I could believe that, and I also wish I could believe there is no more racial oppression in America.  Ideally, both should not exist anymore.  But, that just isn't the case. 

I'm thankful that I've never been overtly discriminated against because of my race or gender, but I know that there are many, many others who have not been so lucky in this country.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: skylark on July 14, 2009, 10:01:27 pm
There is no oppression of women in America.

.........

..........

...........

No. Just... no. :picardno
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 14, 2009, 10:17:06 pm
Should have known better, probably. I'm not altering my stance, though. If you want to see oppression of women, look to China, Japan, Russia, Eastern Europe, most of Africa, parts of South America or the Middle East.

As I said before, the word oppression is far overused. In fact, in being one of the few religious, libertarian people on a board of mostly statist atheists, I should be considered oppressed.

Of course I'm being sarcastic, because both notions are insane.

And I have yet to hear from anyone on this topic, except Zeality, who's so far out there that I pretty much tune him out at this point, how women are oppressed. Most of the people who disagree with me can't seem to be bothered to explain this. Instead all I get is the "Wow, you're wrong," or the "No, just no" arguments, which don't really mean anything other than you don't respect dissent enough to try to defend your own arguments.

(http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l242/Truthordeal/Magus-PonderFront.gif)

And look, I can facepalm y'alls fail too.

Does that describe the position of women in America? As a woman, I don't feel oppressed in this country. I don't even really feel discriminated against. I do know of facts and statures and all the talk about the glass ceiling to understand that some women do feel discriminated against. However, taking into account the etymology of the word "oppression", I would not argue that women are oppressed in this country.

Italicized for emphasis and win.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Uboa on July 14, 2009, 10:29:37 pm
Should have known better, probably. I'm not altering my stance, though. If you want to see oppression of women, look to China, Japan, Russia, Eastern Europe, most of Africa, parts of South America or the Middle East.

As I said before, the word oppression is far overused. In fact, in being one of the few religious, libertarian people on a board of mostly statist atheists, I should be considered oppressed.

Of course I'm being sarcastic, because both notions are insane.

And I have yet to hear from anyone on this topic, except Zeality, who's so far out there that I pretty much tune him out at this point, how women are oppressed. Most of the people who disagree with me can't seem to be bothered to explain this. Instead all I get is the "Wow, you're wrong," or the "No, just no" arguments, which don't really mean anything other than you don't respect dissent enough to try to defend your own arguments.

(http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l242/Truthordeal/Magus-PonderFront.gif)

And look, I can facepalm y'alls fail too.

Does that describe the position of women in America? As a woman, I don't feel oppressed in this country. I don't even really feel discriminated against. I do know of facts and statures and all the talk about the glass ceiling to understand that some women do feel discriminated against. However, taking into account the etymology of the word "oppression", I would not argue that women are oppressed in this country.

Italicized for emphasis and win.

I don't understand why the burden of proof rests with the people who can realistically expect that in a country as large and diverse as the US, there will be some regions where female and/or minority oppression is still commonplace.  (Yes, real oppression.)

In other parts of the world oppression may be far more commonplace, but that does not mean that it does not exist in this country.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 14, 2009, 10:41:58 pm
Uboa, the burden of proof lies with the accuser. Always.

And, once again, no one has provided me with any evidence of oppression. I've already defended my point of view, seeing as how women can become anything that men can, even President, Vice President and Supreme Court Justice.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on July 14, 2009, 10:56:22 pm
You mooks! Have I taught you nothing? Is nobody else going to put this wretched Truthordeal in his place? Do I have to do everything myself? I can only be in so many places at once, you know!!

Truthordeal: We're not shaking our heads at you because we've been struck dumb by your wisdom and logic. We're shaking our heads at you because your position is so far off the deep end that it's daunting to even begin to set you straight. Given that your posture seems to be that of a person who is more interested in convincing himself than in anyone else, we would have a great deal of work to do even to get to the point where you're actually listening to us seriously. I don't know that it would be worth the effort! Honestly, if you believe that there's no sexist oppression in this country, then you're not going to be a part of the solution anyway. Here's my suggestion: Keep your lazy ass out of the way of the people who are working hard for social justice in this country, and you can live out your life in blissful ignorance.

Get in our way, and you're mulch.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 14, 2009, 11:11:44 pm
Social justice? Hah.

Lord J, I thought better of you. You usually provide some insight, but for whatever reason you can't spare any at this point.

If my view is so far off the deep end, then why is it that Zaichi, a woman, statist and feminist agrees with me calling your rhetorical use of the word oppression as the bullshit crap that it is? You throw around the word like a groom at a Jewish wedding, not even realizing the consequences that that word implies. To say that women are oppressed shows a true lack of perspective.

And the fact that none of you can seem to bring any substance to this debate just proves my point that you lack any sort of perspective on this cause.

Thus far, the only argument I've heard that was somewhat reasonable from the other side was Uboa. The rest of you played the "durrr, he's ignorant, durrr" card.

So, I'll tell you what, take your pot shots all you want. I'll come back after a topic change or if someone brings some substance to this debate.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Uboa on July 14, 2009, 11:15:58 pm
Uboa, the burden of proof lies with the accuser. Always.

I think that burden of proof lies with the one who makes the more outlandish claim.

Which of these two claims would you find more outlandish?
a.)  There is no female oppression in the United States.
b.)  There exist social structures oppressive to women in small scattered regions of the United States due to deep inset cultural paradigms.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Mr Bekkler on July 14, 2009, 11:19:52 pm
Exactly my point. It would take hours just to get you to understand that there is an opposing point of view, T Ordeal.

Uboa, the burden of proof lies with the accuser. Always.

And, once again, no one has provided me with any evidence of oppression. I've already defended my point of view, seeing as how women can become anything that men can, even President, Vice President and Supreme Court Justice.

When has a woman become president of the US?

I think I slept through that history lesson  :lol:

But seriously, there is oppression everywhere in the world. There is discrimination everywhere. One could even say the definition of life is to deal with said oppression. Everything everywhere wants you dead. Wild animals, natural disasters, other nations, people that don't know you, the list goes on. It's not just you, it's all of us. The small amount of things that don't want you dead are what make life important.

Evidence of oppression? Where did this topic start again? Oh yeah, with ABORTION. Something voted on back and forth and argued back and forth by white, rich, old men. When does the pregnant teenager get a say in what's legal? Or the rape victim? Or the woman with a hunched, clawed baby that wouldn't survive outside of the womb anyway?

They don't. Hence, oppression. Just because there's less here doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I'd like to quote a now-famous cartoon
Quote from: Boondocks
Abscence of evidence IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSCENCE.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on July 14, 2009, 11:23:40 pm
In light of Uboa's statement b., it might be useful to tease apart Western society at this point and identify where the current worst offenses are, and then determine the proper semantics for those instances. I'm apt to offer typical hiring practices, where stereotypes of sexual attractiveness play into the final decision more than skillset. Although, social connections are by far the greatest determinant in whether someone will land a job. I can see a deadly cocktail brewing -- man in powerful position finds woman a job, and expects something in return. This happens in politics from time to time, and I wonder how the recession will affect things.

It'd be great to get some anecdotes from our non-Western viewers too. Although the nature of what is "Western" could be subject to its own debate.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Mr Bekkler on July 14, 2009, 11:27:52 pm
Several jobs I've had, women have come in to apply and the first question the boss would ask after getting their application would be something like "Was she cute?" This happens with male and female bosses and tends to be more about the stereotype of only having attractive workers so that logically more customers will be attracted to your establishment. It is a blatantly prejudiced practice.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 14, 2009, 11:28:45 pm
Thank you, Mr. Bekkler. Jeez, was that so hard?

I said a woman can become President. After Barack is done, you'll see Hilary take another stab at it. Heck, in 2012, we'll probably see Sarah Palin go for an encore.

I think we should worry less over the discrimination here so much as the oppression world wide. Women's rights here have come an enormous way. There is some social grievance, I won't deny it. But to say it is oppressive is misleading.

Uh...perhaps you missed another history lesson...the one where abortion has been legal since the 1970s.  :lol: The merits of it are up for debate, but the practice isn't going anywhere. The fact that we allow it is proof enough that we're centuries ahead of other cultures in terms of women's rights. 

And thank God again for Faustwolf for bringing something up that I agree with. I don't call hiring practices "oppression" though, so much as discrimination. Its prejudiced, but its hardly oppression.

Now, please enlighten us heretics, what would the end result of this "social justice" look like?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Uboa on July 15, 2009, 12:01:42 am
I think we should worry less over the discrimination here so much as the oppression world wide. Women's rights here have come an enormous way. There is some social grievance, I won't deny it. But to say it is oppressive is misleading.

On the whole, yes.  It's just that, chances are if you can imagine any screwed up situation existing in the US right now, it probably does exist somewhere, and it's likely to be even worse than what you imagined.  (I read a book called Homicide:  A Year on the Killings Streets several month ago which took my faith in humanity down several notches.  It also broadened my imagination for conditions that exist in the underbelly of society.)

Quote
Now, please enlighten us heretics, what would the end result of this "social justice" look like?

Believe it or not I have no great vision of this.  I just get annoyed when people argue hyperbole as fact.

Edit:  Forum got really slow for me after I noticed I had a typo in my post... finally fixed it.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on July 15, 2009, 12:13:39 am
Ha, you know things are bad when almost everyone has thrown their hands up in disgust, and not even Daniel Krispin or Thought will oppose the secular side. Now that everyone knows the depth of his ignorance and has recognized the futility of arguing with this idiot box, the thread can probably be retired.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Mr Bekkler on July 15, 2009, 12:15:48 am
Thank you, Mr. Bekkler. Jeez, was that so hard?
No, but I never said it would be difficult, I said I didn't have time earlier. Read please.

Quote
Uh...perhaps you missed another history lesson...the one where abortion has been legal since the 1970s.
And who made that decision? Ah yes, I covered that already.

Quote
And thank God again for Faustwolf for bringing something up that I agree with. I don't call hiring practices "oppression" though, so much as discrimination. Its prejudiced, but its hardly oppression.
A little duck is still a duck. Discrimination is a specific, albeit smaller, form of oppression. Would you not say that those who have faced racial discrimination have not been oppressed? Perhaps you should check the dictionary.


Is that enough?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on July 15, 2009, 12:16:44 am
Quote from: Mr Bekkler
Several jobs I've had, women have come in to apply and the first question the boss would ask after getting their application would be something like "Was she cute?" This happens with male and female bosses and tends to be more about the stereotype of only having attractive workers so that logically more customers will be attracted to your establishment. It is a blatantly prejudiced practice.

It strikes me as a soft, stealthy kind of oppression, so it could be termed "suppression" maybe -- suppression of higher faculties in the applicant in favor of just striking at the primordial urges ingrained within the hirer. I think it's bound to hamper economic efficiency in the long run, whereas there could be considerable efficiency gains from less sexist hiring practices, and less socially-oriented hiring practices for that matter, that place greater emphasis on skillset and educational attainment.

Quote from: Truthordeal
I said a woman can become President. After Barack is done, you'll see Hilary take another stab at it. Heck, in 2012, we'll probably see Sarah Palin go for an encore.

Now that Truth brings it up, I was really surprised by the amount of support Hillary received from middle-aged men. In fact, I'd venture to say that middle-aged men were Hillary's most dependable block of supporters (in Ohio at least). Can't tell you how many times I came across these big-muscled, leather-jacketed, grizzly biker dudes who were just sooo pissed Hillary didn't clinch the nomination. It was really heartening from a feminist standpoint.

And on the flipside, we had Sarah Palin, whose greatest qualification was "dude, she's hot." But I also think the image of her shooting a high-powered rifle (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-6sIUODr0M) also made her briefly powerful and respected because it was something the conservative male hunter demographic, especially, could internalize and identify with. Once Governor Palin said she could see Russia from her balcony window it was all over because it dispelled the femme fatale archetype and replaced it with the airhead, but up to that point, there was an interesting dynamic in the media portrayal of Palin. She was kind of like this...conservative Zero Suit Samus, or a pro-life Lara Croft. Someone with beauty and power and conservative values all rolled up into one. I'm still trying to decide whether that historical moment was a fantastically positive development within the conservative movement or the most horrendous bastardization of feminist sensibilities in recent years.

I distinctly remember a mall manager approaching me while I was doing voter reg a couple days after Palin was unveiled, and he said something to the effect of, you'd-better-do-something-because-your-guy-is-toast. Guess we did enough in the end, but I suspect there was a skip in the heart of more than a few Obama supporters and campaign workers in the first days of Palin's candidacy.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Mr Bekkler on July 15, 2009, 12:22:22 am
Quote
I said a woman can become President. After Barack is done, you'll see Hilary take another stab at it. Heck, in 2012, we'll probably see Sarah Palin go for an encore.

I agree with the sentiment, and wholly support any woman who can get up there and run. However, those two specific women will never become president. Everyone thinks Clinton's a bitch and Palin's a dolt.

And even those things have root in the public view that Clinton must be a terrible wife if her husband had to cheat to get laid and Palin was in a beauty pagaent so there's no way she knows things like geography or math, or what a vice president does.

Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on July 15, 2009, 12:23:15 am
Quote
suppression of higher faculties in the applicant in favor of just striking at the primordial urges ingrained within the hirer.

Now, imagine being a woman and knowing that in your place of employment, men are constantly valuing you, ogling you, and communicating with you based on your appearance, sexual attractiveness, and feminine status. That's a hellish thing to know. A girl I worked with at a Japanese steakhouse quit her job because it was so rampant. When she interviewed at the restaurant's opening, the bartender asked if she had ever worked at Hooter's. The Korean chefs constantly made jokes about her in Korean, and customers would often try to flirt with her. The boss, an awesome South Korean hardass old guy who commanded everyone's respect decided to fire the bartender one day, but the rest of this behavior continued, and she left. The same thing happens in offices and other workplaces all over the country.

She dressed conservatively, lest she invite sexist attention. She tried not to be social, lest she invite sexist attention. And she kept to herself and tried not to work that often, lest she invite sexist attention. Now, she earned the same as the male employees in her position and didn't have to perform any special duties because she was female (she was lucky, since many do suffer these injustices). But just imagine being her. You're a prisoner in a man's world, subject to feeling ill intention, prejudice, and dirty desire all over you in every arena of public life.

That is oppression. It takes empathy to really understand, and that's sadly more than many people like Truthordeal are capable of at present.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on July 15, 2009, 12:34:30 am
Well said, when you consider the full psychological weight of it, I think it can fit even the common textbook definition of oppression. But how many women just accept it, or even find this kind of debasement of humanism "cute" or "natural"? Sort of like how Italians might just expect Silvio Berlusconi to throw topless parties by now, and they're just like, "eh, whatever." (Note: I'm no expert whatsoever on the prevailing opinion about Berlusconi's activities over there, so I hope I'm completely misrepresenting it).


Getting back to Hillary, I once took a short afternoon road trip through Bavaria with a woman who interned for Senator Clinton for a year or so in an international politics program of some sort, and she told me Hillary's "bitch" persona just rings so false in real life. She's apparently very warm and caring, going so far as to contact this woman's parents on 9/11 to let them know their daughter was okay. I think Hillary feels the need to come off tough in public because she's livin' in a man's world, as they say.

I'm not as concerned with Hillary's putting up with Bill's antics as I am with the fact Bill worked in a rampantly sexist political culture that gave him the impression he was entitled to a fling or two.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 15, 2009, 12:39:36 am
Zeality, the exact same thing happens in reverse. Female on male, and even male on male sexual harassment has been rising steadily over the years.

And please don't blame the entire country for the idiocy of a few scumbags. That is ignorant.

Mr. Bekkler and FW made a bunch of extremely valid points.

However, I'm sticking to my side. Women are not being oppressed in this country, and the only way for this type of discrimination to stop is by women, not men, standing up for themselves. We've given them the equal rights, and in some instances, more rights. Its time for them to stand on their own to help nullify immoral social behavior, because men simply can't do much more, other than, you know, not act like pricks.

Most men are not like the ones portrayed by Zeality, fortunately, especially in this new generation that's about to enter the workforce. That's hope enough.

Quote
Fair enough, Bossy McHouswife it is....

Heh, when you meet Chrono on the beach and he says, I hate to break this to you but Lynx was your father.  He got transformed into the thing you most feared at the time, a panther.  If it was now he would have transformed into Lenna three days into her period and without a necklace.

You might want to start on the Compendium though, rather than press the aggressions on the country as a whole.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Samopoznanie on July 15, 2009, 12:44:42 am
the futility of arguing with this idiot box, the thread can probably be retired.
That's been my thoughts on the matter ever since I first peeked into the topic 15 pages ago.  :picardno
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Uboa on July 15, 2009, 12:46:53 am
She was kind of like this...conservative Zero Suit Samus, or a pro-life Lara Croft.

I literally laughed out loud.  :)
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Uboa on July 15, 2009, 12:53:44 am
We've given them the equal rights

As though it was something to be given, or granted, based on the "sound judgment" of who? men?

That's poor phrasing at best...
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on July 15, 2009, 12:57:09 am
Quote from: Truthordeal
Zeality, the exact same thing happens in reverse. Female on male, and even male on male sexual harassment has been rising steadily over the years.
One observation I think it's important to make here -- partriarchal norms as we've seen them in Western society teach a man fawned over by women to feel virile. It teaches women fawned over by men to feel dirty. The implicit truth in these situations is that both men and women are dehumanized, the women expected to be the holders of perfect virtue, the men to be Discovery Channel animals.

However, the male-on-male harrassment certainly isn't addressed under that simple model.

Quote from: Truthordeal
the only way for this type of discrimination to stop is by women, not men, standing up for themselves.
While it's my firm belief that women and men have to work together to bring about full equality, I think the basic spirit of Truthordeal's point here is valid. In high school I was the token guy in National Honor Society, and you know what the mother of one of my female peers said on induction day? He has a harem. Hoooollllyy shit. 2002 and suburban Ohio was still in the dark ages.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 15, 2009, 12:58:46 am
We've given them the equal rights. They now have rights equal to men.

Yeah, could've worded that so much better.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on July 15, 2009, 01:00:10 am
Another post with no attempt to address any of the points or empirical evidence of sexism, or see a larger picture, or even comprehend basic language, like the denotation of the word "oppression". These tactics, combined with intellectual incuriosity and religious belief mean...The Compendium has found its very own Sarah Palin.

2009 has really been a dark year for the Chrono community, hasn't it?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 15, 2009, 01:14:44 am
At least I am open minded, Zeality.

Zaichi as listed the denotation, try understanding the connotation. Its like comparing George Bush to Adolf Hitler: whoever said it has no real perspective of what they're trying to compare.

And Jesus Christ vampire hunter, Zeality, you'd think I was a skinhead or a sexist from how you reacted. I mean, is it really that bad that you finally have someone with an alternate view of the world on this forum?

Dark year for the Chrono community? How about having a borderline anti-Semite as its most vocal member? That seems worse to me than a moderately religious libertarian

I've answered all of your points...all one of them, so don't try to act like I'm the ignorant one here.

FW, Uboa and Mr. Bekkler, who managed to answer my questions without being a complete jackass, made some good points. But I still fail to see this "oppression" that you keep talking about.

The only thing left to do to stop sexual harassment and discrimination is for the victims to stand up for their cause, rather than being a victim and accepting it. That attitude will lead to nothing other than more of the same.

And once again, most men are not like how you describe them. We're doing our part by not encouraging it, its time for women and men who are being sexually harassed to do the same.

Now, someone who believes that we have to institute "social justice" to remedy this problem, describe what the end result should be.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on July 15, 2009, 01:58:54 am
Quote
Now, someone who believes that we have to institute "social justice" to remedy this problem, describe what the end result should be.
You'll probably get a range of answers here (for example, I'd still go out on a limb and advocate birth pods and push the limits of full experiential equality), but perhaps I should settle for:

1. Women feeling comfortable with going into "traditionally male" education tracks; and men feeling comfortable with going into "traditionally female" education tracks (eliminate the classic mathematics/nursing gap);

2. Equal average likelihood of either the mother or the father in a with-children relationship staying home with the kids, to eliminate an employer's economic incentive to pay women less than men (eliminate "maternity leave" and the "mommy track" in favor of "parental leave" and the "parent track"...this is where birth pods could come in at a practical level);

3. Representation of men, women, and minority men & women in government and business executive posts much more commensurate with the population composition (not a quota per se -- just eliminate the stereotypical image associated with these positions through precedent going foreward);

4. More sensitive and huminist media portrayals of women, homosexuals, and minorities in pop culture than we're often used to.
 
There's more that needs to be done on the interpersonal social front I'm sure, but I wonder how far these alone would go toward achieving the basic goals of the equality movement(s).
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on July 15, 2009, 02:10:39 am
The ultimate goal is for there to be no sex-specific treatment of a person unless we're talking about medical care or personal hygiene.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Mr Bekkler on July 15, 2009, 02:12:14 am
Or robot bending-skill standards (see: Futurama)
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 15, 2009, 02:32:05 am
FW, I've heard you mention it a few times, and I probably should have researched it, but all I came up with were alien sites. What exactly do you mean by birth pod? Is that like a test tube baby?

And I'm also unsure what you mean by experiential equality. Do you mean something like having equal experiences between men and women?

Anyway, onto your points.

1 and 3 are well on their way to coming to fruition. Number three is going to be a bit slow because women and minorities didn't receive equal rights until just 50 years ago, and its just now that people like Sarah Palin and Barack Obama are coming across on the national stage to show that big things can happen despite your gender/race and upbringing.

However, I do hope it doesn't get to the point where we choose our representatives based on their gender or ethnicity, rather than their experience, competence, ideology and integrity. I'd gladly vote for a woman or minority, but they should be as competent as their opponent and have some integrity(an increasingly adverse task, it seems). And of course, I'll probably vote for the old white man politician if he favors reducing government over the statist woman or ethnic minority.

2 I can't see happening without birth pods(if my assumption on them is correct) because of the trauma that the birthing process has on women. You're supposed to rest for a week afterward in most cases.

4 I get behind all of the way. I still don't believe in "oppression" per se, but the media's portrayal of minorities and women is absolutely despicable. Look how many starlets they've pushed into drugs and self-destruction, hoping for them to fail so they can get their ratings. The feud between Jon and Kate(don't watch the show, but they've been on the news enough lately) is a prime example. Its absolutely deplorable that our media behaves this way.

Lord J, that's a good ideal, but due chiefly to sexual compatibility, we're probably not going to have a completely equal treatment of both sexes by members of one sex. I'd almost like to say that both genders act more civilly around the opposite gender and feel somewhat uncomfortable acting the way they would around  a group of only their gender. For instance, add a female to an all-male football party, and you'll see men being much more civil and quiet since a woman is in their midst.

It's not the best example, but I'm sure you understand what I'm talking about. Its certainly interesting from a sociological perspective, anyway.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on July 15, 2009, 12:25:07 pm
And I have yet to hear from anyone on this topic, except Zeality, who's so far out there that I pretty much tune him out at this point, how women are oppressed.

May I be anecdotal for a moment? I work at a biomedical research institution, so I get to hear all sorts of crap come out of the mouths of scientists. One such bit-o-crap happened about a year ago when the chair of a department, after meeting with a potential candidate for a fellowship, commented that she was a poor choice because she was too young and she'd want to have children in a few years.

Now if we define "oppression" as an organized and official means of discriminating against an individual and group, then you are correct: on a national level, women are not oppressed in that limited sense of the word. We might find a similar distinction between hate crimes and acts of genocide; there must be the organized intent for it to qualify. They are heavily discriminated against (the above being a single example), but as there is no formal structure holding them back (just an ad hoc one), they're not "oppressed."

However, I do hope you can realize that this is a fine distinction that most people do not operate under. Exactness of terminology is only useful when that exactness is adopted by the whole group.

If I have read you correctly, you are claiming that there is sexist discrimination, but not sexist oppression, in the United States, correct? If so, you and your opponents are largely in agreeance and everything else is quibbling over misunderstood semantics (at least, insofar as this specific topic is concerned). What Z described about the Korean woman a few posts back you'd define as discrimination and he defined as oppression.

Women are not presently treated as equals to men in Western Society. Can everyone (from Truthordeal to Zeality) agree with that statement? Yes? Good. From there we are only arguing over brand names. An apple is what it is; it doesn't matter significantly if you call it an apple or an apfel.

As a side note, however, there are still organizations that are oppressive to women in the United States. The Boy Scouts of America and the Girl Scouts of America are two such organizations that come to mind. This oppression isn't on the federal government level, or indeed even state government levels, but it still exists.

Uboa, the burden of proof lies with the accuser. Always.

Sort of, but it is more accurate to say that the burden of proof lies with the individual making the claim.

Thus, if you make the claim that women are not oppressed, the burden of proof is on you. If others make the claim that women are oppressed, the burden of proof is on them.

I think that burden of proof lies with the one who makes the more outlandish claim.

Nope, because that brings subjectivity into what should otherwise be an objective process. Despite being fearful of derailing the conversation, a creationist finds the claim of evolution to be more outlandish and thus the burden of proof is always on evolutionists. The Evolutionist in turn finds the claims of creationism to be more outlandish and thus the burden of proof is always on the creationist. No dialogue is possible under such a situation.

The burden of proof is with the individual making the claim, regardless of what that claim may be.

When has a woman become president of the US? I think I slept through that history lesson  :lol:

I'm curious; we have a black president, so does that mean blacks are no longer oppressed or discriminated against in the US?

Having a president of a particular type (female, black, Icelandic, etc) is only an indicator; it is not definite proof, one way or the other, of discrimination. It is certainly an important consideration, don't get me wrong, but not the end-all be-all.

Several jobs I've had, women have come in to apply and the first question the boss would ask after getting their application would be something like "Was she cute?" This happens with male and female bosses and tends to be more about the stereotype of only having attractive workers so that logically more customers will be attracted to your establishment. It is a blatantly prejudiced practice.

Only if that is not a valid indicator of job performance. Those would seemingly be very valid considerations for a strip club, for example, where the product being marketed is physical appearance. Of course, then there is the question of if strip clubs could exist in a society with no sexism.

I said a woman can become President. After Barack is done, you'll see Hilary take another stab at it. Heck, in 2012, we'll probably see Sarah Palin go for an encore.

I hope Palin will. Obama would really have to f'up (and I mean, so wacky-crazy-pants mess up so that even Democrats will say he was worse than G.W.) for Palin to have a chance in hell of getting even a respectable showing in 2012. Hopefully a firm rejection will get Palin out of the Republican spotlight, so the party might have a chance of making a comeback for the 2016 election (I'm not a fan of a 2 party system as it is; I'd rather not see a 1 party system).

Zeality, the exact same thing happens in reverse. Female on male, and even male on male sexual harassment has been rising steadily over the years.

While I can't talk much about sexual harassment directed towards males, there is a curious amount of discrimination directed at men; the difference is that men tend to accept it without much of a thought, partially because we're trained to not ask questions, and partially because we like it.

As Faust pointed out, that society accepts the concept that men should feel manly because they get hit on in the workplace is still sexist; men just happen to like it. But what we like isn't necessarily a good thing. It is also socially acceptable to too large of a degree for men to have no responsibility in regards to child bearing. Men get to largely avoid the responsibility if they choose, and a lot of men like it.

I look to common entertainment as an indicator of social norms. Consider the old sit-com "Home Improvement." The episodes followed a fairly standard ritual; husband makes a mistake, pisses wife off, and he then has to figure out what that mistake was and apologize. Message: men are bumbling buffoons who are always in the wrong and must figure out how they are wrong (it also implies that women are always the ones perfectly together and with it). One might notice a degree of similarity with "Everybody Loves Raymond." To be fair, this is vaguely a reverse of the old I Love Lucy show (in which the wife messes up and has to make things right, every single episode, but even then the guys weren't paradigms of virtue).

Though to note, it seems like more recently sit coms have been evening things out a bit better.

The ultimate goal is for there to be no sex-specific treatment of a person unless we're talking about medical care or personal hygiene.

Hmm... it sounds like you are saying that the ultimate goal is to have an asexual society; is that a far interpretation?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 15, 2009, 02:40:00 pm
I'll agree, Thought, that our main quibble seems to be over semantics. But those semantics are far more important than you might think. The difference between "discrimination" and "oppression" is similar to the difference between being "angry" and being "pissed the eff off."

Quote
Only if that is not a valid indicator of job performance. Those would seemingly be very valid considerations for a strip club, for example, where the product being marketed is physical appearance. Of course, then there is the question of if strip clubs could exist in a society with no sexism.

Of course they could. Strip clubs, and porn, while we're at it, serve an important biological function. This boils down to personal choice though. Even today, women aren't forced into these professions, and if they think its demeaning or below them, then they shouldn't do it. I've heard a lot of anecdotal evidence to the end where women go into these professions due to emergencies or lack of funds, but really, there are dozens of opportunities out there even if the only thing you have is a high school diploma. You just have to quit looking for an easy way out.

Quote
As a side note, however, there are still organizations that are oppressive to women in the United States. The Boy Scouts of America and the Girl Scouts of America are two such organizations that come to mind. This oppression isn't on the federal government level, or indeed even state government levels, but it still exists.

The boy scouts aren't oppressing women by only allowing men in. Its the Boy Scouts, for crying out loud, its a youth club.

Quote
I'm curious; we have a black president, so does that mean blacks are no longer oppressed or discriminated against in the US?

I don't think they are either, for the reasons you mentioned above.

If one makes a case that blacks are suppressed by white society or white CEO's, then I can make the equal case of white oppression by the black community at large, plus groups like the ACLU and the NAACP.

If a white man had been in OJ Simpson's shoes back in '94, with a jury consisting of people from L.A., would he have been convicted? Let me answer that with another example, if Rodney King had been white and was beaten up by a group of black cops, would the state of California and Los Angeles have bent over backwards to convict them, even trying them twice?

My point here is that, compared to race relations, the gender gap seems like gumdrops and ice cream. While sexism is still a problem, I think we need to take care of the hemorrhage before the cut on your finger.

I actually like this metaphor, as it helps to explain things easier. If the US was a human body, race relations would be a brain hemorrhage and the gender gap would be a cut on the finger. If you deal with the cut first you'll probably die, but if you deal with the hemorrhage without treating the cut, you'll be dealing with an infection.

But I would like to think that electing a black man as president was a huge step forward. Only in America can the son of an African immigrant and a white Kansan, both of whom lived in poverty, move upward to the highest office in the land. And only in America can the people, only seven years after a brutal attack and war with a man named Hussein, elect a leader with the same name.

And that's just in 50 years, without mandated "social justice." If that doesn't give you hope for the future, then you're a lost cause.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Shee on July 15, 2009, 03:13:28 pm
Women go to strip clubs, too.  No one talks about about the girls heading out to see some dudes chiseled out of rock because they're sick of their "ordinary man" at home, etc etc etc.  Of course, Chippendale's isn't quite like "The Classy Lady" or "Fully Xposed", but it is, like a lot of things, a two way street.  I've met women who work as strippers because they make way way way more money doing that than anything else.  They went in due to an emergency situation, but never left because of the $$$.  Is it the best moral choice?  Are their more rewarding options out there?  For them to decide.  No one forced 'em to stay once they got paid.

Thought, your words on Scouts confuse me.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Mr Bekkler on July 15, 2009, 03:19:11 pm
K I dunno how it got to this, but I've never worked in a strip club. All the jobs I was talking about were front desk positions at hotels. Jeez!
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 15, 2009, 03:36:04 pm
I don't see the Scouts as oppressive because they have separate programs for girls and boys.

Its not like Annapolis or VMI, where they didn't allow women for the longest time, and its actually detrimental to their career.

Its hard to explain.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on July 15, 2009, 04:00:51 pm
Thought, your words on Scouts confuse me.

Sorry. But the Boy Scouts, being an organization that specifically excludes women on an organized and official basis, seems like a group that, under Truthordeal's definition of oppression, could be said to oppress women (well, girls; there is ageism as well, but that’s a different topic). Likewise, since the Girl Scouts seem to endorse traditional stereotypical roles of women (you never hear of "boy scout cookies," do you?), it could be said to be oppressive since it is formally organized in such a manner.

I don't see the Scouts as oppressive because they have separate programs for girls and boys.

It's been established that separate seldom is equal. Consider being an Eagle Scout (a boy scout rank); it looks good on a college application. Do girls have an equivalent that is as significant?

EDIT: I misssed this at first:

I'll agree, Thought, that our main quibble seems to be over semantics. But those semantics are far more important than you might think. The difference between "discrimination" and "oppression" is similar to the difference between being "angry" and being "pissed the eff off."

Not important. The difference currently only exists in your head; if you want to discuss it, you first have to separate out, for everyone else, what exactly differentiates what you are labeling as oppression and what you are labeling as discrimination, and argue that such a distinction is necessary and prudent.

Failure to first establish a commonly accepted terminology makes all arguments based on that terminology pointless.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on July 15, 2009, 06:17:47 pm
Quote
It's been established that separate seldom is equal. Consider being an Eagle Scout (a boy scout rank); it looks good on a college application. Do girls have an equivalent that is as significant?

I don't think that having seperate boy scouts and girl scouts is considered sexist at all. In this case, I do this it means  seperate but equal. Also there is a girl scout equivalent of eagle scouts. Um, I forgot the name, but it's very similar and I remember in High School one of my friends had to do this massive project for her last criteria in the program. She ended up making an "astronomy day" for kids in the area where they came to our school for one saturday and were able to learn about planets in a fun way with us geeks from the astronomy club. This kind of honor and community service is just as good for college applications as eagle scouts. Anyway, I did some research and found this- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Award_(Girl_Scouts_of_the_USA) . There are a lot more levels of scoutery and it's kind of confusing, but basically Girl Scouts is a very good counter part for boy scouts.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 15, 2009, 06:29:16 pm
Moreover, as the courts have found, the boy scouts are a private organization and my operate as they wish. That's why so many kids were dragged out by their parents over the gay scoutmaster issue.

Its something extra, and both men and women are entitled allowed to be in it, as Zaichi showed. Its not like being in Girl Scouts rather than Boy Scouts is going to look worse on a college application.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Radical_Dreamer on July 15, 2009, 06:38:00 pm
Dark year for the Chrono community? How about having a borderline anti-Semite as its most vocal member? That seems worse to me than a moderately religious libertarian.

If my view is so far off the deep end, then why is it that Zaichi, a woman, statist and feminist agrees with me calling your rhetorical use of the word oppression as the bullshit crap that it is? You throw around the word like a groom at a Jewish wedding, not even realizing the consequences that that word implies. To say that women are oppressed shows a true lack of perspective.

Luckily, you are not the most vocal member of the Chrono community.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on July 15, 2009, 06:40:27 pm
Unfortunately I am unable to find statistics that compare the number of Eagle Scouts vs Gold Awardees accepted into Universities; if such a study doesn't exist, it would be rather interesting if one were conducted.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on July 15, 2009, 06:47:52 pm


Luckily, you are not the most vocal member of the Chrono community.

Yeah, we all know who is. And the internet community has given the Chrono community a lot of shit for it! Not that I really care or anything, but I really don't see the big deal in just about everything that Truth is proclaiming. Now, if he were the most vocal member of the Chrono community, I think that we would get the same amount of shit, or even less than we get now.  So there really isn't any difference.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 15, 2009, 06:51:06 pm
Dark year for the Chrono community? How about having a borderline anti-Semite as its most vocal member? That seems worse to me than a moderately religious libertarian.

If my view is so far off the deep end, then why is it that Zaichi, a woman, statist and feminist agrees with me calling your rhetorical use of the word oppression as the bullshit crap that it is? You throw around the word like a groom at a Jewish wedding, not even realizing the consequences that that word implies. To say that women are oppressed shows a true lack of perspective.

Luckily, you are not the most vocal member of the Chrono community.

So, we've degenerated once again to taking potshots at someone just because they have a different worldview. Except this time you seem to have gone the extra mile to twist my words out of context.

Thought, about 5% of all Boy Scouts make Eagle Scout, and about 5.4% of all Girl Scouts gain the Gold Award. The actual numbers are probably off, but it seems that both programs have about the same level of difficulty in reaching their highest awards.

Quote
Recipients of the Gold Award who enlist in the U.S. Armed Forces may receive advanced rank in recognition of their achievements.[5][6][7] Some universities and colleges offer scholarships to Gold Award recipients. Yearly, GSUSA selects ten girls to be Young Women of Distinction based on their Gold Award projects.

Wikipedia.

I understand your argument, Thought. But it seems that the BSoA aren't slouches with their female program either. Separate does not instantly mean equal, true enough, but it doesn't necessarily mean unequal either.

In any event, I see your point. There does seem to be more prestige in earning Eagle scout, but that just might be because I never went into scouts myself(I thought the uniforms looked gay, not that there's anything wrong with that).
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on July 15, 2009, 06:56:20 pm
Sorry, but as a holder of the Eagle Scout rank and someone who knows more than a little about this, I can say that men are disproportionately rewarded for it on their resumes than Girl Scouts; few people even know what their top rank is. I await the day that I will ceremoniously turn in my Eagle Scout rank in protest of BSA's no-atheists, no-agnostics, no-gays, etc. policies.

Quote
So, we've degenerated once again to taking potshots at someone just because they have a different worldview. Except this time you seem to have gone the extra mile to twist my words out of context.

Keep going. You've convinced virtually every viewer and participator of this thread of your ignorance and the absurdity of your positions. You're doing more for secular humanism and liberalism than you realize.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 15, 2009, 07:11:04 pm
Zeality, you're on a very dangerous road here of condemning everyone that disagrees with you as ignorant. By doing so, I think we see who here's views are the most absurd. The fact that you don't even acknowledge our right to exist is enough to churn any reasonable person's stomach. Despite the constant demeaning putdowns and insulting rhetoric, I still respect your right not only to exist, but to think and say whatever you wish.

I actually have a proper excuse to invoke Godwin's Law right now, but of course that insult has been used so much on the Internet recently that it's lost all meaning, much like the word "oppressed" has in this thread. You made up your mind about me the instant I put that flag up, anything I say now is ignorant to you. You're even more close minded than the people you constantly undermine,  because at least those people seem to be reaching out rather than cutting all contacts loose. You're the exact type of extremist that you try to warn others against, except you happen to worship Richard Dawkins rather than Yahweh or Allah.


Edit: Ah screw it, why do I take the effort to reply to you. All it'll bring me is more grief.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Shee on July 15, 2009, 07:16:07 pm
As a fellow Eagle Scout I see how there is that uneven balance on resumes.  Girl Scouts don't really get that much press/exposure/whatever beyond the cookies.  A far as turning in that Eagle Rank, don't forget all the good you learned on the way.  And it is their right to exclude whomever they wish, just as any gas station can refuse service to anyone for any reason they deem fit.  Doesn't mean they're not a bunch of asses for it, but they can.

And if we can all agree on something, I would hope it would be that those cookies taste good.  They taste good.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on July 15, 2009, 07:19:38 pm
^ I want some girl scout cookies!

 :fuk
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on July 15, 2009, 09:04:03 pm
I will have to decline Thought's thoughtful olive branch of reconciliation. For me, "discrimination" and "oppression" are not the same thing, and both are evidently present in our society. There seems to be general agreement on the former point. As for oppression, consider some of the variables that probably should be present in order for the condition of oppression to apply:


Not all of these qualifications must be met in order for oppression to exist, and yet in this case every single one of them is met. Women are oppressed in this country, Truthordeal, and your denigration of the term "social justice" sets you up as a fool at best and a bigot at worst. Your ignorant denial is an ugly thing to behold for someone like me who has worked far more in-depth in this issue than you ever have--and ever will. Just because women are not literally tied up in chains does not mean that they are not still oppressed. Every time a woman is treated differently because she's a woman, that's discrimination. Every time a woman is held back because of the different treatment, that's oppression. And when it's not just one woman, but millions, then it ceases to be a problem of misbehaving individuals, and becomes the failure of an entire society.

You really need to stop, right now, Truthordeal, and grapple with the implications of the possibility that I am correct and you are mistaken. Because if it's the other around, you have nothing to lose by abiding the work of people like me, as I am not advocating that men be tied up either. The only thing I am advocating is that people not be treated differently based on their sex (except where human anatomy directly applies, such as with health and hygiene). But, if you're wrong, then, by maintaining your current stance, you are--whether you know it or not--choosing to act as an agent of oppression yourself. You are choosing to become a part of the problem.

I've told this to so many people, and they never seem to realize it until years later, if ever, but: It's okay to admit when you don't know something. You don't have to be an expert on everything. In fact, you shouldn't. And there are two things here you don't know: You don't know what you're talking about, and you don't know the consequences that come when you join millions of people like you in denying the existence of these problems which hinder or even ruin countless lives.

There are four kinds of people when it comes to the struggle for sexual equality. There are the ones who work to advance it; there are the ones who do not; there are the ones who work against it; and there are the ones who do not even know that the struggle exists. Right now you're in camp number three. I suggest you find for yourself a place in one of the adjacent camps, because the company in your camp is pretty damn ugly, and I'd like to think that you're not willing to put up with it.

One last thing: Your talk of "feminazis" is straight out of the right-wing talking points memo. Never more clearly on display is your ignorance of these issues than when you invoke such a phrase. I will tell you this myself, from the horse's mouth: Some others in the sexual equality movement are not so well-intentioned. In their passion to end misogyny, they would take our society in the other direction, to misandry. There never was a movement in human history that didn't have some bad eggs, or some misguided people, or some mooks, or fools, in its ranks.

There are plenty of overbearing, domineering, overreaching people in the sexual equality movement. Some of them are among the aforementioned misandrists. But most of them--I'd daresay the vast majority of them--are well-intentioned, and simply have difficult personalities. Quite honestly, Truthordeal, these are the most important people. They're the first ones to recognize the existence of an injustice, and they're the leaders of the struggle against it. Their personal abrasiveness is soon forgotten by history, but their accomplishments are long remembered. They are the ones who the word "feminazi" describes, but they are not "feminazis." They are feminists, and you need to accept that their work inherently entails making most of us uncomfortable from time to time. If it didn't, then they wouldn't be doing their job, because their job is to identify the sexism in our society and advocate change. Change is seldom easy, because it means people will have to look at the world in a different way. Maybe they'll have to behave differently. And most of them will resent it, make no mistake. People don't like being told that their behaviors or views are in need of improvement. That's only human. But it needs to happen. The people who make it happen are often the most difficult, the most intrusive, the most activist among us. They're the leaders...the movers and shakers. They are the ones whose extremism fights against the invisible extremes of today.

So it is that you use the ugliest word to describe the greatest people.

There are two kinds of people who use the word "feminazi." There is your kind, whose understanding of feminism is a stupid caricature, and then there are the kinds of people who created the word and gave it currency: Those who are themselves misogynists. They're not against misandrists, per se. They're against feminism itself. Oh, they usually say otherwise. But it's a subterfuge: The only kind of "feminist" they're willing to accept is the kind who lived a hundred years ago.

Did you ever stop to think, Truthordeal, that you are probably in favor of women having the right to vote, or having the right to own their own bank accounts, or having the right to accept or refuse or even instigate marriage proposals, or having the right to go to college, or having the right to serve their country in uniform and in political office? With a smattering of individual exceptions, when America began, none of those rights existed. None of them. Many people suffered and died to win each one of those rights. But that's not all: Countless more people opposed them at every step of the way. Why? Because change is hard. Traditionalism is easy. Every generation has its own idea of what society "should" be, and too often there is no concern for justice in these deliberations. People's perspectives are narrow and their wisdom is scant. You, Truthordeal, are not a wise person. You are a product of this society's biases, and you don't even know it. You're a mook. You would believe whatever you were told; if your parents had raised you differently, you would have grown up believing differently. Maybe you should try to think for yourself someday. But in the meantime, take it from me:

How can you be in favor of all the feminist accomplishments we have already made, and yet be against all of the feminist accomplishments we have yet to make? In every age, that's how it goes: People think we've come far enough, perhaps too far...and every single time they are wrong. The people who opposed feminism a hundred years ago were wrong. You're just as wrong today. Your word "feminazi" is a coarse and offensive cudgel that does not pertain to misandrists but to the leaders of progress itself...the very best people in our cause, the ones who are tackling the biggest and worst citadels of sexism...the stuff that, for change to happen, is going to have to run over a lot of people's toes. "Feminazi"...it's a word that I can't even bring myself to let out of quotation marks, because the whole concept is so ridiculous. In your decision to use it, you align yourself with an ugly group of people, and you open yourself up to being judged along with them. This is especially true now, because for all I know today is the first time anyone has told you this stuff. From this moment on, you're not as ignorant as you were. You've been given the opportunity to grow your mind. I hope you take it.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Samopoznanie on July 15, 2009, 09:55:58 pm
men are disproportionately rewarded for it on their resumes than Girl Scouts; few people even know what their top rank is.

This is getting ridiculous...  :picardno Sounds like somebody needs to call the...

(http://www.velvetglove.org/misc/macros/wahmbulance.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on July 15, 2009, 10:04:18 pm
Quote from: Truthordeal
FW, I've heard you mention it a few times, and I probably should have researched it, but all I came up with were alien sites. What exactly do you mean by birth pod? Is that like a test tube baby?

And I'm also unsure what you mean by experiential equality. Do you mean something like having equal experiences between men and women?

Yeah, I get only the alien results on searching "birth pods" too. I'm clueless as to what the topic should actually be called (I've only considered it since this thread's inception), and whether it's even been described as a hypothetical process in scientific literature. But what I'm imagining is essentially fetal development outside the human body entirely. Uboa brought up a good point with the breast milk/baby formula debate, inasmuch as it would be difficult to set all the environmental conditions correctly. However, plenty of pregnant women smoke or unintentionally subject themselves and their child-to-be to vitamin imbalances as it is. It'll probably be longer than I imagined at first before it's considered and openly debated within the scientific community, seeing as I can't find a single bit of info on how it might happen hypothetically.

As for experiential equality, I defaulted to that term to describe a kind of equality far above and beyond what the typical feminist/gender equality advocate is probably willing to entertain. While outlandish, I think it's a useful idea to examine from the standpoint that as long as our experiences differ greatly, there's a sense of "the other" that comes into play that opens the door to things like sexism and racism. For example, a man who isn't used to having periods might misjudge the amount that this taxes the woman's system, and either think women are fundamentally weaker for it or plain fail to be sensitive to the situation. Either remove women's periods or re-engineer men to have them, and the sense of "otherness" and alienness disappears. Again, certainly outlandish, but hopefully a useful concept when considering the situation as it now exists.

Quote from: Truthordeal
Lord J, that's a good ideal, but due chiefly to sexual compatibility, we're probably not going to have a completely equal treatment of both sexes by members of one sex. I'd almost like to say that both genders act more civilly around the opposite gender and feel somewhat uncomfortable acting the way they would around  a group of only their gender. For instance, add a female to an all-male football party, and you'll see men being much more civil and quiet since a woman is in their midst.

It's not the best example, but I'm sure you understand what I'm talking about. Its certainly interesting from a sociological perspective, anyway.
This is an interesting observation, and its truth probably varies according to personal factors and levels of self control. Men committing the act of gang rape are obviously not acting on their best behavior in front of a woman (even if mores installed in their environment contextually advocate such action, as is the case in certain societies or subcultures). But when the situation as Truthordeal presents it holds true, should we consider it objectively good? Objectively bad?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Vehek on July 15, 2009, 10:22:30 pm
Yeah, I get only the alien results on searching "birth pods" too. I'm clueless as to what the topic should actually be called (I've only considered it since this thread's inception), and whether it's even been described as a hypothetical process in scientific literature.
Don't people refer to those things as "artifical wombs"?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 15, 2009, 10:23:27 pm
Thank God, Lord J. you finally answered my question. I would've been more than happy to consider that you were right, but damn it no one would give me a reason to without being a complete and utter asshole.

Quote
I will tell you this myself, from the horse's mouth: Some others in the sexual equality movement are not so well-intentioned. In their passion to end misogyny, they would take our society in the other direction, to misandry. There never was a movement in human history that didn't have some bad eggs, or some misguided people, or some mooks, or fools, in its ranks.

And in one word these people can be described as feminazis. Just because that moron Rush Limbaugh created it doesn't mean its not true. Sure, most aren't like that, but the ones who are misandrynous can aptly be labeled as such in same sense that men who hate women are called misogynists. Feminazi just rolls off the tongue better.

But if its that offensive to you, because you actually took the time to answer the question, I'll stop using it. I've been trying to stop here recently, since it seems as immature as calling someone a Nazi during an Internet debate, but for some reason, being patronized does not bring out the best in me.  :?

Quote
You, Truthordeal, are not a wise person

I, Truthordeal, am 18 and came right out of the public school system. There are certain things they refuse to teach us(intelligent design) and things they suppressed from us knowing(the other side of the man made global warming debate). That is systematic, and happening even in the most conservative parts of SC as well as the most liberal parts of California. And the weird thing is, its taught the same way in both parts of the country. I've just now realized, coming out of high school, that there are several things that I have not been taught, but rather been indoctrinated about.

There's a lot of stuff I need to relearn to figure out how I feel about certain issues, and quite frankly, before now all I've ever gotten from this thread were insults, Zeality and the "durrr, no, just no, durrr" arguments. Those merely antagonized me away from your point. If you want to teach someone, its probably best not to be condescending to that person.

With all due respect, Lord J, as smart and knowledgeable as you are on the topic, you're not the person whom I should learn from, because you expect way too much to happen way too quickly.

My views on the world cannot change in the time of one forum post. As much as I respect the Internet as a medium in which we can exchange our ideas, something more substantive than words on a computer screen is needed to change my whole belief system and that you simply cannot provide.

Futhermore, Lord J, you and just about everyone else is expecting me to take y'all's words and whatever comes out of Zeality's mouth as sacrosanct truth. That there are thousands of other people in this country, much better educated, and much smarter and experienced than you and I, that disagree with you one way or another. What's to say that they are wrong and you are right? Not much, but considering the total tone of the argument against me, its as if there was no other side. Every issue is a two-sided coin, except that in most cases it can easily end up like a 20-sided die.

What I need is education; not further indoctrination, and that's something you cannot provide.

I'm conceding this point. I'm not changing my views, but I will admit that this discussion has made me more sensitive to the female rights movement. But for the time being, there are more important things to me as an individual than women's rights. I say this not as a sexist or misogynist, but as a human that only has 18 hours a day free from work, and is trying to prioritize what's important to him, rather than becoming a blind activist to something he has no experience in.

Furthermore, feminism can take a backseat to getting myself stabilized. Its rather hard to be sympathetic to someone when you've life to deal with, and moreso when there are things that are far more important because they affect your immediate life.

BTW...

Quote
There are plenty of overbearing, domineering, overreaching people in the religious movement. Some of them are among the aforementioned bigots. But most of them--I'd daresay the vast majority of them--are well-intentioned, and simply have difficult personalities. Quite honestly, these are the most important people. They're the first ones to recognize the existence of an injustice, and they're the leaders of the struggle against it. Their personal abrasiveness is soon forgotten by history, but their accomplishments are long remembered. They are the ones who the word "bigot" describes, but they are not "bigots." They are religious people, and you need to accept that their work inherently entails making most of us uncomfortable from time to time. If it didn't, then they wouldn't be doing their job, because their job is to identify the moral faults in our society and advocate change. Change is seldom easy, because it means people will have to look at the world in a different way. Maybe they'll have to behave differently. And most of them will resent it, make no mistake. People don't like being told that their behaviors or views are in need of improvement. That's only human. But it needs to happen. The people who make it happen are often the most difficult, the most intrusive, the most activist among us. They're the leaders...the movers and shakers. They are the ones whose extremism fights against the invisible extremes of today.

All of the words in bold have been altered by me. I hope this makes some of you realize the odd similarities between the two subject matters and the two sided-coin thing I mentioned earlier.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on July 15, 2009, 10:32:11 pm
Quote from: Vehek
Don't people refer to those things as "artifical wombs"?
I'll be damned, Wikipedia's even got an article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_uterus) on it. Thanks.

Truth, if you're worried about certain info being withheld from you in the public schools by some liberal conspiracy, you may feel that college will provide you with a more open environment. Contrary to my belief going into it, college profs are not one big liberal monolith. I've had profs who believe the universe is a sound 3000 years old and that T-Rexes were on Noah's Ark; econ and stats professors seem to be the most questioning of global warming on average, given that I've encountered two at different schools.

Maybe it's just Ohio?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 15, 2009, 10:38:08 pm
Not so much a liberal conspiracy, FW, as much as a politically correct, "Please don't sue us," type of dealie.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on July 15, 2009, 11:37:58 pm
Quote
I will tell you this myself, from the horse's mouth: Some others in the sexual equality movement are not so well-intentioned. In their passion to end misogyny, they would take our society in the other direction, to misandry. There never was a movement in human history that didn't have some bad eggs, or some misguided people, or some mooks, or fools, in its ranks.

And in one word these people can be described as feminazis. Just because that moron Rush Limbaugh created it doesn't mean its not true. Sure, most aren't like that, but the ones who are misandrynous can aptly be labeled as such in same sense that men who hate women are called misogynists. Feminazi just rolls off the tongue better.

I should know as well as anyone that people can have different meanings when using a common word, but I honestly have yet to meet a person who persisted in calling anyone a "feminazi" on the grounds you are describing. There is always a sexist component to the usage of the word, when the word is used seriously.

I've been trying to stop here recently, since it seems as immature as calling someone a Nazi during an Internet debate, but for some reason, being patronized does not bring out the best in me.  :?

I wouldn't patronize you.

There's a lot of stuff I need to relearn to figure out how I feel about certain issues, and quite frankly, before now all I've ever gotten from this thread were insults, Zeality and the "durrr, no, just no, durrr" arguments. Those merely antagonized me away from your point. If you want to teach someone, its probably best not to be condescending to that person.

You consistently ignored what other people were saying. I'm not surprised that some of us got fed up with it. I even had to talk ZeaLitY out of locking the topic last night (your silent champion of free speech at work). You're entitled to your opinion. You're entitled to a lot, in fact. You're entitled to be wrong, even offensively so. You're entitled to call others out for being wrong. You're entitled to take an unpopular position. But the price of admission to this carnival is that you respect the terms of debate. If your behavior would spur other people to "durr" at you, then consider that you brought it upon yourself. You are allowed to be imperfect. You are allowed to ask questions. It would help immeasurably, however, if you would do so open-mindedly rather than for the purpose of trying to defend a hardline point of view.

I'll accept that I was condescending to you. I'll spare you the energy of making further accusations by apologizing here on the spot for making you feel uncomfortable or belittled. Those are unpleasant emotions and nobody likes to experience them. I apologize. Here's a good lesson for the rest of your life: Concern yourself with people's substance more than their conduct. Sexists and racists can be some of the most affable people in the world. That doesn't make their bigotry any less disgusting. By the same token, you may realize someday that sexism in this country is not dead after all, and that oppression survives. If that day comes, you'll feel silly for having failed to separate my substance and conduct.

With all due respect, Lord J, as smart and knowledgeable as you are on the topic, you're not the person whom I should learn from, because you expect way too much to happen way too quickly. My views on the world cannot change in the time of one forum post. As much as I respect the Internet as a medium in which we can exchange our ideas, something more substantive than words on a computer screen is needed to change my whole belief system and that you simply cannot provide.

I don't want your loyalty, and I didn't ask to be your personal guru. You made a claim and I responded to it, and you can make of that what you will, on your own terms, in your own time. If you have the presence of mind to recognize that a person can seldom change their worldview in a single day, then you're already one step ahead of the pack.

Futhermore, Lord J, you and just about everyone else is expecting me to take y'all's words and whatever comes out of Zeality's mouth as sacrosanct truth. That there are thousands of other people in this country, much better educated, and much smarter and experienced than you and I, that disagree with you one way or another. What's to say that they are wrong and you are right? Not much, but considering the total tone of the argument against me, its as if there was no other side. Every issue is a two-sided coin, except that in most cases it can easily end up like a 20-sided die.

I can't speak for the rest of the people who might be reading this topic, but for myself...I try to avoid asking people to "trust me" or to "take my word for it." Maybe it slips out sometime in rhetoric, but in principle I like what LeVar Burton always said at the end of his Reading Rainbow book reviews: "Don't take my word for it."

In other words: Read it for yourself.

You can check and double check every claim I make. If you do, you will be the better for it. I know that I'm usually right, because I don't make arguments when I don't have a case. Most of the arguments I would have lost...I never began in the first place. But you have no way of knowing any of that for sure. Maybe I'm just a machine that spits out random opinions, eh? So by all means, explore it for yourself.

You're wrong about every issue having two (valid) sides, by the way. The "Us versus Them" dichotomy of our tribal past is not an asset to critical thinking nor to sensitivity, and most of the time you will find--if you look--that issues either have one side or many sides. In the case of sexism, there's only one side that's valid: People get treated on the basis of their sex in ways that a person's sex cannot account for, and which are frequently inconsistent with their individual character. That's illogical, and it also happens to be harmful--to the individuals, and to society.

End of story.

What I need is education; not further indoctrination, and that's something you cannot provide.

"Further indoctrination," eh?  :roll:

You need some education, all right. Go get it.

I'm conceding this point. I'm not changing my views, but I will admit that this discussion has made me more sensitive to the female rights movement.

Good.

But for the time being, there are more important things to me as an individual than women's rights. I say this not as a sexist or misogynist, but as a human that only has 18 hours a day free from work, and is trying to prioritize what's important to him, rather than becoming a blind activist to something he has no experience in.

I'm not ordering you to become a feminist. I would only note that you certainly had the time to come here and state your anti-feminist views on numerous occasions. Obviously, that was important enough to you--or perhaps entertaining enough to you--to be worth your time. Well, hopefully now it won't be worth your time anymore. And, since this time has been freed up...well! Consider it your opportunity to make amends. You won't lose any time you weren't already spending, and in exchange you'll get smarter on the issue.

BTW...

Quote
There are plenty of overbearing, domineering, overreaching people in the religious movement. Some of them are among the aforementioned bigots. But most of them--I'd daresay the vast majority of them--are well-intentioned, and simply have difficult personalities. Quite honestly, these are the most important people. They're the first ones to recognize the existence of an injustice, and they're the leaders of the struggle against it. Their personal abrasiveness is soon forgotten by history, but their accomplishments are long remembered. They are the ones who the word "bigot" describes, but they are not "bigots." They are religious people, and you need to accept that their work inherently entails making most of us uncomfortable from time to time. If it didn't, then they wouldn't be doing their job, because their job is to identify the moral faults in our society and advocate change. Change is seldom easy, because it means people will have to look at the world in a different way. Maybe they'll have to behave differently. And most of them will resent it, make no mistake. People don't like being told that their behaviors or views are in need of improvement. That's only human. But it needs to happen. The people who make it happen are often the most difficult, the most intrusive, the most activist among us. They're the leaders...the movers and shakers. They are the ones whose extremism fights against the invisible extremes of today.

All of the words in bold have been altered by me. I hope this makes some of you realize the odd similarities between the two subject matters and the two sided-coin thing I mentioned earlier.

Your comparison is cute, but overly simplistic, as religiosity and feminism are two very different subjects. Both groups have their bad eggs, it's true, but the similarities end there. I'd elaborate, but I have a feeling that would open up an entirely new debate, and this is the Sexism thread and not the Religion thread. Suffice it to say first that the legitimacy of feminism is obvious in logical terms whereas the legitimacy of religion is not, and suffice it to say last that religion is an institution which has given us many of the problems now being confronted by feminism.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on July 16, 2009, 10:53:19 am
As for oppression, consider some of the variables that probably should be present in order for the condition of oppression to apply:

The great nation of Thoughtopia applauds the venerable representative of Joshualvania's proposal and we move that this resolution be approved by the general assembly and sent to the security council for ratification.

Wha? We're not the U.N.? Huh, with something like that I just sort of assumed...

Anywho, that aside, it would seem that your definition of oppression, J, is one of degrees. What separates "oppression" from discrimination is merely that oppression is widespread discrimination. An interesting take, and certainly a useful list of indicators. However it seems like it might be prudent to include, if not in the definition of "oppression" then at least in the definition of some concept, organized and institutionalized attacks.

For example; there is a conceptual difference between a nation not allowing women to vote through legislation and a nation where women don't vote out of fear of domestic abuse. Neither is good, but neither are they the same.

Truth, if you're worried about certain info being withheld from you in the public schools by some liberal conspiracy...

While I'm not sure if ToD was referring to a liberal conspiracy, a lot of levels of American education do engage in what could be termed indoctrination. This is specifically because critical thinking is deemphasized while route memorization is encouraged. Consider a math class: when was the last time a class was given a chance to develop their own formula for something, rather than being told to memorize a formula? Consider a history class: when was the last time a class was given the raw source documents for the 100 Years War and told to figure out what really happened? How many English classes are you aware of in which students are allowed to determine what constitutes a classic, rather than being told to read x y and z classics?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on July 16, 2009, 11:06:17 am
Anywho, that aside, it would seem that your definition of oppression, J, is one of degrees. What separates "oppression" from discrimination is merely that oppression is widespread discrimination.

That wasn't my characterization. I consider the two to be distinct concepts. This is what I wrote in my earlier post:

Quote from: J
Every time a woman is treated differently because she's a woman, that's discrimination. Every time a woman is held back because of the different treatment, that's oppression.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 16, 2009, 02:30:09 pm
I think that besides our differences in use of the word "oppression," we have plenty of common ground on this matter. I'm not so naive as to think that things are perfect the way they are, and there are a lot of blatantly unfair things going on that need to be changed. What happens after that is none of my concern at the moment. Lord J and the others can deal with the more subtle forms of social inequality, but I'll fight for the big picture projects, such as:

-Getting rid of the wage gap between the two genders. This can be easily solved with almost no additional interference by the government, by reinstated and passing the Equal Rights Amendment. This way, women who go through this injustice can sue for their equal rights, as well as men who have been subject to this.

-Drastically reducing sexual harassment. Ideally, we'll be able to eliminate it, but I'll settle for it occurring in isolated incidents, since eliminating it completely is probably impossible. To do this, prosecutors should start handling sexual harassment cases differently, since the statute is very lenient on people who commit it. On the books there are two types of sexual harassment:

i. Quid pro quo, which as it's name implies is doing sexual favors in return for raises, promotions, not getting fired, etc. These should be prosecuted as extortion.

ii. Hostile Work Environment, which interferes with the victims work life. These should be prosecuted as sexual assault.

I'd like both to be prosecuted as sexual assault, but the elements for quid pro quo don't fit the elements for sexual assault, unfortunately.

-Domestic violence needs to be stopped. The way to do this is punishing every person who commits it, regardless of the victim's feelings. We've all seen the cycle of violence at work here, where the victim will forgive their assailant who will in turn assault them again, until the entire affair ends up like Lorena Bobbitt's case.

Rapists should either be put to death or, as they're doing in Louisiana now, chemically castrated as part of their sentence. Either way, there is a 0% recidivism rate and a huge deterrent against future offenders.

The one hitch to all of these programs is that women themselves need to start standing up for themselves again. The problem with the feminist movement in America is that it will achieve something, then disappear for 50 years.

Its the same with women in positions of power or in government. They have to do it themselves. If we start handing out those positions using our government, then its not a true victory for equality.

If blacks, who comprise 20% of the population, can march and protest to the point where the racists in Washington had to listen, then so can women who make up a slight majority.

This leads me to another point, and that is the image of the feminist movement as a whole. According to a scientific poll done by the Granddaughters of Feminism, more than 90% of women support the feminist causes, while only a quarter are willing to accept the feminist title. This indicates a PR problem, to say the least, with the feminist movement right now.

Someone on this forum once said that people are more likely to take advice from a person they can share a steak with rather than a person that is constantly criticizing their lifestyle. And that is true. If the feminist movement does not soften its image, then more people will start straying away before the job is done. Unless you're willing to accept the status quo, that's not a good thing.

Here's the point: the government can do a few things to further the protection of women, but without changing its structure entirely, it cannot ensure equality. That part is up to the women and feminists themselves. Their "oppression" is not so great that they cannot change the social structure or acquire positions of power. The proof of this is that many women already have gained positions of power and many women have used that power to make their changes. It has been done before and it can happen again, but it is up for them to do and not for the government to provide for.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on July 16, 2009, 03:15:52 pm
This way, women who go through this injustice can sue for their equal rights, as well as men who have been subject to this.

They have to be aware of it first, which requires that salary and benefit information be widely posted, which employers are against for a variety of reasons.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: IAmSerge on July 16, 2009, 05:57:38 pm
This way, women who go through this injustice can sue for their equal rights, as well as men who have been subject to this.

They have to be aware of it first, which requires that salary and benefit information be widely posted, which employers are against for a variety of reasons.

Personally, I think salary information should be posted widely within the company's own.  Not outside of it, of course.  Keep it privately public...

...that is, under the circumstance that they even post it.

You say that employers are against it for many reasons.  I'm sure some of those reasons are for bad purposes, but, not to off all the reasons as bad, do you think you could expand upon your statement, please?  I wish to know the reasoning behind these things.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on July 16, 2009, 06:18:07 pm
Simple business policy. You don't disclose your secret formulas. You don't disclose your marketing strategies. And you especially don't disclose your expenses, because in many industries, profit comes from low cost, not differentiation. Supply chain management, quality management, cost reduction, etc. have all become important competitive advantages in their own right, independent of whatever a firm's actually providing in the way of goods and services.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on July 16, 2009, 10:47:21 pm
It's also simple bargening power. If Employee A knows that Employee B is paid $2000 for the same job, they'll want more money as well. It means that employees at the same level have to (gasp) be paid the same. But if employee A is willing to accept $2000 less than employee B, why should the business pay them more?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 16, 2009, 10:49:20 pm
It's also simple bargening power. If Employee A knows that Employee B is paid $2000 for the same job, they'll want more money as well. It means that employees at the same level have to (gasp) be paid the same. But if employee A is willing to accept $2000 less than employee B, why should the business pay them more?

That's precisely why the wage gap between the genders still exists.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on July 16, 2009, 11:24:26 pm
Yeah, there's no way that sexism plays any part of the reinforcement of the pay gap.

 :roll:
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 16, 2009, 11:46:46 pm
What? You think the executives of these companies are secretly plotting against women? I can see it now:

Exec. 1: Hey bro!

Exec. 2: What's the matter? You look down.

Exec. 1: Its these damn women, all existing and stuff.

Exec. 2: Yes, I find the existence of an opposite sex to be quite vexing as well. What do you propose we do?

Exec. 1: I think we should keep on oppressing them.

Exec. 2: But how? We can't take their right to vote away.

Exec. 1: By purposely paying them less than men.

Exec. 2: Genius!

Exec. 1: Yes, it is brilliant. No girls allowed, lulz!

Exec. 2: BMFF! Best Male Friends Forever, because girls are smelly.

I'm a parodist, so I did exaggerate a bit...or rather, a lot...or rather, all of it.

But, really I think it has more to do with bosses knowing they can get away with it rather than some systematic misogynistic oppression mode they go into. Get rid of them being able to get away with it, and you'll solve the problem completely.

That was a really commonsensical answer, I know.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: MsBlack on July 17, 2009, 12:53:21 am
Truthordeal, I'm astounded that you're missing not just the gravity of wage sexism, but that it exists at all.

Sure, employers do try to Scrooge anyone they can, and doing so isn't inherently sexist. What you're missing is the simple fact that the reason for females being Scrooged so extensively is their sex. It's as simple as that; that's why it's such a major sexist issue.

If these employers were thinking, 'Hey, this person is obviously malleable; let's try and Scrooge 'em,' for any reason other than applicants' sex, it wouldn't be sexist.

But, as I'm sure you realise, that's rarely the case. Many employers consciously lowball females, and all those who do and more do so for unconscious reasons because of deeply-set sexist prejudices that they don't even realise.

If you really think that employers intentionally exploiting females through wages isn't a huge issue, or that wage disparities are just a coincidence or, worse, that it's the applicants' faults for 'letting themselves be exploited', you really need to wake up and read up. Wage disparities are one of the most accessible and acknowledged examples of sexual inequality, and yet you're failing to grasp even the basic issues at work here.

I think you'd do better to take a break from these issues in the arena of 'debate' and read up on the basics of sexism issues or even just look into basic examples of sexual discrimination. Heck, just open your eyes to the possibility that sexism is anywhere as much of an issue as Z and J claim. It's so widespread in society that to be so unaware or denying of it, you must have blinders on against it or spend an insane amount of time denying it, consciously or otherwise. You don't have to take anyone's word for it, but if you analyse even a fraction of what you see day-to-day, you'll see how rampant sexual inequality is. Better yet, think about how your own behaviour towards and preconceptions of other people changes based on their sex. Regardless of whether you agree with what you might call the more extreme positions opposing you in this thread, I think you'd do well to at least open yourself up to the premise that sexism is a massive problem by looking out for it yourself. It's hard to grasp social issues you've no experience of, you know? If you're disagreeing over something as elementary as wage disparities, you have little to gain from this thread, regardless of whether you're right or wrong.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: KebreI on July 17, 2009, 12:57:18 am
I always find it weird when something so perfectly correct comes from a /B/tard.  :?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 17, 2009, 01:25:19 am
Truthordeal, I'm astounded that you're missing not just the gravity of wage sexism, but that it exists at all.

Ms. Black, I'm astounded that you seem to have overlooked my post earlier where I agreed that it was a major problem and laid out a solution for it. My solution, despite Thought finding a good hole in it, was a serious solution.

I'm not trying to make light of the issue of wage sexism, but rather of Zeality's accusation that there's some big sexist conspiracy behind it.

Execs, by and large are not doing it because they believe that women should be oppressed. They are doing it because they know they can get away with it, because they are women. Get rid of them being able to get away with wage sexism, and it will stop, and the issue will cease, and every thing can be gumdrops and ice cream for everyone.

Rather than whining over the problem, look for a practical solution. Mine was faulty, but at least it was something.

As I said before, I'm not going to talk about the very subtle social issues that Z and J are knowledgeable about, because I don't know enough about it. I do talk about the bigger problems because at least I have some ideas to help them.

Damn it all. I do something productive today with listing some solutions, but y'all are still riding my ass about it for no good reason.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: MsBlack on July 17, 2009, 02:11:14 am
Damn it all. I do something productive today with listing some solutions, but y'all are still riding my ass about it for no good reason.

That's why I suggested you go elsewhere to read up for yourself on the issues instead of arguing them here. I'm not sure why you feel compelled to argue little points if we're 'riding your ass for no good reason'; either you're not as self-assured as you're letting on or you actually think we might have a point.

I'd rather you gave my suggestion a try than us getting caught up in some long-ass point-by-point argument here, so I'll simply point some of where you're missing the basics.

While I think you gather that wage disparities between the sexes is a problem, you completely miss the sexist dimension to it. Wage discrimination and wage disparities are not the same thing; you acknowledged the latter, but not the former. I appreciate it's a subtle difference, so let me explain.

If someone exploits people who happen to be female because they think they're easy targets, that's not sexism. This is what you acknowledged happens, but you downplayed the sexist motivations that actually do come into play so often and which make it discrimination. Discrimination is discrimination because of why it happens, not because of the result itself. This isn't coincidental opportunism, it's intentional exploitation. There's a low-level error in your thinking here that puts you in a severely disadvantaged position to understand not only sexism but all discrimination in general.

You also severely underestimate the depth of the problem, particularly obviously when you think that just passing legislation to nominally eliminate wage disparities will be the end of the problem. Really, that you suggested that the exploitation would disappear if doing so became a bit harder for the exploiters to do, you showed yourself to have a simplistic understanding of the situation and apparently none of the underlying forces at work here. That's forgiveable if you remedy it, which is where 'reading up' comes in.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: IAmSerge on July 17, 2009, 04:03:00 am
It's also simple bargening power. If Employee A knows that Employee B is paid $2000 for the same job, they'll want more money as well. It means that employees at the same level have to (gasp) be paid the same. But if employee A is willing to accept $2000 less than employee B, why should the business pay them more?
Sure, employers do try to Scrooge anyone they can, and doing so isn't inherently sexist. What you're missing is the simple fact that the reason for females being Scrooged so extensively is their sex. It's as simple as that; that's why it's such a major sexist issue.

Fix problem two by fixing problem one?

Sounds great!  Now, to devise a devious plan to fix problem one....

by fixing the non-sexist problem we can get rid of a secondary sexist one!

now, I'm not saying this will fix all sexist problems, and I'm also not saying it will fix all sexist problems in the workplace either (stuff like lack of respect, and such.)

But it would be a start, no?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: MsBlack on July 17, 2009, 04:25:41 am
I don't think eliminating 'negotiation' altogether is a good thing. Even though it's often abused as a cover for discrimination, it can be a valid way for employers and employees to adjust their deals according to circumstances.

I would be in favour of something along the lines of making employers advertise their base conditions and imposing limits on how much flexibility the employers would have to change the conditions relative to other employees, which would mean that people wouldn't be significantly advantaged just for being more demanding or lucky, would limit the damage discrimination can do, would leave room for negotiation and some flexibility and would level wages more for people in similar positions. (Of course, then some employers would want to Scrooge everyone instead of some, which would mean ensuring that minimums are reasonably high.)
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on July 17, 2009, 05:53:12 pm
Are gender-specific names sexist?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Uboa on July 17, 2009, 06:17:03 pm
Are gender-specific names sexist?

Heh, I think gender-specific name calling is sexist.  For example, I'm a fan of Hell's Kitchen, but I think Ramsey goes too far when he calls any of the women a "cow".  It disappoints me to no end.  I know he's capable of showing much more class.

Of course, he uses other sexist names too, and I'm not fond of those others either.  "Cow" just took me by surprise. 
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 17, 2009, 06:35:18 pm
Isn't cow like a British/Canadian equivalent of calling someone a bitch?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Uboa on July 17, 2009, 06:40:17 pm
I don't think they're equivalent per say.  I think cow is supposed to imply mental or physical sluggishness.  But, it does seem to be more of a UK thing.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: MsBlack on July 17, 2009, 08:14:26 pm
Are gender-specific names sexist?

I use 'sexist' in the negative sense to mean unfairly discriminating on the basis of sex. It is also often convenient to refer to things like a female not getting a job because of her sex as sexist, because a sex has been relegated by the discrimination, even if what's described is not itself a case of such discrimination.

Sex-specific names are a specific case of sexism in the broadest sense—discrimination (negative or otherwise) on the basis of sex. As discriminations, they can be negative (in this case, sexist) if the discrimination is unfair, but are not necessarily sexist.

However, some sex-specific names, while not strictly sexist, promote sexism. Using sex-specific names reinforces the ubiquitous splitting of people along sexual lines, which always reinforces negative sexism. (That's a point that few realise; sexual distinctions always end up reinforcing negative sexism, regardless of whether they're necessarily 'offensive' or 'discriminatory'. This is a point which is the backbone to, for example, some of the more controversial intentions of feminists, such as neutering English grammatically. It should be obvious that being unable to communicate or even think without arbitrarily and constantly splitting people into divisive groups promotes discrimination, but gendered pronouns force this when the language's pronouns is used.)

Epithets like 'bitch' are always offensive when used in earnest regardless of the context, because they rely on marginalising or implicitly criticising a particular sex, no matter whom the target is.

On the word cow: from my experience, 'cow' is a generic insult for a woman (or, because of this, it is sometimes used against some men to imply that, 'They're manwomen,' or whatever nonsense), often with connotations of stupidity and inconsiderateness.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on July 17, 2009, 08:48:47 pm
I interpreted "gender-specific names" to mean names like Betty and Marie, but everyone else is talking about female-centric words like ingenue and tramp. Which did you mean?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on July 18, 2009, 01:25:26 pm
Lord J has my intent: by sex-specific names I was thinking along the lines of Susan or Bob. I was wondering about it because of the discussion on Unisex bathrooms. Perhaps I should have asked if Unisex names would be a reduction in sexism.

Certainly, it might be nice for transgendered people if they didn't have to change their name to fit their desired gender... though I suppose changing names might still have a symbolic value.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Uboa on July 18, 2009, 05:32:50 pm
As people alter their bodies and identities more regularly, I think that it's likely that a variety of accepted unisex names will emerge.  As a whole, though, I don't see how we would widely benefit from intentionally moving our entire culture in the direction of "unisexuality".  (Unisexuality is actually a biological term, but I don't know that it has any kind of cultural significance...)  I understand that we're just talking about names for now, but I guess I'm just not comfortable with any idea of merging of the sexes, rather than instilling the knowledge in individuals to understand and respect their own gender, to respect themselves as individuals of that gender, and to respect and understand other genders. (Plural genders to include transsexuals.)

If it happens on its own -- if we have another decade like the 80's in which wider shifts of gender identities become the norm -- I do think that would be beneficial in reducing the prevalence of sexism, in the same way that anything which breaks down barriers of understanding between the sexes would be.  Hopefully it'd bring people that much closer to understanding that we're all human (I think?), but each person's wiring is just a little different, and whatever sex you happen to be just has that much more of an impact on your wiring. 

(I have this working philosophy that every human is composed of these different identities -- the human identity, a gender identity, a kind of "life path" or experiential identity, maybe a cultural identity, and others...)
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on July 18, 2009, 09:36:16 pm
Thought, you ask a very complicated question!

First, we can say without controversy that sex-specific names, like sex-specific anything, are by definition sexist unless they serve to indicate some sex-specific condition. Second, we can say that the answer to the question "How important to a person's overall identity is their sex?" is one that will vary at the individual level--and a question which unfortunately cannot be answered until long after the individual has their name. Third, we can acknowledge hopefully with unanimity that some naming conventions are structurally sexist because they routinely flow from male to female, establishing a greater weight on the former: most notable are diminutive names and married names. Fourth, we can identify (perhaps not without disagreement) the sexist tendencies of other naming conventions: for instance, naming females after virtues or flowers or seasons or states, which is sexist not because of the content but because of the selectivity, the connotations, and the ensuing exclusivity.

We could talk through all of that, but I think if you're looking for a yes-or-no answer as to whether sex-specific names are sexist, look no further than the fact that names are rarely chosen by adult individuals who are looking to express themselves. By giving a person a sex-specific name, that person is consigned to having their sex be prominent in their name. I do think that is sexist.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Uboa on July 18, 2009, 10:14:37 pm
By giving a person a sex-specific name, that person is consigned to having their sex be prominent in their name. I do think that is sexist.

"What's in a name?"  

Names are indicative of a lot of things.  Culture, ideals of the parents, ancestry...  I don't think that gender-specific naming is any more of a hindrance than any of those might be.  If it's too much of a problem a person can change their name.

I suppose moving in a direction of genderless names might be beneficial in a number of ways, though.  For one, the good genderless names I've heard are reflective of our collective heritage and ideals, and of the natural world.  (Justice, Raven, Shale, Yarrow, etc.  Then there's Moon Unit... Love Zappa, but I wouldn't want that name!)  I'd rather people move towards a more collective heritage than staying in their regional niches, and names would be a good way to start.

Naming culture is interesting.  Today, most people keep the names they've been given at birth for their entire lives.  I think more than anything this is a matter of convenience given the almost unthinkable number of records on any given person.  But, in various tribal cultures re-naming ceremonies are the norm at important occasions in a person's life.  I suppose I wouldn't want my "tribe" necessarily designating my new name based on their perceptions of me, and I doubt that would be a better system for today's world where each individual has so much information regarding themselves and the world to process.  Heh, I doubt similar name changes based on personal choices would fare much better.  I know I've shifted identities many, many times throughout my late teens and early 20's, and if I had changed real names as many times as I'd changed screen names based on my perceptions of what was important at the time, heaven help my doctor, dentist, and the IRS.

Edit:  I just started wondering if that quote was really the best to use in this situation since their names actually do erf things up just a tad.  I meant to convey spirit of the phrase, i.e. "it shouldn't matter".
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Radical_Dreamer on July 19, 2009, 02:57:50 pm
Even if you don't legally change your name, you can introduce yourself as whatever you like, and people will generally abide it. Even if it is something a little out of the ordinary.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on July 19, 2009, 11:52:15 pm
You mean like Xamoltan J. Awesome?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 19, 2009, 11:59:23 pm
That's a fairly unisex name. I think you might get discriminated against because it sounds weird, but...
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on July 20, 2009, 12:25:30 pm
Regarding the insults "cow" and "bitch," it is interesting that no one has commented on how they are the deadly sin counterparts of perceived feminine holy virtues.

"Bitch," as I usually hear it applied, tends to indicate that a women is mean, in-your-face, rude, uppity, etc. That is the exact opposite of how standard sexist culture claims that women should act (they should be "kind, caring, polite, soft-spoken, etc).

"Cow" (at least as I hear it used in the States) tends to be directed in a most physical sort of manner; calling a woman cow is akin to calling them fat, lazy, and simple. The sexist stance is that women should be accomplished (in Pride and Prejudice sense of the word), industrious, and slender.

I ask you, why shouldn't a woman be in-your-face? What is so bad about an uppity member of the XX genetic group? Why is our society consumed with the supposition that a woman's worth is defined by her weight (or lack thereof)?!

To call a woman such names is to chide them for not conforming to sexist social expectations.

Indeed, physical appearance is one of the more subtle forms of sexual oppression that occurs in modern society. Being overweight is seen as a punishment; if you fail at life, that is what you'll be.

I recently received a spam email that read "Happy Birthday Barbie!" followed by a picture and then the additional sentence "It is about time this happened to her."

Here's a link to the image that was included in the email: http://www.clickplay.com.au/funny_zone/wp-content/uploads/pic04144.jpg (http://www.clickplay.com.au/funny_zone/wp-content/uploads/pic04144.jpg)

I took the tone of the email to be one of revenge; Barbie is hated and so being overweight is revenge. To say that a person's weight is a punishment is actually fairly apt; society seems to bind women with size 6 chains.

There are certain perceptions associated this being fat: they're stupid, lazy, gluttons, etc. While women are underrepresented in the sciences, overweight women are even more underrepresented. This ignores the reality of the situation. We don't discriminate someone because of hair color, correct? It's genetic and they can't do anything about it (except perhaps dye it). But a person's weight can (and often does) have a huge genetic factor associated with it.

Our genes can predispose us to eat more, to process that food more efficiently, to more readily store fat, to produce additional adipose tissue with greater ease, to retain excess fat more stubbornly, to burn fewer calories for common activities, etc. Epigenetics and environment can also play large roles in if a person is large. Recent studies indicate that what a mother eats while being pregnant can influence the weight of the child (consume excessive calories and the child has an increased likelihood of being obese in their adult life). There are viruses that can cause a person to put on weight. To blame someone for being overweight is akin to blaming someone for developing cancer (though the difference is that cancer's effects on the body are much well known).

And so what does society do? We insist that women should appear a certain way. If they don't, they should devote all their efforts to achieving that ideal. Instead of society trying to keep women barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen, society is trying to keep them in sweat pants, exhausted, and in the gym. The effect is largely the same; don't give them time to think, to develop as human beings, to become the women they want to be. No, they should spend their time, fighting their genetic structure, trying to conform to a fleeting ideal. Keep a populace exhausted and distracted and they won’t have the energy to rebel.

It is quite frustrating when I hear men complain that a woman's "ugly" because she's fat. Physical attraction does likewise have a genetic component, but such genetically predisposed preferences seem to be in a minority of the population. The majority of physical attraction seems to be the result of social conditioning. Which is to say, when a guy says that a woman is ugly because she's fat, he is really saying that he is subject to social conditioning that limits his own perceptions. It is a comment on the viewer, not the one being viewed.

To be more a little soap-boxy, the old saying that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is vile bunk. Beauty is inherent in the beholden. Every woman (and indeed, every individual) is beautiful. That is the starting condition. It is only a question as to if the beholder is capable of seeing past their own prejudices to see it. When we call someone ugly, all we are doing is identifying our own limitations, where we have failed as human beings. It says not a whit about the person to whom the insult is being applied.

Third, we can acknowledge hopefully with unanimity that some naming conventions are structurally sexist because they routinely flow from male to female...

Depends on how one looks at it. Julius and Julia would seem to be one such example of where the female equivalent is derived from the male version. Historically, it is true that the name Julius seems to have been common long before Julia was. However, both follow basic Latin grammatical forms. The name stem is "Juli-" while the "-us" and "-a" endings are merely declension specific endings (and those declensions have gender associated). Julius and Julia are grammatically cognates, not derivatives.

Or consider Aaron and Erin; the former was popular long before the latter, and so one might well suppose that the latter was derived from the former. However, if one is willing to trust a website (http://www.behindthename.com) on name information (a dubious proposition, of course), then Erin and Aaron aren't even related (the former being of Hebrew origin and the latter being of Gaelic origin).

General classifying nouns, however, such as waiter and waitress or actor and actress, appear (to the best of my knowledge) to be much more along the lines of what you are talking about, and indeed is seemingly unnecessary. The only potential use I can see for having different words for the same position is, say, for a director to know who he ought to cast in a particular role (though we may be too hasty in excluding women from men's parts, and vice versa. Such swaps used to work, after all).

We could talk through all of that, but I think if you're looking for a yes-or-no answer as to whether sex-specific names are sexist, look no further than the fact that names are rarely chosen by adult individuals who are looking to express themselves.

Do you mean that people seldom choose standard names when selecting adult monikers, or that they seldom choose sex specific monikers? And in what setting?

People choose aliases for the internet fairly often, and as adults, but anonymity seems to be a powerful draw for non-standard names than an aversion to sexual identifiers. Additionally, people seem to still generally follow vague naming conventions. To be very hasty in my generalizations, it seems that words that end in consonants are often associated as being masculine while words that end in vowels are often associated as being feminine (though diminutives of all sorts also often take vowel endings). To use the forum as an example:

Uboa, Zephira, and ZaichikArky are all self-identified women. You'll note, each ends in a vowel. Take a few male examples: Faust Wolf, Thought, Ramsus, Truthordeal. We all choose names that end in what could be interpreted as standard masculine naming conventions.

Anywho, I'm not meaning to disagree; I just thought of the possibility and as such haven't had time to figure things out for myself.

Naming culture is interesting.  Today, most people keep the names they've been given at birth for their entire lives.

I think you might be too legalistic in such a perspective. I can assure you, my parent's didn't name me Thought. Also, I have had a few nicknames over the years as well. People usually refer to me by my "real" name, but I've had plenty of other names too. The difference is that one was recorded by the government and the others weren't. But that difference doesn’t make the others non-names.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Exodus on July 22, 2009, 04:43:25 am
Quote from: Thought
"Bitch," as I usually hear it applied, tends to indicate that a women is mean, in-your-face, rude, uppity, etc. That is the exact opposite of how standard sexist culture claims that women should act (they should be "kind, caring, polite, soft-spoken, etc).

I see that as applying to both sexes, not just women.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on July 22, 2009, 05:46:35 am
Nowadays that is increasingly true, but it is a very new development for "bitch" to be used of males by the mainstream. And there is still not total parity in the concept, because it is inherently a female label, in the animal world, co-opted for derogatory use among humans.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on July 22, 2009, 10:27:04 am
I see that as applying to both sexes, not just women.

While it does get applied to men, it still attacks the underlying social assumptions (those associations just happen to be different). Calling a man a bitch is like saying he cries like a little girl; it is essentially saying that he's no man at all.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Zephira on July 22, 2009, 12:37:19 pm
For a throwback to the abortion debate, that same debate is going on over a health reform bill http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090722/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul_abortion (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090722/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul_abortion).
I don't understand a lot of what's said in there (I'm not that business savvy), but it looks like abortion could almost be winning. Maybe it'll be fully supported sometime in the next few terms.

And as for unisex names, there are already quite I few. I know many Nickys and Dannys in both genders. Giving the "wrong" gender name to a kid isn't that bad, as long as you don't go for an extreme like naming your boy Nancy or naming your girl Dick.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Mr Bekkler on July 22, 2009, 12:44:20 pm
I have a unisex name that most people think is a girl's name. It's never caused me much trouble. Most people think it's cool. And you can always tell who pays attention and who doesn't when you meet, cause if you forget my name, you definitely weren't paying attention.

(Not that I'm all that memorable. But it's a weird name.)
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on July 22, 2009, 11:56:01 pm
Bekkler: I bet your name is either Kelly or Terry!

Zephira: The fact that nobody in Congress is specifically coming out in favor of explicitly including abortion care in the larger healthcare reform legislation is a sign of just how far to the right our nation has gone. But I think you're correct; I don't think the Republicans will be able to win this concession, and it's only a matter of time before the country collectively recognizes that the Religious Right isn't in control anymore.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Zephira on July 23, 2009, 12:27:33 am
Hey, my uncle's name was Terry! Although I never thought it could be used as a girl's name. I suppose it could work, though it makes me think she would be kinda dorky.
Yeah, I suppose it is easy to judge people based on name, but that isn't a gender thing specifically. If I meet a man named Dick, my first assumption would be he's a hillbilly.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Mr Bekkler on July 23, 2009, 02:33:19 am
Lord J: No, but I have an Aunt Terry and my female boss's name is Kelly. Like I said, it's a weird name. And for some reason it's now popular to name female babies my name. It rhymes with a big hotel chain.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on July 23, 2009, 02:59:59 am
Milton!
Madison!
Godel 6!
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: alfadorredux on July 23, 2009, 09:14:27 am
Evidently Lord J and I are thinking of the same hotel chain... My guess is "Marion".
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Mr Bekkler on July 23, 2009, 11:53:30 am
It's  :evil:. You were very close. And I go by  :fuk. Please stick to the Mr Bekkler name on the forum though! :wink:
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on July 28, 2009, 02:40:08 am
You go, gamers! (http://videogames.yahoo.com/events/plugged-in/ea-blasted-over-questionable-marketing-stunt/1338121)

Is it a sign that Western society is progressing?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on July 28, 2009, 02:42:23 am
Yes, I remember reading that earlier today.

I've just got to wonder, sexism aside for the moment...why did EA think it would work, or that they wouldn't get blasted for this?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on July 28, 2009, 02:50:10 am
Either EA's advertising department is run by depraved lunes, or they knew it would backfire in this exact way and give them more publicity in the media (in which case EA's advertising department is run by depraved lunes).

These trade shows either need to get rid of "booth babes" or maybe put in some "booth studs" who are at least equally treated as meat racks. Women have money too, and therefore sexism in the sense of one-sidedness cannot survive forever in the free market.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on July 28, 2009, 10:53:23 am
But it would appear that Booth Babes over Booth Studs is economically sound:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/personal/07/24/o.women.watching.porn/index.html

Okay, I feel bad for referencing something from Oprah.com, but to be fair, CNN did it first.

Of particular note is the following section:

Quote
Even more compelling were the results of a 2004 study at Northwestern University that also assessed the effect of porn on genital arousal. Mind you, a copy of "Buffy the Vampire Layer" and a lubed-up feedback device isn't most girls' idea of a hot night in. But when the researchers showed gay, lesbian, and straight porn to heterosexual and homosexual women and men, they found that while the men responded more intensely to porn that mirrored their particular gender orientation, the women tended to like it all. Or at least their bodies did.

Which is to say, Booth Babes as sex figures seems like they target the widest portion of the population for the least amount of money, as they might work on women too.

Though even if Booth Studs were added in, I'm not sure how effective it would be. Dante, Gambit, or Malcom Reynolds, while stunning figures of masculinity, tend to have a fair bit more clothing than the classic Laura Croft or Black Widow.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Radical_Dreamer on July 29, 2009, 02:48:14 am
For what it's worth, I have occasionally seen booth studs at E3, but it's been years since I've gone.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on July 30, 2009, 01:25:58 pm
It's because all the raging hot man flesh at these events cannot be confined to mere booths.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Zephira on July 30, 2009, 01:31:14 pm
Sexism, in games? I don't know, I quite like hot chicks in my video games. It'd be nice if they had good characterization and personality, and they usually do (in old games at least). The small, timid, modest, plain and completely clothed girls tend to be a bit boring, and the more flamboyant ones generally get better roles. I suppose that in itself is sexist, or at least some form of stereotype, but I'm not complaining as long as they're written well.

Example: Nina of Breath of Fire 3 (http://www.creativeuncut.com/gallery-03/art/bof3-psp-nina.jpg). She's pretty, she's a princess, she has breasts, but she's also an amazing mage and has wonderful lines. She helps you out of lights of tight spots in the game. Is it sexist if the girls like her too?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on July 30, 2009, 02:50:35 pm
Quote
Is it sexist if the girls like her too?
I never thought of BOF3 Nina as a particularly sexistically (!?) written character, though I never had her in party (BOF2 Nina, on the other hand, rowrr! -- uh, even though I've never played BOF2, just seen the artwork and sprites). I always had Momo in when I felt the party needed some estrogen content because Momo had a bazooka, which beats any other weapon.

Whether something is still sexist if the sex typically targeted by the supposed sexism (say it three times fast!) is a fantastic question. There seems to be a consensus among most feminists that a pro-life stance is automatically sexist even if women espouse pro-life views; I'd be willing to bet that pro-life women have an even harder time trying to self-identify as legitimate feminists than straight men do. It is a common attitude that the Islamic hijab is sexist even if women find a humanist interpretation in it and embrace it (though by no means a consensus, with a sort of cultural relativism seeming to become more mainstream in Third Wave feminism). A second wave feminist might pronounce makeup marketed to women sexist, even though third wave feminists like Jessica Valenti embrace it.

In short, it probably depends on who you ask, as feminism is such an attitudinally(!?) fluid movement. I think it's certainly possible for a woman to promote things that are counterproductive to women's rights, just as a few African Americans have owned slaves in US history. I seem to remember a quote from Queen Elizabeth I to the effect that women's rights were somehow not necessary in her day and age, but now I can't find it -- was it apocryphal? I could have sworn it was in a history text I read in high school.

But as for the specific issue of judging whether a videogame character is sexistically(!?) written, I think it depends on whether the character tends to make players of either gender respect the character or dismiss the character as either a ditz or the bauble of a hero more central to the plot. Despite all my sensibilities about Tifa's appearance in Final Fantasy VII, I admire her for her inner emotional strength and perseverence more than any other single videogame character.

I like making up new words. Hopefully they're grammatically correct if not semantically correct.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on August 01, 2009, 07:32:48 pm
Well guys I took some of y'all's advice and decided to read up a little on sexism, and I ran into an interesting little bit that I thought I would ask your opinions about.

The issue I found was called "benevolent" sexism, which is opposite to the more common misogynistic "hostile" sexism.

Basically "benevolent" sexism is, not to make light of it, chivalry, while "hostile" sexism is misogyny or objectification(spellcheck says that's a word, while, ironically enough, "spellcheck" isn't a word.)

So, females and feminists, what do y'all think on the matter? Is "benevolent" sexism actually sexist? And if it is, is it necessarily a "bad" form of sexism or is it one that will push feminism?

I dunno. Have at it.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Zephira on August 01, 2009, 07:40:05 pm
I think benevolent sexism means you'll be polite and hold doors open for women but not men (or vice versa, depending on sexual preferences). There's nothing wrong with being polite, but it's pretty stupid to be polite only towards one gender.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on August 01, 2009, 11:25:53 pm
I have to agree with Zephira here, the implication IMO being that in the case of chivalry, it's the male gender that's being poo-poo'd upon while women receive preferential treatment. Not that the male reader should try letting a door slam in his girlfriend's face next time they're on a date, but rather that he should hold the door open for her and the next person(s) in close proximity. Or let her open the door for him and the next person(s) in close proximity, when she wins the race to the door.

However, as a recovering ultra-chivalrist myself, I still grieve for the fact that some types of women have never benefited from this so-called chivalry. Maybe most types of women throughout world history never have.

Quote from: Sojourner Truth, Akron, OH 1851
That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud-puddles, or gives me any best place! And ain't I a woman? Look at me! Look at my arm! I have ploughed and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And ain't I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man - when I could get it - and bear the lash as well! And ain't I a woman? I have borne thirteen children, and seen most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother's grief, none but Jesus heard me! And ain't I a woman?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on August 02, 2009, 02:18:30 am
Maybe I'm in the minority, but I find absolutely nothing wrong with benevolent sexism. Actually, if I found guy who wasn't a "benevolent sexist", I would not go out with him. Girls should be treated differently. They are ladies and deserve it. Call it sexist if you want, it's just the way that I think, and I'm feminist. *cues the OMG NO UR NOT* >_>;
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on August 02, 2009, 06:44:05 am
The same people who are likely to treat women specially are also likely to do it out of sexist and outdated cultural attitudes, like stupid restaurateur fuckers who sell roses for "the lady", as if implicitly saying women are dainty creatures who need a ~rose~ and pampering every now and then and should be guarded by men and have a place in the home.

I hold the door open for women and men. Someone who only treats women specially should probably burn in hell forever.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on August 02, 2009, 02:01:49 pm
It's clear from my writing here, but just to be explicit about it I am 100 percent against all sexism, including so-called positive sexism, because in my judgment the outcome is never truly positive. If you're holding that proverbial door open for someone because she has ovaries, and for no other reason, then I suggest your thinking is flawed. Positive sexism establishes the same reinforcement schemes for gender roles that negative sexism does; the only good thing that can be said about it is that, comparatively, it's better than its negative counterpart because it doesn't involve assault and rape.

I've argued on the Compendium many times against sexism on positive sexism grounds.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on August 02, 2009, 04:33:46 pm
I think benevolent sexism means you'll be polite and hold doors open for women but not men (or vice versa, depending on sexual preferences). There's nothing wrong with being polite, but it's pretty stupid to be polite only towards one gender.

That all makes sense enough to me. But as Lord J and Zeality said before me, is there a point when being polite or chivalrous can turn into a form of sexism that reinforces negative gender roles as well?

The same people who are likely to treat women specially are also likely to do it out of sexist and outdated cultural attitudes, like stupid restaurateur fuckers who sell roses for "the lady", as if implicitly saying women are dainty creatures who need a ~rose~ and pampering every now and then and should be guarded by men and have a place in the home.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that I think this particular ritual has more to do with making a few extra bucks, not to mention that women are more likely to accept the rose than men.

Whether that's good or bad is debatable. Lord J has gone on record of saying that he thinks it is bad, while I'm sure a few members here would disagree with him.


I hold the door open for women and men. Someone who only treats women specially should probably burn in hell forever.

I hope the irony's not lost on you.

Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on August 02, 2009, 04:40:51 pm
There's nothing wrong with holding the door open. It's just that pesky little for women on the end. Any sex-specific treatment of other people that doesn't specifically relate to anatomy and physiology is highly susceptible to taking on a sexist dimension. Best to avoid it altogether. For what it's worth, I've held the door open before, and I've had it held open for me, and these were signs of affection or gestures of assistance, having nothing to do with the sex of me or my partner.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on August 02, 2009, 05:01:22 pm
Hm I don't really know what you're talking about the rose thing. I have never experienced this, or even heard of it. If I did, I wouldn't mind, I'm sure it would be cute.

I'm not really old fashioned, but ladies deserve to be treated differently because they are ladies and they need to be shown that they are special. All of you may view that as inherently sexist, and I haven't ever thought of it that way, but even if I did, I don't mind if it is.

I try to hold the door back for all people, not women. I don't expect strangers to treat me differently because I'm a woman and maybe I have been, but I probably don't remember when/if I have. Any time a stranger treats me differently because I'm a woman is because they're hitting on me and want me and are propositioning me. All women deal with that, so I try not to be so annoyed by it anymore... it's just stupid and shooting down the guy does more damage than being propositioned unwillingly (to me anyway).

I am more interested in being treated differently in a relationship. My boyfriend is somewhat old fashioned and sexist. I mentioned this before, but the only thing that kind of annoys me is that he INSISTS on paying for everything because I'm a woman and women shouldn't pay for stuff XD; But I like being treated differently and even though i find it annoying, I would *possibly* not be in a relationship if the guy did not volunteer to pay for everything. I am Russian, and in Russian culture, the man is expected to pay for everything on dates because he is the man and he needs to show his "manliness" and generosity towards the woman by always paying for their dates. This has slightly changed in recent years, but my family has raised me with this mentality. I'm sure everyone here will call it wrong, but to me, it is wrong to discuss splitting the bill after every date. I do that with friends, but on a date, I expect the man to pay for it all, and then when i feel like paying for it (around ~40 percent of the time in my case, then I try to get my way and pay for it).

I'm sure my boyfriend does other sexist things that I don't even notice (yeah, because I'm used to it and like it). The date thing is the only blatant one, but there are probably some other things.... Well I can't think of too many right now,actually, maybe they'll come to mind later.

Anyway, the point is... 90% of women or more most likely like benevolent sexism in their relationships. I am pretty certain of this, and while all the guys here talk about how stupid it is, do you think  the women in your relationships wouldn't like it? The next relationship you get into, try doing that some, especially at the beginning. I bet it's a real good way to solidify a relationship because women are real sticklers for that kind of thing. If you don't do it, perhaps the woman might not think you're gentlemanly enough and not want to go out with you.

Is that right or wrong? Maybe. I think it's right. I think that women expect to be treated differently by their boyfriends, and should be. I'm sure there are many relationships out there where the guy does not practice benevolent sexism and the girl doesn't mind... however, I'm not one of them, and neither are most women. Good luck in finding a girl who doesn't like benevolent sexism. There must be some out there.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Romana on August 02, 2009, 05:47:07 pm
I'm not really old fashioned, but ladies deserve to be treated differently because they are ladies and they need to be shown that they are special.

WHAT

And what about men?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Zephira on August 02, 2009, 05:54:10 pm
While it is flattering for a man to want to pick up the tab, I think it would speak better of his intelligence if we split the bill, or at least discussed who at the time has enough money to pay.
Would I like a man I go out with to be polite and courteous? Yes, yes I would. But if he only extends that generosity to me and other women, then he's an ass. If he were a gentleman or 'manly' at all, he would treat everyone with the same respect.
Preferential treatment should not be based on gender or race.

I'm not really old fashioned, but ladies deserve to be treated differently because they are ladies and they need to be shown that they are special. All of you may view that as inherently sexist, and I haven't ever thought of it that way, but even if I did, I don't mind if it is.
And what, exactly, makes them special? Is it the fact that they have ovaries, or did they do something to actually earn that respect?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on August 02, 2009, 10:21:38 pm
Quote
[L]adies deserve to be treated differently because they are ladies and they need to be shown that they are special.

All women should feel valued (just as valued as men, and for that matter, other genders that may exist), and I think that's the crux of the issue, and what we can all agree on here. I can definitely see where you're coming from, Zai, to this extent -- As long as femininity is basically being crapped upon in general, chivalry or "positive sexism" serves as kind of a counterbalancing emotional and psychological buffer. On a date, or at a traditional wedding, it's like, her occasion, the tiny corner of her world where she gets to feel valued and central in a way she may not feel on numerous other occasions.

However, on the basis of the logic presented in this post, positive sexism should become gradually outmoded alongside negative sexism.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on August 02, 2009, 10:47:44 pm

WHAT

And what about men?


I know a lot of you will jump my gun on this, but men don't need to feel special because society already privileges them anyway. Also, a womans inherent nature will make men feel very special. I just know this from mine/my girlfriends experiences. A woman will usually try to make her boyfriend feel special by her inherent nurturing nature.

Believe it or not, but I am very masculine, and even so, I try to be nurturing to my boyfriend and make him feel special.

The way that men make their ladies feel special is by chivalrous deeds. At is, this is how it is in part. I wouldn't want a boyfriend who was not chivalrous. While Fergie said "Chivalry is dead, but you're still kinda cute", I always disagreed with her. Why was she disapproving of her romance being chivalrous? Isn't it saying something that a lot of women think chivalry is dead? it's not dead, it's just much more reserved these days. This is NOT a stepping stone against sexism. It is a stepping stone for selfishness and uncaring. Many men are not chivalrous because they know that modern society doesn't expect it, so why should they be trying to impress their lady if she isn't expecting it either? I know that I am someone who expects a little bit of chivalry and will not approve of a romance that isn't at least a little chivalrous.

Basically, the definition of chivalry has sadly taken a somewhat negative connotation these last few decades. Chivalry's core definition basically means "like a knight". What lady doesn't like her man to be a knight in shining armor? Hm... maybe the emo ones. Fuck emos.

Anyway, most women like their men to be brave, generous, and COURTEOUS. How are these negative qualities to have? These are the ideal qualities for a man to have. I am somewhat chivalrous, because i am independant and masculine. I expect my boyfriend to be too, and while I am much braver than my current boyfriend, bravery can be developed... generosity and being courteous are more ingrained... My boyfriend is much more generous than I am. Because my selfishness is engrained. His actions encourage me to be less selfish. This is the ideal kind of relationship to have... when someone's good qualities encourage the other to make themselves better.

If my boyfriend wasn't benevolently sexist, how would that encourage me to be more generous or keep my mouth shut and not bitch at people needlessly(I do take after my mom a little, though I'm no where near as bad as she is)?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Romana on August 02, 2009, 11:15:28 pm
I know a lot of you will jump my gun on this, but men don't need to feel special because society already privileges them anyway.

This COMPLETELY goes against what fighting for gender equality is about. The goal is for both genders to be able to stand on equal ground, not raise one gender to a higher privilege than the other.

You have every right to express how you like the way your relationship is, but you can't say it as if it's how every relationship should be.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on August 03, 2009, 12:02:57 am
The whole chivalry thing is just as confusing to men as it is to women sometimes (or as far as I can tell from a male perspective). A lot of guys who either start out as chivalrous and receive negative responses or else observe negative responses or non-responses to other chivalrous men may adopt an immature attitude: "Well, jeez, I'll just let the door slam in her face and see how she likes that!" This may have at least some bearing on women from older generations opining on the "death" of chivalry; they might not be opining the death of chivalry as much as the death of common courtesy.

But the point, is, simply, that doors should be open for others in close proximity always, without regard to age, gender, creed, race or appearance. If a guy lets a door slam in a woman's face -- or anyone's face -- he's
being in asshole in that instance, period.

But as far as why chivalrous men may receive negative responses in the first place, a lot of women are probably frustrated that a guy would seem to be expressing a belief that she's so helpless that she can't even open a door for herself. The "she's special" being replaced with "she needs a dude to help her" from such a woman's perspective. She has muscles too, and should feel free to exert them. At least that's my theory. Note that the door opening example obviously does not encapsulate all that is chivalry, but I imagine similar analogies to other aspects of chivalry could be made.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on August 03, 2009, 12:22:29 am
I know a lot of you will jump my gun on this, but men don't need to feel special because society already privileges them anyway.

This COMPLETELY goes against what fighting for gender equality is about. The goal is for both genders to be able to stand on equal ground, not raise one gender to a higher privilege than the other.

I knew you were going to say exactly that. I don't care if it's anti gender equality. There will *never* ever be such a thing as gender equality. From a sociological viewpoint or a physiological one, there will never be. Doesn't mean we can't aim for it, I just think that the term "gender equality" is just pointless to use. Men and women will never be equal so there needs to be a better term.

Quote
You have every right to express how you like the way your relationship is, but you can't say it as if it's how every relationship should be.

I never did. Not sure why you think I am. Anyone can lead their relationship in any way they want. I understand that most of you have never been in a relationship, let alone a long-term one. So I think that none of you even have any experiences about what relationships are like. I'm not saying that to trash talk, I'm just saying that unless you have actually been in a relationship, you really just know the theory behind how you/other people will act and I am putting it into practical terms from what I have/ other women I know have experienced.

Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on August 03, 2009, 12:33:26 am
Quote from: Zaichik
I understand that most of you have never been in a relationship, let alone a long-term one.
Whoa, that's really fascinating. Judging from the fact that most of us are in our late teens or early twenties, I'd estimate that virtually 100% of us have been in and out of relationships. What's giving you this impression? I'm not arguing, just really fascinated -- wondering if I need to reshape my expectations of the culture in which I live, and whether I'm out of touch with what teens are doing nowadays.

Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing a dumbing down in the relationship numbers, because I feel some portion of those are being formed haphazardly just because Western culture makes people feel worthless if they're not in a relationship. Lord, I've made some poor moves in my day due to that feeling.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on August 03, 2009, 12:38:54 am
FW, I'm giving Zaichi the BotD here and assuming that she meant an actual adult relationship, rather than the typical high school crush and bust.
While we'd like to think that all of our dating is a "relationship," its probably not as they don't usually have all of the same pressures and such.

Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on August 03, 2009, 12:57:08 am
Yeah, Zai's definition of "relationship" was something I was thinking of asking, but you've done it for me Truth. Fair enough, fair enough.

Still, I wonder just how distinct "adult" relationships are from the "high school crush & bust"? What criteria should we use? I admit to have ceased dating after high school; one of the things I learned from the crush & bust cycle is that it's important to give yourself a chance to settle into some routine in which you have financial stability and enough time to devote to your partner, and furthermore, that it's way easier for you to be single at the same time someone really compatible is single, when you're, well, single. It's just laughable (and extremely sexist) when a non-single college guy literally hooks up with another woman on the fly and the first girlfriend hasn't a clue that it's happening. I expect women do this too, of course. In a really sick way, I guess I'm hoping that they do so at least both sexes are screwing each other over equally.

But what I'm getting at here is that, perhaps, we should look at the goal of the relationship and emotional maturity of the partners, rather than the age level of the partners alone, when deciding what a relationship is. I was none too impressed with the dating lives of many of my college friends and co-workers because it reminded me so much of what high schoolers went through in my day. It was just nuts. On the other hand, I met a couple in high school who had, just, this utterly perfect emotionally mature relationship.

If Zai is referring to mature relationships with long-run stability as the end goal, I'll give her that it's probably far less frequent than wider definitions of "relationship." Even so, if you look at the people on this board, there are a few who are happily married or otherwise happily engaged in stable relationships.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Zephira on August 03, 2009, 01:02:43 am
Zaichik, all those characteristics you listed for men - being kind, courteous, brave, generous, and respectful - are indeed great qualities to have, but benevolent sexism implies that these qualities are only shown towards one gender. Maybe it's just my preference, but the ideal man would show those qualities to all people. There are ways to make a lady feel 'special' (assuming she's earned it) without having to be an ass to everyone else.
Benevolent sexism is thus: Assuming that women are too weak to perform any manual labor, pay any bill, make work or social relationships, or run a household, thus the men must to it for them. OR, a man just wants to get in a certain woman's pants, so he gives her preferential treatment. He leads her to believe that he is a kind and generous guy by treating her, holding doors, helping move things, when in reality he wouldn't lend a hand to anyone else in need.
You say that men are favoured in society. They are in certain aspects, but this so-called benevolent sexism makes life crappy for a whole lot of men.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on August 03, 2009, 01:26:33 am
I know a lot of you will jump my gun on this, but men don't need to feel special because society already privileges them anyway. Also, a womans inherent nature will make men feel very special. I just know this from mine/my girlfriends experiences. A woman will usually try to make her boyfriend feel special by her inherent nurturing nature.

What you're describing is gender norms, not the nature of sex. A considerate and affectionate partner will nurture their mate regardless of whose sex is what.

Isn't it saying something that a lot of women think chivalry is dead? it's not dead, it's just much more reserved these days. This is NOT a stepping stone against sexism. It is a stepping stone for selfishness and uncaring. Many men are not chivalrous because they know that modern society doesn't expect it, so why should they be trying to impress their lady if she isn't expecting it either?

No one is saying that the succor and courtesy to which you are referring when you speak of "chivalry" ought to be forgotten from relationships. To the contrary, I think such decency ought to exist in all our relationships, romantic or not, amicable or not. My complaint is that you're making some very sweeping generalizations about the sexes, because, first of all, I think they're untrue, and, second of all, sex-specific generalizations lead invariably to the reinforcement of gender roles, which have been used to hurt so many people.

This is one of those times when it doesn't really matter what the majority of females are like, or what the majority of males are like. So long as there are single individuals who are held back by the presence of gender roles in our society--and there always are such people, including a far greater number who are never even aware of their circumstances, who live out their lives never knowing that sexism curtailed many of the opportunities and possibilities they might otherwise have had--so long as our society and perhaps our very species remains sexist, it is always harmful to make sex-specific generalizations that are not firmly grounded in physiology. You may say that it is inherent to a female's nature that she be nurturing, and it is a debate for another day as to whether you are right are wrong, but the existence of nurturing impulses and attitudes in males raises the likelihood that males may also be nurturing creatures, in which case: Your attitude on chivalry is needlessly constraining. It may work for you, and neither I nor anybody sensible would tell you that you can't have exactly the kind of romantic relationship you want to have, but other people are not bound by your sense of perspective. They are as free as you are to choose how they live and what they value, or they ought to be free at least, and I know you're not trying to tell anyone else what to do, but, by insisting upon these generalizations of the sexes, you are effectively doing exactly that. These sorts of beliefs always have social consequences. It is the sum of our individual convictions which shapes the outlook of a society.

Anyway, most women like their men to be brave, generous, and COURTEOUS. How are these negative qualities to have? These are the ideal qualities for a man to have. I am somewhat chivalrous, because i am independant and masculine. I expect my boyfriend to be too, and while I am much braver than my current boyfriend, bravery can be developed... generosity and being courteous are more ingrained... My boyfriend is much more generous than I am. Because my selfishness is engrained. His actions encourage me to be less selfish. This is the ideal kind of relationship to have... when someone's good qualities encourage the other to make themselves better.

That's all very well said: The only problem is that none of it is sex-specific. Somewhere out there is a relationship where the female has your boyfriend's qualities and the male has your qualities. Is that relationship "wrong," or against human nature somehow? Or could it be that these characteristics originate not from sex and sex alone, but from some other, more comprehensive set of sources?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on August 03, 2009, 01:38:07 am
One point I do want to make a bit clearer, or ask about anyway, is that its ok if you were to maybe treat someone you were in a relationship with, crush and bust or no, a bit differently and perhaps a bit more politely than you would other people.

For instance, I'd probably treat my gf a bit more...for lack of a better word, delicately, than I would my guy friends. That's more of a dating ritual than an example of benevolent sexism, right?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on August 03, 2009, 01:41:44 am
Yeah, that's true of any new human relationship you're forging...there's almost always some kind of delicate period during which acquaintanceship is made and the underlying rapport is established. If you noticing it more prominently in your romantic relationships, it means that you value something in that relationship more than you do in your typical relationships. I would guess that you simply want sex, but you might also have a profound desire for any of several other things (or any combination thereof).

I wouldn't worry about it...
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on August 03, 2009, 02:01:17 am
I merely wanted to clarify the distinction between how one acts in a romantic relationship(which will rely on my chivalry than normal) and the other platonic relationships.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on August 03, 2009, 03:46:29 am
Yes, by "relationship", I meant stable, long-term relationship. One that at least lasts for several months, if not quite longer... I'm sure there are some members on this forum who have been in a relationship like that, but I notice that some people on forums tend to go after online relationships where they either meet the partner once, or not at all. Because of my experiences, I would not degrade that to be a not-relationship, but it's just not really the same as a stable relationship "normal" relationship. Actually, I have never been in a stable "normal" relationship either. So I don't know a lot of things either... I've been with the same guy for over 5 years, though... and I guess that does count for something.

Quote

This is one of those times when it doesn't really matter what the majority of females are like, or what the majority of males are like. So long as there are single individuals who are held back by the presence of gender roles in our society--and there always are such people, including a far greater number who are never even aware of their circumstances, who live out their lives never knowing that sexism curtailed many of the opportunities and possibilities they might otherwise have had--so long as our society and perhaps our very species remains sexist, it is always harmful to make sex-specific generalizations that are not firmly grounded in physiology. You may say that it is inherent to a female's nature that she be nurturing, and it is a debate for another day as to whether you are right are wrong, but the existence of nurturing impulses and attitudes in males raises the likelihood that males may also be nurturing creatures, in which case: Your attitude on chivalry is needlessly constraining. It may work for you, and neither I nor anybody sensible would tell you that you can't have exactly the kind of romantic relationship you want to have, but other people are not bound by your sense of perspective. They are as free as you are to choose how they live and what they value, or they ought to be free at least, and I know you're not trying to tell anyone else what to do, but, by insisting upon these generalizations of the sexes, you are effectively doing exactly that. These sorts of beliefs always have social consequences. It is the sum of our individual convictions which shapes the outlook of a society.

I won't really argue with that. Though that paragraph was kind of hard to follow.

I think it is important to take society as a whole and this is where I will argue. This is why sociology is important. It is very important to understand societal expectations and why people act the way they do. In Western Society, people are basically free to be as individualistic as they like. We are very lucky in that respect. Even though we may feel free to act as individualistic as we like, society as a whole tries to conform our convictions to fit some kind of "norm". Sexually speaking, it's why homosexuality was condemned until the social movements of the 1960s, and still we are fighting battles every day against homophobia.

It's important to make generalizations so we can understand how society works. I never said that men were not nurturing, actually I would argue the opposite. There are a lot of men I know who are nurturing. However, it has been my experience that MOST women, in a relationship, become inherently nurturing anyway. If they're not, it's usually because they have some kind of emotional problems. If we understand why society operates certain ways, we understand how to oppose societal norms that we don't agree with. Just because I generalize, doesn't always necessarily mean that I am convinced things should be the way they are. I do not support gender equality because I don't agree with the concept, not because I feel like women should be happy with discrimination in their lives. I generalize because I feel like I have an understanding of how western society works as a whole(in a few areas anyway). The more people who try to understand, should try to change it, and we can... very slowly. We have made very large strides to try to make the world a less homophobic place because select individuals began speaking out and it spread throughout the nation. Before the 1960s, I would have generalized that homosexuals are a sin against god (or something to that nature), but these days most people accept homosexuals not as deviant, but as normal people who have one general difference in their lives.

Quote
Benevolent sexism is thus: Assuming that women are too weak to perform any manual labor, pay any bill, make work or social relationships, or run a household, thus the men must to it for them. OR, a man just wants to get in a certain woman's pants, so he gives her preferential treatment. He leads her to believe that he is a kind and generous guy by treating her, holding doors, helping move things, when in reality he wouldn't lend a hand to anyone else in need.
You say that men are favoured in society. They are in certain aspects, but this so-called benevolent sexism makes life crappy for a whole lot of men.

This is kind of a skewed definition of "benevolent sexism". It is not all there is toward it. Here is the definition that I found, which was much more positive:

Benevolent sexism is a part of a model of sexism developed by Peter Glick and Susan Fiske in 1996. Benevolent sexism, as opposed to hostile sexism, often seems to be a favorable view towards females, despite being grounded in gender stereotypes. For example, the beliefs that women are more nurturing, the men should always pay for a date, and that women should be rescued first from a sinking ship are all indicative of benevolent sexism. Benevolent sexism has three sources: protective paternalism (wanting to protect women), complementary gender differentiation (viewing women as different and better), and heterosexual intimacy (worshiping women).

Nothing wrong with WORSHIPING WOMEN :3. Anyway, while benevolent sexism has gender stereotypes, to me, it is not inherently bad or even annoying. Then again, I have never really cared much about gender stereotypes >_>. I'm not really a stereotypical female and no one in my life I have ever met other than my father has ever told me that I should act more feminine (even if they believed it in their heads). Maybe it bothers other women, but no one I've ever talked to expects men to act a certain way, or expects women to act a certain way. What I say online is how I feel about things. I don't really go talking about stereotypes to men or women for that matter because it just seems really irrelevant in life to even do so.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Zephira on August 03, 2009, 04:05:51 am
Of course benevolent sexism doesn't bother you, you're a woman. Benevolent sexism is all about putting women before men.
Let's take this sinking ship scenario you mentioned, and say you were a man. Your whole family - parents, fiance, siblings, children, what have you - already got on the life boat and there's only one seat left. Next to you on that sinking ship is a dainty, injured, single woman. Benevolent sexism says that woman should get the last spot on the lifeboat, not the father/soon-to-be husband, because it's the "right thing to do".
But of course, that example is a bit extreme. That same thing - minus the life and death bit - happens all the time at restaurants, in theaters, on busses, and just about anywhere.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: IAmSerge on August 03, 2009, 04:17:17 am
ITT:  Inferiority sexism bad, benevolent sexism good.

=D Sorry, I had to.

But seriously, that IS a (very uber basic) summary, right?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on August 03, 2009, 07:31:09 am
More like, benevolent sexism=kinda bad. Inferiority sexism=much worse.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on August 03, 2009, 08:04:20 am
^ probably more true. Though I think benevolent sexism is more subjective. While I know I'm in the minority, it's not that I don't mind it so much because it favors women, I just don't really think there is anything inherently wrong with it. I think everyone agrees that inferiority sexism is very bad... And as for the practicality, like I said, I really can't remember a time when I was treated favorably just because I was a woman. Not on a bus, not on a plane, not on a boat? I already mentioned this, but I'm treated differently by men if they want to have sex with me and that isn't the same at all. It may be because I'm not pretty enough or dainty enough, but even so, I'm not really even sure if any of my friends have experienced benevolent sexism.

Actually, there is a case that is coming to mind.  I'm big and strong, so I was at the beach with some friends and I wanted to help carry the cooler back. So I told the guy I wanted to help but he said firmly "No, let the guys do it." XD; So it was slightly annoying because in this case, he WAS practicing benevolent sexism. It's funny because a little earlier, us girls decided to take a walk and one of my friends' boyfriend decided to come along. He was teased a little by the guys saying that the walk was for the girls. It was teasing, but it kind of implied that this was "female" territory and he should have stayed with the guys while the girls went and did their girl things.

Like, stuff like that happens all the time and I just really don't mind it, you know? Am I WRONG for not minding? Like, some guys would allow me to help them carry the cooler, but a lot of guys would not allow this. Not only would they think that it isn't a woman's place to help carry the cooler, but he would think that it would be too difficult for her to help(even if she volunteered) so he would be doing her a favor by denying her. Not only that, but some guys would tease the guy if he DID agree, saying that he has girls doing work for him because he wouldn't be able to do it himself. So since guys are worried about being teased about their masculinity, they would refuse girl help...

Thinking about it, it is a little wrong, but I guess I resigned myself to accept that sometimes in life men and women have their own little worlds which can't always be penetrated. I penetrate into the "male world" enough as it is. I am pretty masculine and I am by far the most masculine of all my girlfriends. I know that no matter how hard I try, I can't be one of the guys for many reason. So I generally like being around women better because I feel more comfortable with them. I honestly don't mean this in a bragging way( trust me, I am not that attractive), but so many times in my life I have wanted to stay in the "friends zone" when guys have none of that and want something from me which I am unwilling to offer. Girls never treat me this way, so I do prefer being among females for the most part.

I guess I'm going a little off topic, but I suppose that my point is that though I have experienced some sexism and benevolent sexism, I have never experienced inferiority sexism and I never blatantly will. I am 90% certain that in the course of my life, if someone thinks I'm inferior because I'm a female, I will never hear about it, and that's ok with me.  I don't really like this quality about myself, but I am one of the most judgmental people I know. I am judgmental about everything and everyone...  I judge people all the time based on so many factors about why they are inferior, either to me, or to others, and hell, if people want to judge me to, that is just fine. They can judge me all they want and I just don't care...

There are a lot of things I am indifferent about when it comes to "sexism". Explaining everything about it is very difficult, especially when it comes to the theories and reality. In my reality, I live a happy life where I don't care about sexist behavior towards me. In theory, I would like certain things to not happen(mostly men propositioning me), but they're not going to happen, and that is fine. That is not my battle. It isn't much of a man's battle either, but hell, if white people stand up against racism, then men have a right to stand up against sexism. I just really feel like it's preaching to dead wood...

Some black people feel like whites could never understand how things are because they don't know racism, and while I feel somewhat similar about sexism, at the same time why does it matter if I don't care about people being sexist *to me*. I think it's very unfortunate that some women have worse sexist experiences than me. Someone needs to stand up and speak on behalf of these women, and they should speak OUT. If they keep on bearing their hardships, no one will ever rethink sexism, especially people guilty of being sexist. It doesn't always mean tirades on "The Angry Beaver", it just means getting the word out as much as possible. But it's hard for me because sexism is not something that I feel any passion towards.

As an analogy, so many black people in the US don't care about racism. They live in a place where they are (to their knowledge) not treated differently because of their skin color so why care about other blacks in the US who are? Many minorities do not want to be treated differently even when it benefits them. I know of minorities who oppose affirmative action because they want to be hired and accepted by universities who don't grant them any favors just because they happen to be minorities. I guess it is kind of ironic because wasn't I just saying that I don't mind benevolent sexism? I do find affirmative action and benevolent sexism very, very similar in theory. Both are harmful, but both can be very positive as well...

Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on August 03, 2009, 12:20:10 pm
Quote
I do find affirmative action and benevolent sexism very, very similar in theory. Both are harmful, but both can be very positive as well...

Nice point.

To sort of expand on this comparison to race relations, I'd feel sort of the same way. Being white, I'm on the opposite end of affirmative action, but if me and a black person of equal caliber were competing for a job, or a scholarship, and they chose the other student simply because of his race, I honestly wouldn't have a problem with that. There have been times when affirmative action goes too far, but I don't this is one of those cases.

All the same though, while Zaichi's comparison was apt, there's not much else the two practices have in common.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on August 03, 2009, 02:17:35 pm
Quote
However, it has been my experience that MOST women, in a relationship, become inherently nurturing anyway.

It's important not to gather conclusions from phenomena that may be influenced by sexism. When most women have to expect to be homemakers just to have a chance at procreation or achieving love, being nurturing becomes more of a job requirement than a natural tendency or aspiration (and this choice doesn't have to be consciously made). It could be like saying, "most Iranian humans naturally want to cover females in clothing," which is nothing related to humanity and psychology, but rather religious conditioning and tradition. We shouldn't be imposing expectations.

Quote
Anyway, most women like their men to be brave, generous, and COURTEOUS.

I want these traits in my partner too, except towards all humanity, not just one sex. And above all else, to me, the most attractive things I look for in a partner are ambition, strong will, and intelligence, all of which defy the classic idea idea of some gentle, nurturing nest-keeper. I would submit that there would be more of me and more women like that without sexist attitudes and reinforcement. No sex has claim on individual qualities. No man or woman, but human.

Quote
protective paternalism (wanting to protect women)

"You're weak. You need protection."

(http://chronocompendium.com/images/wiki/c/c5/Ayla3.gif)

"What"

Quote
complementary gender differentiation (viewing women as different and better)

(http://chronocompendium.com/images/wiki/2/29/Crono3.gif)

"What"

Quote
and heterosexual intimacy (worshiping women).

This belongs in a definition of love as mutual "worshiping", not as a definition of benevolent sexism. In an ideal relationship, both "worship" one another. The authors of this sexist definition are shanghaiing romantic love for their own ends.

Benevolent sexism hinges on a foundation of inferiority sexism.

Quote
Am I WRONG for not minding?

I would have been pissed off, yeah. The other night at my summer class, after a test, I talked exclusively with a large group of women. If that's going to earn me some kind of ribbing from men, they can go fuck themselves. The same goes for men who would try to impose some kind of order on who can help move things. It boils down to "you have tits, so LOL thousands of years of sexism and discrimination dictate that I, the man born with muscles and a dick, should be doing the lifting." This is the 21st century. Fuck that thinking. I wouldn't be surprised if the men in your group are also massive homophobes.

Quote
I have never experienced inferiority sexism

Of course you have: sexism influences everything in this world, and you live in this world. Even if it comes down to, "I'd be living in a happier, easier world if there were no sexism," that's still being affected by it by being denied the potential of the best possible world. There's more to this, but this also needs to be said -- admitting this kneecaps your entire argument of "benevolent sexism is okay because it compensates for inferiority sexism." Well, if you're not treated as an inferior, how can you claim this ethical right to being treated benevolently?

Quote
There will *never* ever be such a thing as gender equality.

Hah.

ROW ROW, FIGHT THE POWER

I will never fucking give up fighting for it, because I know it's possible. Humanity has a shining, glorious future among the stars, and equality of life is one condition of its ascension.

(http://chronofan.com/Zeality/26-2-nl.png)

(http://www.eternal-legend.com/ffviii/pcs/shots/zell.jpg)

(http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/4134/franky22ft5.jpg)

(http://chronofan.com/Zeality/Rock%20Lee.jpg)

 :grimm
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on August 03, 2009, 02:44:29 pm
^Hell yeah!

Quote from: ZaichikArky
I notice that some people on forums tend to go after online relationships where they either meet the partner once, or not at all.
Now, see, this is where I'm losing touch with younger generations. Does this actually happen as a relationship model, often? I mean, people trying to forge emotional connections and intimacy without actually meeting one another in physical proximity (video and webcams would allow "face to face" interaction)? That's really fascinating. I'm not sure it has any bearing on sexist attitudes and therefore it may not have much to do with this thread, but I'm really intrigued by things like this, which show how technology is gradually redefining human behavior. Mostly as a curiosity, but if it's pursued more and more often I may be underestimating the potential of this new use of the Internet. This would differ, of course, from Internet-enhanced dating where the post-date phone call is replaced by IM'ing or something if it turns out to be more convenient.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on August 03, 2009, 02:58:00 pm
Online relationships are becoming more prevalent, yes. Hopefully, the lack of direct contact while getting acquainted will eliminate some of the shallow ends of normal dating, if nothing else.

My mother met her current boyfriend over the Internet. She had enough confidence to move to Oklahoma, and the two of them have been living happily ever since.

As for myself, I met a very good friend of mine through Youtube. Since she lives in the Czech Republic, nothing of the sort would have happened had it not been for the Internet.

To these ends, the Internet will be a powerful tool in eliminating sexism.

But do remember that there are pitfalls, such as the unlucky fellow who dated his mother online before meeting her in person. Needless to say, without personal contact of some form, online relationships are based around practically nothing.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on August 03, 2009, 03:19:09 pm
As for myself, I met a very good friend of mine through Youtube. Since she lives in the Czech Republic, nothing of the sort would have happened had it not been for the Internet.

Well, you lucky bastard. I just had my heart broken by a Slovak.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on August 03, 2009, 06:31:52 pm
Well, you lucky bastard. I just had my heart broken by a Slovak.

Hm, having friends online is one thing, but I swear to god, this is the last online relationship I will EVER have. I don't care if a new guy comes along, if he professes his love for me and won't move, I'm not even going to do it. Part of the problem with my current boyfriend is

I have one other question. Can you tell me exactly how I have experienced sexism in my life? I'm just curious. Like I mentioned earlier, I find it perfectly acceptable if people think sexist things about me, but as for actual treatment, I can't really think of a time in my like where "sexism" has ever bothered me. Just because I'm a woman doesn't mean that sexism is a battle I find worth fighting for. For me, it isn't. I make an exception to women in 3rd world countries, however. I wish that more could be done about that, especially women in Arab countries.

I have participated in environmental conservation awareness and war protests, but never sexism. I understand that *some* women, and men for that matter,  in this country feel like it is an important issue, but overall the mainstream media as well as most people do not value the important of "gender equality". I know that I don't. As a "masculine" woman, you'd think that I'd be inclined to, but I'm not. I haven't seen sexism affect anyone I have ever met and so it is very abstract to me. I am not an abstract thinker. I am very practical and I don't appreciate philosophical discourse either... So I'm not really denying sexism exists, if that is what you're going to accuse me of next, I just don't think that it is an appropriate battle for most people to be fighting. Try living in Saudia Arabia or something. My dad used to say that to all my communist friends. Try living in the Soviet Union if you want a taste of "communism". Your perspective will really change...

That is really my gripe with a lot of social movements. We can say all we want, but there is a very large difference about how things work in theory and how things are in practical sense. We can cry "GENDER EQUALITY" all we want, but I really don't like that term nor do I think we need to pursue it. Instead, we need to make things as equal as we can between the genders but ALWAYS understand that there are fundamental aspects of gender and society as a whole that will never be easily mended... Baby steps, I suppose. I am generally satisfied with "gender equality" in the US. I don't like that the glass ceiling exists and a woman received 80 cents to every dollar(is that the most recent statistic) that the man receives, but this kind of information must be taken with a grain of salt. Many companies will pay men and women equally based on their work experience and which position they have. General statements like "women are earning less money" are not very logical to me because there are extenuating circumstances that really must be factored in before we can prove that it is really sexism at work .
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on August 03, 2009, 06:57:59 pm
Explaining how sexism has affected you is like explaining how the invention of electricity has affected you, or how the existence of cars has, etc. it's incredibly interwoven with everything in the world, and affects everything. You're probably looking for some specific example, but I'm talking about living an entire life against a backdrop and environment of events that are determined with sexism in the equation.

I use this sometimes when talking about religion. If I imagine my ideal world, religion isn't a part of it, and people embrace the natural world and the scientific method. Less wars and religious strife = less defense spending, more domestic tax revenue, and more domestic investment and wealth. More scienctific search = greater advancement and understanding of the universe and greater edification. More reason = more skepticism towards homeopathic medicine or prayer-based healing, and thus more health and vitality. More derivation of meaning from present life instead of "heaven" or moral codes = greater attention to life on earth, pursuit of ethics and meaningful happiness, and experience. Less sexist diatribes and commandments drilled into kids as part of religious instruction = less sexism, more empathy, and more considerateness.

All of these factors would produce a magnificently better world. How would it affect me, an atheist? Everything would affect me. Inventions, programs, a more intelligent and enlightened populace...it'd all make my life better, just how the age of the Roman Empire was a step up from the Bronze Age. It's the illumination of humanity.

The same goes for sexism. I may not be female, but a world without sexism would be a far better world than the one I'm living in, and it would directly affect me. If you want the micro-ways it'd affect me, just look up sexist problems, like that huge list already posted in the thread.

Quote
before we can prove that it is really sexism at work.

It is, by definition, sexism, and the fact that it happens so much that a statistical average can be produced from so many lines of work renders it a widespread problem not limited to some industry like welding.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on August 03, 2009, 07:08:18 pm
Well I guess that's more of a personal difference. I am also atheist but I don't think that eliminating religion will really do anything to better the human condition, same as I believe eliminating sexism will better American Society. It's not entirely that sexism and religion is so ingrained into society, it just really isn't possible to expect the world to be a better place if certain harmful aspects of society were removed...
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on August 03, 2009, 07:12:42 pm
Ha, but that's how we've gotten this far. From this world, we've already removed worse sexism, worse abuse, worse religion, worse torture, worse exploitation, worse usury, worse laws, worse conditions, and worse ideas. Human nature may be unchangeable in the short term, but we've gotten this far because we've chosen to change and create a better world, just as a person without religion would choose to make better use of his or her time than a religious person deciding to pray. We're ever on the cruise upward to farther heights, and the speed at which we go rests on the passion and ideals of dreamers and doers of progress.

:1999
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on August 03, 2009, 08:04:09 pm
Eh, just to counterbalance that point Z, we've also brought in a lot of worse things with the good. We've brought in a lot of corruption, weapons, diseases, depravity, etc. Mussoulini brought in good change when he became dictator, but his brown shirts brought in the violence that made that possible.

But I more than agree with you that things are better now than they were 50 years ago, especially for women, minorities and Jews.

But there is a difference between progress for the sake of progress and progress for the sake of bettering society. If we find an economic model that benefits the government, people and businesses, should we change that, simply for the sake of progress? Or if we find a societal balance that keeps both atheists and religious people and those in-between happy, should we change that also?

Then there is the difference between good and bad change. You and me, being ideological opposites, have very very different ideas about how to exact good change and bad change. To use an extreme case, the KKK would classify "good change" as another Holocaust, something you and me would both despise(hopefully, lol).

Now, what does this have to do with the topic at hand? You and Zaichi have extremely different ideas about how to progress against sexism.

Her's is a rather practical one: Get rid of the more concrete symptoms of a sexist society, i.e., the "glass ceiling," wage disparages, domestic violence.

Yours is much more abstract: Getting rid of the aspect of sexism.

To a practically minded person, your change seems overzealous and myopic, where as for you guys, it seems that her change is ineffective and unambitious.

The point is not whether each change is too much or not enough, but rather which change will benefit society as a whole more.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on August 03, 2009, 08:14:04 pm
^ Very well put : ). I don't even know how feminists these days go about challenging sexism. Are we making a difference, what needs to be done? These are somewhat abstract questions and ones that can't easily be agreed upon. There is no one answer to counteract sexism, racism, or religion. There is no way to make the bad things in the world disappear so we're stuck with only baby steps.

I sometimes do read The Angry Beaver, but I don't agree with so many viewpoints on that site and I more read it just to be aware of the sexism that does exist and how feminists have responded to it.

Do you guys remember one of the classic blogs on that site? This one woman wished she had an abortion because one of her sons just wouldn't stop masturbating no matter how much she punished him? *sigh...* There are some really ugly aspects to feminism....
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on August 04, 2009, 01:57:13 am
Quote
Yours is much more abstract: Getting rid of the aspect of sexism.

Oh, come on.

Quote
Do you guys remember one of the classic blogs on that site? This one woman wished she had an abortion because one of her sons just wouldn't stop masturbating no matter how much she punished him? *sigh...* There are some really ugly aspects to feminism....

How is that feminism? That sounds like religious fucking idiocy over masturbation, and even if it's just garden variety insanity, there's no link to feminism.

Quote
so we're stuck with only baby steps.

Quit being such a defeatist. I've enrolled in a women's studies class and have begun independently teaching myself about sexism and thinking of things that can be done. And there is huge arsenal against sexism, and many people like me who are older and already well established in fighting it, just as there are already prominent atheists such as Dawkins and PZ. When I've established my career, I want to help however I can, whether it's participating in a humanist foundation, having my own efforts, or even using my public speaking skills to noble ends. The sky's the limit.

It doesn't help to say "eh we can't do much." Jesus, what a downer. Try telling that to a girl wishing she could be a CEO and depressed that only 6 out of the Fortune 500 companies are led by female CEOs, or innumerable other examples. Change cannot come fast enough.

So to everyone reading this thread who's thinking it's better to pour water on the personal fire and let others shoulder the burden of change, or to all those who thinking of shying away from fear to act on the common sense that's telling them sexism is wrong, don't. Every passing day is another that women are discriminated against and oppressed, and another day lost in the lives of those who are injured. There are tons of ways to help, but the first step is educating yourself and others. Fight the power. Unleash your spirit for the betterment of humanity. You can help change things, just as I can. Fight. Fight. Fight. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise, and don't let anyone put limits on your dreams.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Romana on August 04, 2009, 02:09:46 am
People can't say "I think this is impossible, there's nothing that can be done, oh well." There is no such thing as "impossible". With the will to fight and passionate determination you can achieve anything. Sexism is just one more obstacle to destroy on the way to equality.

(http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk1/FaFniR_Medley/AviKamina.jpg)


And to those who call this path "delusional", so be it! It's time to open up your minds, every one of you, and think about this. What do you want to do? What are you going to fight for? And are you going to do everything you possibly can to see it fulfilled?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on August 04, 2009, 02:58:52 am
I am happy that Truth and I are the only ones who stand up to Z's ideological propaganda >_>.

I'm not a defeatist, I'm a realist. There is a big difference.

I sometimes stand up for what I believe in, I'm glad that Z tries to stand up for sexism. I refuse to do it, though. I guess the rest I can say is sorry that I don't feel like I should, but then again it's only people like Z who are sorry about it... not the rest of us : (.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on August 04, 2009, 06:26:41 am
Quote from: Equality
Men and women should be treated equally.

Yeah, that's real "propaganda". I must be a veritable lie machine for standing up in service of a silly ideal like that.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on August 04, 2009, 02:22:46 pm
Quote from: ZaichikArky
I don't even know how feminists these days go about challenging sexism. Are we making a difference, what needs to be done? These are somewhat abstract questions and ones that can't easily be agreed upon. There is no one answer to counteract sexism, racism, or religion. There is no way to make the bad things in the world disappear so we're stuck with only baby steps.

Very true that challenging an age-old ideology that's been ingrained within us possibly since Cro-Magnon times seems a daunting task, and with feminism spefically, the movement is so multivariate that it seems there's no one leader. There's no Martin Luther King Jr of feminism; and only generalized goals, because getting a sex-positive feminist in a room with a 70s style bra burner and asking them to develop a concrete plan for eliminating sexism could turn out like an attempt to get North Korea and the US to agree on nuclear weapons policy. In that way, it seems we are limited to baby steps, and perhaps floundering uselessly, our feeble efforts even contradicting one another and canceling each other out.

But it's not useless. It seems to me that once a movement like anti-sexism or anti-racism picks up a certain amount of steam and acceptance, it's up to society in the aggregate to deliver the deathblow and move humanity forward. Each of us is part of the aggregate, and therefore each of us has a powerful role in moving this process forward. When you raise your hand at the start of a women's studies class to show that you, too, identify as a feminist; when you say to your friends, "You know, a legislature dominated by men telling the common woman what she can and cannot do with her body is really messed up"; when you voice the opinion that Sir Ian McKellan is no less of a Gandalf for being gay; when you refuse to shell out a single penny for a product like Dead or Alive: Extreme Beach Volleyball, you are doing something important for the feminist cause.

A lucky few of us stumble upon huge opportunities to become famous artists or policymakers whose voices are heard by millions, but that doesn't mean the common person can't contribute. Were it not for my witnessing common women and men voicing feminist opinions, I wouldn't have turned out to be a feminist myself. Helping to shape a fellow human being's philosophy is not what I would necessarily call a "baby step."
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on August 04, 2009, 03:21:20 pm
The main problem that history shows us with the womens' rights movement is that they will gain some footing, make some progress, and then suddenly stop.

The Sierra Falls Convention had a lot of promise back in the 1840's, but nothing but solidarity was really gained for it. Although, the Civil War might have had something to do with it.

The 1870's, women started running for office and several of the western states began allowing women the right to vote. Then they stopped moving forward.

The 1910's saw the passage of the 19th Amendment which granted suffrage to all women. Then they stopped until the 1960's when the more radical feminists starting sprouting up.

Of course, maybe this strategy of stopping than proceeding works better than the other strategies adopted by minorities. Gender relations today are far better than race relations.

I'd also like to think, for the time being anyways, that an intelligent white man can sympathize with and represent their female constituency as easily as some women can. Look at yourself, Lord J and Z for an example of this. More women will come to power over the next few decades, so maybe that will prove me wrong. Until then, I'm optimistic.

As for DOA: Extreme Beach Volleyball, I don't find that any more exploitative than any other style of porn. My reasoning for this is that sex, even with yourself, serves a vital biological function. I don't consider it sexist because if you're a heterosexual male, you're only attracted to females, and vice versa. There's a certain specific thing that arouses you and there's nothing sexist about only being attracted to a certain gender. There's also plenty of male-featured porn out there as well, so its not exactly unequal.

Zaichi, common sense dictates that if feminism is something you're not passionate about, or even feel yourself adverse to at times, then there's no reason for you to support it or the way it's being pursued. There are plenty of other, dare I say, more pressing, issues that require the attention of intelligent men and women. I think at the moment, feminism has a great deal of support with guys like Z, J and FW.

Race relations, the environment, the wars overseas, imperialism versus isolationism, economic growth and theory, cap and trade, health care, tort reform, media bias or degradation, privacy rights, abortion, gay rights, gun control, corruption in the government, faith based organizations, education, copyright law, the right to pursue a hobby, taxes, conservatism vs. liberalism vs. libertarianism, capital punishment, corporeal punishment, parental rights, nuclear proliferation, genocide, judicial activism, prejudices of any kind, political correctness, censorship of the media, illegal immigration, drug laws, drug lords, the drug trade, religion, school security and the Evil Disney Conspiracy, just to name a few.

Z's posts are usually around 80% rhetoric, 20% Springtime of Youth, but that doesn't mean you necessarily have to fall in with his rhetoric to admire his passion and drive in pursuing his rhetoric.

There are plenty of topics to get fired up about. Find yourself a niche, educate yourself on it, and make your opposition your bitch. Most of all, don't fall in with the already set-in-stone ideals of governance, morality and jurisprudence, unless you're satisfied completely with the status quo. Certain aspects I am, certain aspects I'm not. The one's I'm not, I'm setting out to change by whatever means become available to me.

Make the world your own, and set it aflame with your own Springtime of Youth! And don't let anyone tell you that you can't do it, or that you'll be mulched if you stand in opposition of their preconceived motivations, because this is your world too, and you can't let the jackasses have all the fun, now can you?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on August 04, 2009, 04:38:40 pm
Still, I wonder just how distinct "adult" relationships are from the "high school crush & bust"? What criteria should we use?

Intent and definition seem like they might be good criteria. These are essentially the same, though. The individual who defines themselves by their relationship status inherently seems to be immature in their relationship perspectives. They are "dating just to date." It would be horribly imprudent to take this too far and say that adult relationship are those in which people date to be married. However, the adult relationship has significant and intentional elements of relationship development, which there can lead.

To use an analogy, I like to draw. But my attempts at it are rather immature because I draw as the fancy strikes me and to no particular end except to draw. What separates me from a mature artist is that the artist draws regardless of fancy and with the intent of making something beautiful.

I don't even know how feminists these days go about challenging sexism.

I don't know what official feminists do these days to challenge sexism, but it is curious that in response to a simple practical question, so few practical responses were given.

1. Be the best human you can be. This seems rather after-school-specially, but one of the best ways of addressing issues of intolerance, particularly in a society where there is a sense of social justice, is to be better than your opponents. I take my inspiration from a misheard lyric: one should be "more human than a human." When basically good people are confronted by great injustice, they will awaken and behave properly. The challenge is in getting them to wake up.

2. Be vocal. This doesn't mean talking about feminism, it means talking in general. Being the best doesn't matter if other people don't realize that you are the best. Self-advertisement is the key. People like the idea of being humble and saving the world, but if you are the best, then the world will get saved along the way.

3. Get involved with your community. For example, be a Big Sister (or Big Brother): helping children is a way to help stamp out prejudice while they are young. But perhaps you'll march in a local parade, become an intern for the mayor, etc. This puts you, as a woman, in a leadership role which is needed in society.

4. Hold society's feet to the fire. If you see negative sexism, make sure everyone and their mom knows about it. Write to congress, write to the president, write to the supreme court, write to newspapers.

5. A distant fifth would be to speak or write academically about feminism. Enough has already been said and written on the topic, now is the time when action is needed. But failing that, it can't hurt.

I'm sure those who have more experience in feminism than myself could give more specific examples, and more.

Quote from: Equality
Men and women should be treated equally.

Yeah, that's real "propaganda". I must be a veritable lie machine for standing up in service of a silly ideal like that.

Meh. A better word might be "equivalently." If a clerk in a clothing store asked me for my bra size, I might punch them in the face, but it is far more acceptable if they asked that of a woman. Mono-genderism is not the solution to sexism.

ZaichikArky said that men should worship women. To an extent, that is true. The feminine form is something that ought to be praised in verse and film, but with the caveat that the male form also, and that women should do the praising as well. Where there are differences, differences aught be acknowledged and individuals praised for those differences, but never limited by them.

Though I may be an idealist to believe that differences can exist and be acknowledged without prejudice based on those differences.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on August 04, 2009, 04:50:55 pm
Quote from: Truthordeal
I'd also like to think, for the time being anyways, that an intelligent white man can sympathize with and represent their female constituency as easily as some women can. Look at yourself, Lord J and Z for an example of this.
I, too, would like to think that a Wise White ManTM has this capability. But first off, I'll nitpick a bit just to make a point: there's no specific claim on these boards to my knowledge that Lord J and I are even caucasion, and we're implicitly asking others to take our word for it that we're even male. Such is the Internet -- and that's probably why threads like the "Pictures" thread here have some merit.

But assuming Lord J and I, like ZeaLitY and numerous fellow Compendiumites, are white males, we are burdened by the precedent of Wise White MalesTM in positions of power failing time and time again over centuries to get it right, with some sterling examples to the contrary. Historical precedent strongly suggests that more variety in our government's makeup will bring progress at a faster pace, in addition to the benefit of providing role models for a variety of people. The African American man, seeing his kind devalued either explicitly or implicitly in every kind of medium -- this is a problem noted even in novels like Toni Morrison's fantastic work Beloved -- especially has had to look far and wide for decent role models, and these shoes have finally been filled in the most unlikely of places: the White House. Hell yeah.  


With respect to DOA: Extreme Beach Volleyball, since I've found the topic of sexuality in pop culture particularly fascinating since taking a women's studies class last year...

There's ultimately going to be a significant tug of war as our society, now shaped increasingly by feminism, tries to iron out more humanistic sexual norms. For thousands of years women were taught to cover as much of their bodies as possible, as if the feminine form was somehow inherently sinful, which was anti-humanist; now that the sexual revolution has taken place we're bombarded by images of bare skin, particularly within the context of marketing, and I would argue that this, too, is anti-humanist.

It's anti-humanist from a male perspective because both extremes are predicated on an underlying assumption -- that men have absolutely no self control over natural urges. Dangle a little flesh in front of a guy and he's supposed to enter a salivating, wide-eyed animal frenzy, and he'll become dumb and pliable enough to shell out money for whatever product is associated with the sexual imagery.

I'm pissed about this in the same way that Native Americans are pissed at how they're oftentimes portrayed in movies; the pop culture artifact is defining who they are as people, how they behave. And what really sets me off is that it's probably the least questioned aspect of Western pop culture. For all the problems and rampant sexism that infected the years leading up to the sexual revolution, at least the focus of some pop culture artifacts was placed on men's capacity to feel love and desire emotional intimacy. Take a look at the lyrics of a popular sixties song:


Quote from: The Beatles, "I Want to Hold Your Hand"
Oh yeah, I´ll tell you something
I think you´ll understand
When I say that something
I wanna hold your hand
I wanna hold your hand
I wanna hold your hand

Oh, please, say to me
You´ll let me be your man
and please, say to me

You´ll let me hold your hand
Now let me hold your hand
I wanna hold your hand

And when I touch you i feel happy, inside
It´s such a feeling
That my love
I can't hide
I can't hide
I can't hide

Yeah you, got that something
I think you´ll understand
When I say that something
I wanna hold your hand
I wanna hold your hand
I wanna hold your hand

And when I touch you I feel happy, inside
It´s such a feeling
That my love
I can't hide
I can't hide
I can't hide

Yeah you, got that something
I think you´ll understand
When I feel that something
I wanna hold your hand
I wanna hold your hand
I wanna hold your hand.


Contrast this with the lyrics of a popular 90s song:

Quote from: The Bloodhound Gang, "The Bad Touch"
Ha-Ha! Well now, we call this the act of mating
But there are several other very important differences
Between human beings and animals that you should know about

I'd appreciate your input

Sweat baby sweat baby sex is a Texas drought
Me and you do the kind of stuff that only Prince would sing about
So put your hands down my pants and I'll bet you'll feel nuts
Yes I'm Siskel, yes I'm Ebert and you're getting two thumbs up
You've had enough of two-hand touch you want it rough you're out of bounds
I want you smothered want you covered like my Waffle House hashbrowns
Come quicker than FedEx never reach an apex just like Coca-Cola stock you are inclined
To make me rise an hour early just like Daylight Savings Time

Do it now
You and me baby ain't nothin' but mammals
So let's do it like they do on the Discovery Channel
Do it again now
You and me baby ain't nothin' but mammals
So let's do it like they do on the Discovery Channel
Gettin' horny now

Love the kind you clean up with a mop and bucket
Like the lost catacombs of Egypt only God knows where we stuck it
Hieroglyphics? Let me be Pacific I wanna be down in your South Seas
But I got this notion that the motion of your ocean means "Small Craft Advisory"
So if I capsize on your thighs high tide, B-5 you sunk my battleship
Please turn me on I'm Mister Coffee with an automatic drip
So show me yours I'll show you mine "Tool Time" you'll Lovett just like Lyle
And then we'll do it doggy style so we can both watch "X-Files"

Do it now
You and me baby ain't nothin' but mammals
So let's do it like they do on the Discovery Channel
Do it again now
You and me baby ain't nothin' but mammals
So let's do it like they do on the Discovery Channel
Gettin' horny now

You and me baby ain't nothin' but mammals
So let's do it like they do on the Discovery Channel
Do it again now
You and me baby ain't nothin' but mammals
So let's do it like they do on the Discovery Channel
Do it now
You and me baby ain't nothin' but mammals
So let's do it like they do on the Discovery Channel
Do it again now
You and me baby ain't nothin' but mammals
So let's do it like they do on the Discovery Channel
Gettin' horny now

I guess "The Bad Touch" is purposely satirical now that I look at the opening lyrics:

Ha-Ha! Well now, we call this the act of mating
But there are several other very important differences
Between human beings and animals that you should know about


This preface is broken down by the refrain, which raucously proclaims that human beings are nothing more than animals. And that's the most horrific message I've ever, ever seen. But what the Bloodhound Gang did was useful from an academic standpoint because it explicitly brings to light the implicit assumption of products like DOA: Extreme Beach Volleyball, i.e., that like his animal forebears, a man is driven by desire for sex with little regard to forging intimate emotional and spiritual bonds. Even dolphins and bonobos are presented as having more capacity to form caring, enriching, emotion-driven bonds than that curiosity, the human male.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on August 04, 2009, 06:47:53 pm
You guys are so philosophical and analytical! This has been something I've sucked at all my life! Usually rhetorical and philosophical discourses either really irritate me, or just bore me, but not so much this time.

Quote
Z's posts are usually around 80% rhetoric, 20% Springtime of Youth, but that doesn't mean you necessarily have to fall in with his rhetoric to admire his passion and drive in pursuing his rhetoric.

Yeah, I agree. I do not fall into the rhetoric. I never have and probably never will, and as for the spring time thing, it's encouraging for me : ). This is kind of negative, but I almost feel like my spring time is over because I'm not nearly as active as I used to be a few years ago or more... but it doesn't have to be that way. I guess I just want to be selfish right now in my life and focus on building my career rather than pressing social issues that others fight about.

Quote
Zaichi, common sense dictates that if feminism is something you're not passionate about, or even feel yourself adverse to at times, then there's no reason for you to support it or the way it's being pursued. There are plenty of other, dare I say, more pressing, issues that require the attention of intelligent men and women. I think at the moment, feminism has a great deal of support with guys like Z, J and FW.

I used to be more passionate about environmental issues... the only problem with this is that the core issue of being an environmentalist is becoming at LEAST vegetarian... this is just something very hard for me to do, such a big change in my life. I'm not sure if I could do it... so I've kind of resigned myself to being more low key about that passion. I don't think it's a bad thing for men, well anyone really,  to be interested in the feminist movement, but I am weary of the effects discussion on a web forum will be really helpful. If that's all you do, I"m not really sure that is so helpful at all... though if you take your discussions and apply it to the real world, I guess that is progress. It's like what I mentioned about the chivalry. How many men have actually been in relationships and tried to be as non sexist as possible with the "benevolent sexism"? I'm just curious as to how it works, I think it's a bias for me, but I can't see it work in my relationship. That doesn't mean it won't work in others, I'm just interested in the effects of this.

Quote
There's ultimately going to be a significant tug of war as our society, now shaped increasingly by feminism, tries to iron out more humanistic sexual norms. For thousands of years women were taught to cover as much of their bodies as possible, as if the feminine form was somehow inherently sinful, which was anti-humanist; now that the sexual revolution has taken place we're bombarded by images of bare skin, particularly within the context of marketing, and I would argue that this, too, is anti-humanist.

I do agree with the concept about men being animalistic being negative, but I don't really think there is anything wrong with any way a woman choses to dress. I'll explain. Like you said, a woman was expected for most of civilization to cover up as much as possible. Only in the last couple decades has she felt freer to dress in any way she likes. In Japan, I saw many more girls I would classify as "slutty" than here in the US. There may be a word for it... I know there is a word in Hebrew! Anyway, I shall try to find a picture of what I mean...

http://www.japaneselifestyle.com.au/japan_picture/albums/upload/tokyo/shibuya/normal_shibuya_fashon_IMG_7054.JPG , this isn't working right now... sorry.

I have tried to find an accurate representation of the kinds of girls I used to see every day, and this was the very best I could do because the rest of the pics I found were harajuku style fashion.

Well think those two girls, but with a TON of more makeup and strange hair style, shorter shorts, huge high heels ans really skimpy shirts no matter what the weather. My best friend in Japan was Israeli, there is a term for girls like that in Hebrew- "frecha"  so a game for us would be to always make each other be aware of these kinds of girls by saying "frecha" whenever we'd spot them. Maybe the English equivalent would be "bimbo" or something.

Anyway, I kind of disrespect girls like this a little, but at the same time, I think it is perfectly respectable. These girls have nice bodies (most of the time anyway) and if they want to dress slutty, let them. The very nature of "dressing slutty" is really condemned. No matter WHAT you say, it has a very negative connotation! Dressing provocatively, looking like a whore... Maybe the best you can say is dressing in a skimpy outfit and no one ever says that.

I do admire girls who dress like that because they are showing their individuality and showing that they don't care about what others think of them. It is very feminist if you really look at it... as for society, society is what needs to change. We need to look at girls like that not necessarily that they are sluts, but that they have a legitimate reason to dress in any way they feel like. Can men dress like skanky girls and get away with it? Sure, if they like...  but women naturally have the better advantage. I'm not sure if society is really ready to see men dress like slutty women. That is something it is not nearly prepared for. And I don't say that because it's good, it's unfortunate. It would make me , as well as a large chunk of the female population happy :3.

Quote

1. Be the best human you can be. This seems rather after-school-specially, but one of the best ways of addressing issues of intolerance, particularly in a society where there is a sense of social justice, is to be better than your opponents. I take my inspiration from a misheard lyric: one should be "more human than a human." When basically good people are confronted by great injustice, they will awaken and behave properly. The challenge is in getting them to wake up.

2. Be vocal. This doesn't mean talking about feminism, it means talking in general. Being the best doesn't matter if other people don't realize that you are the best. Self-advertisement is the key. People like the idea of being humble and saving the world, but if you are the best, then the world will get saved along the way.

3. Get involved with your community. For example, be a Big Sister (or Big Brother): helping children is a way to help stamp out prejudice while they are young. But perhaps you'll march in a local parade, become an intern for the mayor, etc. This puts you, as a woman, in a leadership role which is needed in society.

4. Hold society's feet to the fire. If you see negative sexism, make sure everyone and their mom knows about it. Write to congress, write to the president, write to the supreme court, write to newspapers.

5. A distant fifth would be to speak or write academically about feminism. Enough has already been said and written on the topic, now is the time when action is needed. But failing that, it can't hurt.

Thank you, that was very informative. At some point, I think I do want to be more active, but due to my unfortunate experience with environmentalism, I'm a little weary to be more active about anything these days. When I'm ready, I do want to do it... just not so much these days. I do write complaints and I talk about things on web forums, that is all I really want to pursue right now.


Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on August 04, 2009, 08:22:15 pm
Oh, I totally didn't mean to suggest women shouldn't be able to dress skimpily, just that they should be able to do so without conservatives hollering about their "sluttiness" or men whooting at them obnoxiously. One might say, "Hey, if you don't want that kind of attention, dress more conservatively!" But aye, there's the rub -- it's always women who have to exert self-control because men are assumed incapable. Is the rape rate any higher in nudist colonies than in mainstream Western society?

Quote from: Thought
The individual who defines themselves by their relationship status inherently seems to be immature in their relationship perspectives. They are "dating just to date."
Agreed, and I suspect this might be a huge problem in societies marked by sexism and more particularly, homophobia. Any guy who hasn't dated in awhile is automatically suspect of being gay, and fear of this may make men feel compelled to enter relationships when they're really not pursuing emotional connections or intimacy.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on August 04, 2009, 08:32:07 pm
Quote
Oh, I totally didn't mean to suggest women shouldn't be able to dress skimpily, just that they should be able to do so without conservatives hollering about their "sluttiness" or men whooting at them obnoxiously. One might say, "Hey, if you don't want that kind of attention, dress more conservatively!" But aye, there's the rub -- it's always women who have to exert self-control because men are assumed incapable. Is the rape rate any higher in nudist colonies than in mainstream Western society?

Ok, I see. I remember this one bitch having this huge fight with a friend of mine because he suggested that women who dress like that should expect men to give them attention... unwanted or not. You know, it's kind of hard to say. I would like to say "No, a woman should feel free to express herself in anyway she likes without unwanted attention by men", but at the same time, what is she really trying to do by dressing up like that? I seldom find that it is because of her creative freedom... it is almost always because she WANTS attention from men. So yeah, I do think that if she didn't want attention, she should just dress more conservatively...  So it's kind of a fine line to cross. I guess that if I chose to dress like that (not that I really ever will, but I sometimes come close during certain rare occasions and when I do, I do get a lot of attention from men), I wouldn't mind men looking at me, but I wouldn't want rude whooting either... I'm not sure how I would feel about men trying to proposition me. I would probably feel like they have the right to considering the kind of impression I would be making >_>; considering the amount of times I've been propositioned, I just kind of deal with it.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on August 04, 2009, 09:43:32 pm
Quote
Quote
Z's posts are usually around 80% rhetoric, 20% Springtime of Youth, but that doesn't mean you necessarily have to fall in with his rhetoric to admire his passion and drive in pursuing his rhetoric.

Yeah, I agree. I do not fall into the rhetoric. I never have and probably never will, and as for the spring time thing, it's encouraging for me : ). This is kind of negative, but I almost feel like my spring time is over because I'm not nearly as active as I used to be a few years ago or more... but it doesn't have to be that way. I guess I just want to be selfish right now in my life and focus on building my career rather than pressing social issues that others fight about.

Fuck you.

It is NOT fucking rhetoric. I've elucidated clear examples with clear principles and clear ideals based on common sense humanistic ethics. You people fucking disappoint me. How what is what I've said fucking rhetoric? Like this:

Quote
From this world, we've already removed worse sexism, worse abuse, worse religion, worse torture, worse exploitation, worse usury, worse laws, worse conditions, and worse ideas.

That's dramatic, but is it "rhetoric"? No, unless you fucking think that having a life expectancy of 35, living in filth, not understanding how the world works, and suffering all your life from oppressive feudalism and disease in the Dark Ages is somehow a better system than the modern one. Humanity has lifted itself out of darkness by fighting tooth and nail, all while people like you were saying "change isn't needed" or "you can't change anything" for centuries. Female suffragists had to fight a generation of women who felt they were embarrassing them as a sex or doing more harm than good, but they won. And now, people like you fucking take it for granted that you can vote.

The story isn't fucking over yet until equality is achieved. No one can force you to not have a defeatist attitude, but you're not going to pour water on the precious few flames of humanistic idealism kept alive in this world. It is so fucking easy to simply take the path of least resistance; to be part of any business and make a lot of money without ethical concern; to ride existing sexist attitudes as a man to have less responsibilities or as a woman to avoid demonization; to believe in religion and faith to avoid fear of death or the responsibility of finding some personal meaning; to simply take what you can get in the way of pleasure care about this world or humanity.

Not me. And not anyone who stands with me.

Quote from: FaustWolf
particularly within the context of marketing, and I would argue that this, too, is anti-humanist.

Marketing to lower-common denominators and reinforcing ignorance for profit motive is on my short list of business evils. I feel sick every time I go to the movies and sit through the truly classless commercials before the movie begins; at the Carmike, there's been one starting with this guy saying, "When you want video content, you want it NOW!!", bringing to mind some kind of indignant, screaming baby-consumer who wants to be entertained with minimal thought. There's an entire culture of this stuff, and marketing's been a part of it, right back to the days of telling you cigarettes are a cure-all.

Quote
The main problem that history shows us with the womens' rights movement is that they will gain some footing, make some progress, and then suddenly stop.

This isn't any kind of point at all. Naturally, when you're trying to change the world, it doesn't happen overnight, and naturally, there are some choke-points or moments of swift passion once an idea catches on in the spirit of the age.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Zephira on August 04, 2009, 10:03:11 pm
Zaichik, you don't have to be a vegetarian if you're an environmentalist. Just watch No Reservation's segment on Ted Nugent in Texas. He's a HUGE environmentalist; he has his own reserve stocked with wildlife and plants. For every tree he cuts down, he plants two more. For every animal he hunts, he breeds or rescues two more. And the best part? He's a hunter. He hunts and eats his own meat.
While I would do my part for the environment, I would just die if I ever had to be a vegetarian. It just makes no sense at all.

"If you don't want attention, dress conservatively" also has to be one of the more retarded lines I've heard. Yes, it's good advice in that it works, but that's also the unfortunate part. It's summer, and we've been getting over 100 degree weather here recently. My brothers get to walk around outside in nothing but shorts and sandals, so why can't I go out in a bikini without being kicked out of fast food joints or being gawked at in the street?

The problem with DoA's swimsuit edition is not that it has skimpy outfits - heck, I like it, they're very pretty models, and the breast jiggle is hilarious - but the way it's being marketed. It doesn't rely on its controls, art and entertaining physics to sell itself, but the "fact" that men will buy it only for the hot chicks. It's like making a FPS for black people where the opposing teams are fried chicken and watermelons that bleed kool-aid.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on August 05, 2009, 12:52:54 am
Quote
Fuck you.

It is NOT fucking rhetoric. I've elucidated clear examples with clear principles and clear ideals based on common sense humanistic ethics. You people fucking disappoint me. How what is what I've said fucking rhetoric?

Z, I meant rhetoric in the broad sense of "language meant to please or persuade."

I realize now, seeing the other contexts of that word, that it was probably a bad word choice on my part and that probably gave the wrong impression of what I meant to say. I'm sorry.

Quote
It is so fucking easy to simply take the path of least resistance; to be part of any business and make a lot of money without ethical concern; to ride existing sexist attitudes as a man to have less responsibilities or as a woman to avoid demonization; to believe in religion and faith to avoid fear of death or the responsibility of finding some personal meaning; to simply take what you can get in the way of pleasure care about this world or humanity.

Second of all, quit trying to demonize me for not being as progressive as you on sexism, when you yourself told me to step back from the matter and educate myself on it. And quit trying to demonize other people for trying to live their lives in a way that doesn't fall into your ideology of what you think they should do.

No one's  talked about doing any of that on this forum. No one. Even I, who said that I don't believe that women are oppressed in this country, have laid out several ways to end discrimination and promote equality among the sexes. They're not nearly as progressive as your ideas, sure, but they're a damn good start. Baby steps.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on August 05, 2009, 01:52:46 am
Z, quit taking things so goddamn personally. You are the ONLY one who always does that in these discussions and it really is counter productive. You want more people to take your rhetoric more seriously? I would cut out all the insults because it only makes you look like a little kid trying to participate in big boy discussions.

Quote
Zaichik, you don't have to be a vegetarian if you're an environmentalist. Just watch No Reservation's segment on Ted Nugent in Texas. He's a HUGE environmentalist; he has his own reserve stocked with wildlife and plants. For every tree he cuts down, he plants two more. For every animal he hunts, he breeds or rescues two more. And the best part? He's a hunter. He hunts and eats his own meat.
While I would do my part for the environment, I would just die if I ever had to be a vegetarian. It just makes no sense at all.

I understand what you mean, but I do tend to believe the environmentalists when they say the meat industry is probably the biggest negative impact on environment... A large portion of environmentalists claim that you have no right to call yourself an environmentalist if you eat meat because you contribute to the massive degradation of not only the surrounding environment, but the ecosystem at large. If I want to be more serious about my commitment to the environment, the biggest change I could make would be to stop eating meat. But I'm not really ready to try that.

As for that guy, he sounds really cool. It sounds like he's very hardcore and serious about self-sustainment. I would consider him to be an exception because he hunts and kills animals for his own consumption rather than participating in the meat-cultivation industry.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Zephira on August 05, 2009, 02:07:13 am
The thing about consuming meat is that you can choose where to get your meat from. Buy meat from Safeway or QFC or other massive chain stores and you're probably contributing to a negative meat-cultivation industry. But if you buy your meat from a local farm you still get a proper diet, and that meat is probably a lot healthier (and tastier) than what gets sold at chain stores. Probably more expensive, but it's worth it.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on August 05, 2009, 02:17:17 am
The thing about consuming meat is that you can choose where to get your meat from. Buy meat from Safeway or QFC or other massive chain stores and you're probably contributing to a negative meat-cultivation industry. But if you buy your meat from a local farm you still get a proper diet, and that meat is probably a lot healthier (and tastier) than what gets sold at chain stores. Probably more expensive, but it's worth it.

Oh yeah! One great thing about SC is that its farming country. You can go down the street I live on and see cows. Most of the grocery stores around here are run and supplied locally, and you'll get better produce and meat than you'll get at Wal-Mart, I tell you what.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Vehek on August 05, 2009, 02:46:50 am
I'm rather ignorant about local industries and businesses, but is that much of an option where she lives?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on August 05, 2009, 03:11:17 am
I'm rather ignorant about local industries and businesses, but is that much of an option where she lives?

Yeah, I don't think that would be too much of an option to me, unfortunately. I could try to find a local farm, but most of the local farms around here produce dairy and not meat. Is it even possible to buy farm-fresh meat online? Maybe it is, but I think that's kind of outside my budget : (.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Andrelvis on August 05, 2009, 03:23:08 am
Z, quit taking things so goddamn personally. You are the ONLY one who always does that in these discussions and it really is counter productive. You want more people to take your rhetoric more seriously? I would cut out all the insults because it only makes you look like a little kid trying to participate in big boy discussions.

Quote
Zaichik, you don't have to be a vegetarian if you're an environmentalist. Just watch No Reservation's segment on Ted Nugent in Texas. He's a HUGE environmentalist; he has his own reserve stocked with wildlife and plants. For every tree he cuts down, he plants two more. For every animal he hunts, he breeds or rescues two more. And the best part? He's a hunter. He hunts and eats his own meat.
While I would do my part for the environment, I would just die if I ever had to be a vegetarian. It just makes no sense at all.

I understand what you mean, but I do tend to believe the environmentalists when they say the meat industry is probably the biggest negative impact on environment... A large portion of environmentalists claim that you have no right to call yourself an environmentalist if you eat meat because you contribute to the massive degradation of not only the surrounding environment, but the ecosystem at large. If I want to be more serious about my commitment to the environment, the biggest change I could make would be to stop eating meat. But I'm not really ready to try that.

As for that guy, he sounds really cool. It sounds like he's very hardcore and serious about self-sustainment. I would consider him to be an exception because he hunts and kills animals for his own consumption rather than participating in the meat-cultivation industry.

Why is eating meat bad for the environment? AFAIK eating plants, especially grains, is much worse, since they require a much larger parcel of land to be grown than cattle, and thus make deforestation worse.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Uboa on August 05, 2009, 03:26:30 am
As far as buying better meat on-line goes, your best bet is probably going to be ordering a quarter buffalo from a strictly grass-fed buffalo ranch, which will run you about $600 (actually a really good deal), and you'll definitely need a chest freezer.  Other than that, wild caught sardines are still not on any endangered lists, and you can get those from Amazon.

There are many reasons why it's really not a bad idea to go at least half-and-half on plant and animal sourced protein, including health reasons.  Cutting back on meat and still getting enough protein really isn't hard with the supplements available today, it's just a matter of mixing up some powder with milk or juice.  Nature's Plus shake mixes are actually really tasty, and they're made of all plant sourced proteins (blend of rice, pea, and soy to be specific).

(I really wasn't going to drag this thread off topic, but since it was headed that way anyway...)
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on August 05, 2009, 03:28:19 am
Quote

Why is eating meat bad for the environment? AFAIK eating plants, especially grains, is much worse, since they require a much larger parcel of land to be grown than cattle, and thus make deforestation worse.

Do some research. Eating plants isn't bad for the environment... Especially if you eat local farm plants (much easier to do than farm-fresh meat)

http://www.emagazine.com/view/?142 is a good article explaining in detail about all the ways eating meat is bad for the environment.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Uboa on August 05, 2009, 03:29:26 am
Why is eating meat bad for the environment? AFAIK eating plants, especially grains, is much worse, since they require a much larger parcel of land to be grown than cattle, and thus make deforestation worse.

The problem is that most of those grains are grown specifically to feed cattle.  If we didn't produce so much meat, we'd need to produce far far less grains and soybeans.  Deforestation for soybean crops is a result of mass demand for cattle feed.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Vehek on August 05, 2009, 04:18:06 am
For a college English class, I had to read The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan. Have you heard of it?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on August 05, 2009, 04:27:10 am
And quit trying to demonize other people for trying to live their lives in a way that doesn't fall into your ideology of what you think they should do.

I'm not demonizing that choice. I'm attacking, rightfully, the idea that "nothing can be done" or "it's impossible to change humanity" or "removing sexism won't improve the world" and that defeatist attitude. A lot of people on this earth don't even think there's a problem, and the people who actually care enough to do something about it are the rarest of all, because they have to commit to something they probably won't see fulfilled until long after they're dead, get ostracized by the status quo and demonized as extremists, and limit themselves as to all the things they can enjoy in this world because of their own constraining ethics. It is a brave choice to step into the arena, and it's sad to see someone promoting defeatist nonsense that works in opposition to everything.

Quote
Z, quit taking things so goddamn personally. You are the ONLY one who always does that in these discussions and it really is counter productive. You want more people to take your rhetoric more seriously? I would cut out all the insults because it only makes you look like a little kid trying to participate in big boy discussions.

Implying that what I've said is "empty rhetoric" is far more offensive and insulting than "fuck you", not to mention completely intellectually dishonest. If you're of the opinion that nothing can or should be done about the situation, fine—but don't writhe around when someone asks you to back that opinion up with a real argument, and then write them off as a hopeless idealist. It's obvious that you're content to leave this as an opinion, so leave it out of the "big-boy discussion".
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on August 05, 2009, 11:33:58 am
Zaichik, you don't have to be a vegetarian if you're an environmentalist.

One doesn't have to be, but it is an understandably extreme position to take. The numbers that get thrown about is that it takes roughly 10 times more land to produce 1 lb of animal protein than 1 lb of plant protein. A vegetarian diet will usually impact the environment less than an omnivore's diet. But that being said, environmentalism doesn't have to be about reducing one's impact on the world completely, but rather finding a balance. It would hardly hurt Americans to eat less meat and more plants, but that doesn't mean that we have to forgo meat entirely.

To expand this: Global warming is bad, but it conceptually doesn't have to be. Terraforming is still primarily in the realm of science fiction, but if it ever becomes a reality, then intentionally modifying the atmosphere to best suit life. The same gasses that we need to stop producing now could be the gasses that, on another world in another millennium, are the ones that we'll want to intentionally produce.

It's like making a FPS for black people where the opposing teams are fried chicken and watermelons that bleed kool-aid.

That sounds like a hilarious mod for Castle Wolfenstein.

Yeah, I don't think that would be too much of an option to me, unfortunately. I could try to find a local farm, but most of the local farms around here produce dairy and not meat. Is it even possible to buy farm-fresh meat online? Maybe it is, but I think that's kind of outside my budget : (.

Yes, on both accounts, probably. However, do you have a Whole Foods or similar store near you? While still a massive chain, Whole Foods markets to the eco-friend in all of us. Their eggs are free-range, for example. Still more expensive than at Walmart, for example, but then I've never gotten green meat at Whole Foods but it happened twice at Walmart.

But if you do want meat online, Omaha Steaks has been fairly good to me in the past. Flat Irons are my friend.

For a college English class, I had to read The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan. Have you heard of it?

It's actually on my reading-wish list. I have heard good things about it.

Implying that what I've said is "empty rhetoric" is far more offensive and insulting than "fuck you", not to mention completely intellectually dishonest.

rhet-o-ric [ret-er-ik],  –noun

1. (in writing or speech) the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast.
2. the art or science of all specialized literary uses of language in prose or verse, including the figures of speech.
3. the study of the effective use of language.
4. the ability to use language effectively.
5. the art of prose in general as opposed to verse.
6. the art of making persuasive speeches; oratory.
7. (in classical oratory) the art of influencing the thought and conduct of an audience.
8. (in older use) a work on rhetoric.

Please, do identify which aspect of "rhetoric" you take umbrage with.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on August 05, 2009, 03:27:05 pm
Returning to sexism -- good God! Have you guys seen the blog entries of that misogynistic a$$hole (http://raincoaster.com/2009/08/05/george-sodinis-blog-the-plan/) who shot up the Pittsburg exercise class the other day? I think his blog's down due to traffic influx, but the major news stations are treating it as real from what I can tell.

This is one huge reason why we need to break down sexism -- it's just as psychologically harmful to men as it is women. This dude was literally defining himself, and whether he was successful in life, by his relationship status. Whether he realized it or not, his sense of entitlement was inextricably linked to misogyny because he was implicitly denying that women should have control over the course of their own lives.

The problem is, sexism-ridden pop culture encourages men to think this way. "Oh, you're in the friend zone, that's bad, man." "You don't have a girlfriend. Are you gay? That's bad, man." The superhero always gets the chick by the end of the movie. "Losing your virginity makes you a man." Sexist culture teaches men to define their masculinity in a binary way: either you're in a relationship and you're a man or you're not, and you're still a boy. Women probably feel similar pressures: perhaps it's something like, "Sarah Palin is a real woman (because she's had six kids)."

Screw all that. Staying single is just as viable an adult lifestyle as being in a relationship. Where singles and couples differ is that the latter have found someone they want to commit to and share their lives with. Sure, those feelings are sometimes one-sided, but that's the way the cookie crumbles in a society where both men and women have control over their lives. Or that's the way it probably should be; being in a relationship just to prove your masculinity or femininity is a bad reason to be in a relationship. Compounding the problem in this guy's case is the sexist taboo on men discussing their feelings openly. He should have been dumping this stuff onto a psychologist or family member and not an obscure blog.

Maybe this guy just had a flipped switch and he would have latched onto something else as a rationale to go shoot people, but if sexist pop culture did contribute to breaking him down mentally over the years, imagine what a productive life he could have lived if his immediate environment were shaped more by feminism.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on August 05, 2009, 03:44:53 pm
Hm, that's an interesting thought. I didn't know guys felt pressured to get into relationships. Has anyone here personally experienced that? I have only been pressured by my family, not my friends. I don't take my family's pressure very seriously, it's all on my dad's side of the family because they don't like my guy...

I think that society's dating pressure has become more and more lax in the last couple decades. This is why in America, a lot of people don't end up settling down and starting a family till they're like, 40. In my culture, people often make babies when they're in their early 20s after they have sex. If they like the guy, they have the baby and get married. If the guy is an alcoholic, then the women have an abortion. That's lovely, considering the USSR and its former territories have the highest divorce rates in the world. Americans 50%, phhhh... in some parts of Eastern Europe, it's 65 %. Partly it's due to alcoholism, partly its due to the cultural notion that young people there just often don't want to try to fix their relationship problems, they would rather just get a divorce. How the hell my parents marriage lasts, I have no idea. But mom always says it's cause dad's a Jew and I should go find a Jew because I could only have a lasting relationship if my guy was a Jew XD; Ah culture clash....
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Shee on August 05, 2009, 03:59:37 pm
Hm...I heard about this but can't get into it right now, I guess to due to traffic.

Faust:  The "friend zone" is very real and very shitty, when you don't want to be single!!!  No problems with guys being "just friends" with a girl, but don't forget there are times when both sexes want more than a platonic friendship!  So if I a guy is head over heels infatuated or in love or whatever...there is an interest there...but it's one sided.  She does not feel the same way.  This often leads to a "friend zone" type deal.  I would say that IS bad...should he give up his pursual just because she wants to be a friend?  Obviously this is all within reason, I'm not saying that anyone should be stalking anyone here.  But if does not want to befriend her because of "feelings etc etc etc" then fine, he doesn't have to and iin fact SHOULDN'T because that would be detrimental to him, because we ALL know what would really be going on under the surface.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on August 05, 2009, 04:22:12 pm
Ironically, "platonic" originally referred to sex-sans-emotion.

Though regarding relationships, at least from the male-culture I've been exposed to, it takes on more of a question of if one is having sex. Regardless of a guy's relationship status, there seems to be the perception that if he's "sexually active" then he's a "man." A "relationship" seems to thus serve as a vehicle for carnal pleasure. Indeed, there does seem to be a basic perception that relationships should work like vending machines: you put into a relationship so that the relationship will "put out."

There is an additional layer, however, that is more culture-wide: if you aren't in a relationship (be ye male or female), then you're inherently worth less. "Singlehood" is not seen as a respected or respectable status.

And... damn, I just broke the quotation key on my keyboard.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on August 05, 2009, 05:13:43 pm
Ah, crap, I hit Ctrl+V instead of Ctrl+C. Stupid butterfingers.

Anyway, yes, I was sort of afraid to even be that honest, but the pressure often focuses on sex specifically in the case of men. I don't necessarily see it as an explicit command, but rather the kind of pressure women feel to be skinny in Western society: just the ubiquitousness of it in pop culture, and in what friends are doing, or claim to be doing for the sake of their masculinity. I'm not sure if women still feel psychologically pressured to have children or else they're undeserving of the title "woman," but it would be sort of on that order.

As for the friend zone, I don't mean to suggest that there aren't times when forcing oneself to stay in it would be psychologically harmful, depending on the specific circumstances. Sometimes, maybe distance is best. But I discovered in college that the friend zone can also be an incredibly wonderful thing -- a space where you can regularly carry on conversations, or even share dinner with, a physically and psychologically attractive person of the opposite sex (or whatever the sexual preference is) but not have to worry about all the baggage that goes along with sex and/or relationship building. The descriptions we see attributed to this "friend zone" in pop culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friend_zone) suggest, to our shared detriment, that platonic relationships are somehow useless. That's so far from the truth.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on August 05, 2009, 05:59:42 pm
It's funny because I really notice that it's almost always girl wants to be in friends zone, guy doesn't. I hate that because I always want to be in friends zone, and guys are usually ok with that for a while, then suddenly they're not and want something more from me that I'm unwilling to give. My dad disapproves of all my guy friends. He says they all want to have sex with me and it's not a good type of friendship. Eh, my dad is very old fashioned for being such a young dad >_>. What can I say, he's a Jew XD;. I know it's kinda racist, but I'm a Jew too, and my dad keeps trying to instill these traditional Jewish beliefs on me and it gets old. Though he is a little open to me dating CERTAIN types of other men. He says that Japanese/Japanese Americans are ok, but not Chinese and CERTAINLY not blacks >_>;. If I ever wanted a female relationship, I'd be disowned. Good thing I'm not so  attracted to women....

In my experience, I do not feel pressured to be in a relationship or have babies. I guess it's because I'm not older yet. I think I will feel the pressure in another 6 years to have a baby and get married. Not yet, though... It will more be the pressure I put on myself. My mom and her mom had kids when they were 24 years old, and I cannot carry on the family tradition. They do not expect me to have a kid any time soon, but they do want me to be married soon(especially my dad's mom who is VERY elderly and her dying wish is for her to be at my wedding...)  I want to, but I can't. I'm not ready and I don't even want to marry the guy I'm with now. My biggest obstacle in life right now is deciding if/when I want to break up with him and move on.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on August 05, 2009, 06:52:04 pm
Why is eating meat bad for the environment? AFAIK eating plants, especially grains, is much worse, since they require a much larger parcel of land to be grown than cattle, and thus make deforestation worse.

You have it exactly the wrong way around: Raising an animal for human consumption requires vastly larger amounts of land than does raising produce (fruits and vegetables). The statistics are almost comically lopsided: Something like four-fifths of all agricultural land in the country is used for meat production, and it takes something on the order of twenty times as much land to produce a calorically equivalent amount of meat as it does to produce that much energy in produce. This is because the animals which we eat themselves have to eat plants in order to grow and live. It adds an extra link in the food chain, and, given the low efficiencies of energy transfer in the food chain, every extra link requires that the food chain base be expanded horizontally by orders of magnitude.

In environmental terms, eating meat is very expensive on planetary ecological sustainability. I'm a meat-eater myself, so I am somewhat hypocritical to be making this point, which is partly why you don't see me saying more often that people should be vegetarian, or should at least eat less meat. In fact I'm all about eating more meat, which is entirely the wrong message, and I'm sure that the planet is eagerly awaiting the day when people with barbaric attitudes like mine will have all died out. Better to leave the campaigning to vegetarians, food activists or purist environmentalists.

And... damn, I just broke the quotation key on my keyboard.

Only you...


As for you, ZaichiArky, and the current turn of the sexism discussion, I think you're misreading ZeaLitY. He suffers from having a very good message that sometimes gets lost in his own emotional bombast. In his defense, it's a very good message, and an important one, one which too many people ignore. His exasperation is not directed at you personally; only your ideas.

As for those ideas...

You don't seem to be arguing that sexism exists, and you don't even seem to be arguing that sexism isn't a problem. You just seem not to care about the topic. ZeaLitY, FaustWolf, Thought, Zephira, and even Truthordeal (!) have made some good points already, so it's not as though you haven't had the chance to understand our position. If you don't care, you don't care. I wish you felt otherwise, though, because the reality of sexism in this world and even in this country is both more serious and more urgent than you realize.

I didn't know you had such a multicultural background, and, looking at that aspect of you with more attention, I would surmise that your attitude is the product of a different cultural mindset. I suspect that, in the years to come, you will figure out for yourself many of the things we've been telling you here. America has always been good at opening the eyes of those whose minds are already open.

Therefore, I suppose I have nothing more to add.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on August 05, 2009, 07:25:56 pm
^ I think you have a very accurate impression of me. It's just that one can only have so many passions, right? I know Z would disagree, but I don't feel like bombarding myself getting pissed off about all the social issues. I am an anthro major and though I really do care about certain social issues, I just feel like most social issues will just keep getting better and better as society progresses. I really do feel that way, despite ALSO feeling that if certain social issues were eliminated, the world really wouldn't be a much better place because then people would just ignore the fact that one social issue is almost resolved and then start focusing on other social issues that still need to be resolved. I do feel like western society is slowly but surely making progress towards a more feminist society in general. Would be be having this discussion 20 years ago or more? How would the discussion be different? Just see all the progress we've made : ).

I don't want to go further off topic about the environment thing, but I've made that my passion in the past, but I *personally* agree with environmentalists when they say I have no right to call myself an environmentalist if I am a meat-eater in general, so for now I will just keep on going to war protests if there is some new war that my country involves itself in that I strongly oppose. I'm not opposed to sending new troops to Afghanistan yet, so for now, there are no war protests that I can attend. It's important to participate IRL in social change : ). I try to do that when I can.

Quote
As for you, ZaichiArky, and the current turn of the sexism discussion, I think you're misreading ZeaLitY. He suffers from having a very good message that sometimes gets lost in his own emotional bombast. In his defense, it's a very good message, and an important one, one which too many people ignore. His exasperation is not directed at you personally; only your ideas.

I don't really understand his message, and I think he really misunderstands mine.

At least it is generally easier to fix misunderstandings on forums when you have more of an opportunity to explain yourself. Though I do notice that some people don't really want to listen to explanations are are too absorbed in their own opinions to listen to others.  And no, I'm not accusing Z of doing that. I am just saying it seems that way with some discussions sometimes.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on August 05, 2009, 07:35:26 pm
Though I do notice that some people don't really want to listen to explanations are are too absorbed in their own opinions to listen to others.  And no, I'm not accusing Z of doing that. I am just saying it seems that way with some discussions sometimes.

I didn't read this last part of your post because I was too busy admiring the new wall-sized portrait of myself that I recently commissioned. What were you saying?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on August 06, 2009, 12:39:36 am
Quote
Please, do identify which aspect of "rhetoric" you take umbrage with.

Quote
the undue usage
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Uboa on August 06, 2009, 01:59:31 am
Maybe this guy just had a flipped switch and he would have latched onto something else as a rationale to go shoot people, but if sexist pop culture did contribute to breaking him down mentally over the years, imagine what a productive life he could have lived if his immediate environment were shaped more by feminism.

This is the kind of thing that makes my gears start to turn.  While it's hard for me to perceive, personally, rampant effects of discrimination against women in the states (admittedly I am in a sheltered environment), I find it far too easy to identify ridiculous situations that result from self-destructive ideals of gender identity and gendered existence.  We are somewhat swamped with the kinds of graven images of gender ideal that this guy seemed to latch onto, and it's, sadly, very easy for certain people to be hypnotized by things like this.  With regard to these kinds of graven gender ideals, I don't see men as being any more favorably or progressively represented than women.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on August 06, 2009, 02:04:02 am
With regard to these kinds of graven gender ideals, I don't see men as being any more favorably or progressively represented than women.

That depends on the medium. Look at how John Wayne was pictured next to Miss Kitty in the old cowboy movies.

Or of course, there's my favorite old comparison: On Spike TV, you have women scantily clad if at all. On Lifetime, you have men portrayed as monsters(mostly the good looking ones).
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on August 06, 2009, 12:56:19 pm
I am an anthro major and though I really do care about certain social issues, I just feel like most social issues will just keep getting better and better as society progresses.

*gasp* You're a... a... MODERNIST!

But putting academic exorcisms aside for the moment, there is no guarantee that society will constantly improve. For example, the Middle East was once more scientific and open to intellectual development than the West, but now the two have switched. Humanity moves forward because people work at it diligently, but it is a fragile thing. Stray but a little and we could fall.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on August 06, 2009, 04:59:41 pm
But putting academic exorcisms aside for the moment, there is no guarantee that society will constantly improve. For example, the Middle East was once more scientific and open to intellectual development than the West, but now the two have switched. Humanity moves forward because people work at it diligently, but it is a fragile thing. Stray but a little and we could fall.

I disagree with you here--not with your statement of the obvious, but with your example. Progress always occurs in fits and starts, and sometimes its line of continuity is geographically or sociologically discontinuous. Some "fits and starts" last for thousands of years, others a week, but much of what was originally created, or not original but allowed to flourish in the ancient Islamic world, has survived and is flourishing again today. Sometimes specific ideas or knowledges are lost for good, and we'll never know if we rediscover them independently because the originals have vanished from history; but I would say it's a fair bet that many if not most of the key innovations from that era are still with us.

If you draw a line from the dawn of civilization to today, the results are indisputable. At the dawn of civilization, even the expectation of being alive next year was not a commonly held mindset. If you have ever lived in fear of poverty or want, or of some medical condition, you know what it's like to feel unsure about your future. That used to be the way it was for everybody. Material need was rampant; our population was controlled like that of any other animal primarily by environmental factors and only minutely by our own willpower. Education and learning as we know them did not even exist yet. Liberty? Art? Thousands of years away...no one had ever conceived of them yet.

Today, acknowledging the disparities in quality of life around the world, a single individual can visit every continent on the planet in a single month, can posit self-awareness and the doctrine of the categorical imperative, can study geometry, can listen to enormous varieties of music, can communicate in languages with tens of thousands of everyday words...it's not even close to where we began.

You're right: There are no guarantees. In fact the future is fraught with mortal dangers to our whole species and even the sum of life on Earth. But history up to this point is pretty clear on the general trend of our continued existence: upward. I don't know if you're one of those Christians who believes that taking credit for our accomplishments is hubris; if you're not, then I think you can agree pretty readily on that point, and, if you are, then I suppose I can understand if you cannot.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on August 06, 2009, 05:50:18 pm
Oh I'm a post-post modernist. Which is to say, humans are generally improving, but there are setbacks thrown in. Sort of like the stock market. The modernist perspective, however, is that there are no setbacks.

I think you're already aware of all this, so forgive me for the repeat. But if not:

The Classical perception of History was that it was a circle (or possibly a spiral downward). Things might change, but humanity wouldn't really go anywhere.

The Medieval perception of History was essentially a flat line or a dot. Humanity's always been wearing codpieces and floppy hats. Togas? Laurel wreaths? Never heard of them.

The Modern perception of History is that of an upwards sloping line. Humanity will always be better tomorrow than it is today. Always.

The Postmodern perception of History is that it is essentially a moose. It is silly to even discuss it, because, it’s a moose! How do you track progress or regress like that?

The post-Postmodern perception of history is that it has an upward trend, but "for every two steps forward, we take one step back."

To go back to my example, if I had to guess, I would say give the Middle East another 100-300 years and they're culture will be fairly similar, in terms of social justice, as most western cultures are today (though I may be overly conservative in my estimates; I would have said 600 years, but with the advent of the printing press and internet, I fully expect it to take less time for them than it did for the West).

The only thing that will prevent us from being in a downward slow instead of an upward slope is our own actions.

As for taking credit for our accomplishments... I actually don't know. On one hand, we have come a long way compared to where we started. But on the other, we are capable of so much better that it seems almost premature. It's sort of like complimenting the chef on the wonderful cake when he is still sifting the flour for it.

mmm... cake. I have some waiting at home for me.

Sorry, got distracted there.

So I suppose I would generally qualify any praise (but I tend to qualify most things, like this sentence). "Good job, but we can do better."
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on August 06, 2009, 06:04:23 pm
No disagreement, but I would share with you my emphasis on rewarding the intention and the process as well as the outcome. The final product isn't going to be good if it's made poorly. And if you're going to commend the final product, why not acknowledge the steps it took to get there while you're at it? Predicting the outcome of various trends in motion today is harder than predicting how a cake will turn out, but I'm sure there are plenty of things people like you and I could agree upon as being productive, counterproductive, or distractive, or neutral, and so forth.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Uboa on August 07, 2009, 04:31:44 am
With regard to these kinds of graven gender ideals, I don't see men as being any more favorably or progressively represented than women.

That depends on the medium. Look at how John Wayne was pictured next to Miss Kitty in the old cowboy movies.

Or of course, there's my favorite old comparison: On Spike TV, you have women scantily clad if at all. On Lifetime, you have men portrayed as monsters(mostly the good looking ones).


With regard to John Wayne, perhaps his was a more favorable depiction, but given the gender norms of the day one could say that John and Kitty were portrayed equally favorably.  I'm thinking now that I shouldn't have used the word "favorably" in my post.

Granted, men are more often portrayed as strong and self-assured to a somewhat ridiculous degree, and women are more often portrayed as vulnerable on channels like Spike, and even Lifetime, oddly(?).  My point in my previous post was more along the lines that nobody can really take either of these common caricatures too seriously.  As far as gender role models go, no matter what the differences between the myriad of portrayals of men and women in various entertainment mediums, many fall disappointingly flat as both realistic mirrors and as healthy or exceptional visions of human potential.

Edit:  Changed "most fall" to "many fall" in the last sentence.  (I've been enjoying some good TV series lately.)
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Romana on August 07, 2009, 01:04:40 pm
http://entertainment.uk.msn.com/movies/galleries/gallery.aspx?cp-documentid=149011173&Gt1=61502&ocid=today

Quote
Boys, turn off Fight Club and put away the Xbox.

is this fucking serious
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on August 07, 2009, 01:14:38 pm
Yeah...that's not happening. Don't get me wrong, there are a few chick flicks that I actually enjoy, but I am not sitting through another moronic Zach Braff movie.

Scrubs is over, give it up dude.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on August 07, 2009, 01:35:54 pm
They missed the point. People have beloved things that they desire to share with their significant other. True, sometimes these are "chick flicks" and guys should watch them. But the reverse is equally true. Probably about the first year of my marriage, my wife and I primarily watched movies that the other loved. She saw things like Transformers the Animated Movie, Spaceballs, and Robin Hood: Men in Tights, while I saw Bridgett Jones' Diary and ... um... other movies that I can't remember because I'm a horrible person (but only a few of them would qualify as "chick flicks").

Watching such movies is part of building a healthy relationship. However, if one wants the other to watch the movie in hopes that they'll claim the Matrix of Leadership or become Mr. Darcy, then that relationship needs more help than movies can provide.

Indeed, one might well say that the relationship should "transform" or one of them should "roll out."

EDIT: Count of Monte Cristo! That was another movie my wife got me to watch.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on August 09, 2009, 08:54:36 pm
Good Christ, there is this huge mysoginistic undercurrent in Western society I never even knew existed until the George Sodini episode (Pittsburgh LA Fitness gym shooting). Just take a look at this blog entry (http://fbardamu.wordpress.com/2009/08/06/george-sodini-and-the-contract-between-the-sexes/), the two linked blogs mentioned, and some of the comments on those blogs. Try not to hurl.

According to these sexist jerk-offs, Western society had this awesome (read: putrifyingly sickening) "contractual obligation" through the 1950s that basically rewarded the working man by implicitly robbing women of their own freedom -- I guess the rationale is that women who make half as much as men or are trained to be homemakers are forced to get married for their own sustenance -- and now men like George Sodini are victims of feminism, because society no longer guarantees every good working man a woman. Well, boo-effing-hoo. Some of the people who frequent these blogs have gone so far as to call Sodini "courageous" and taking "a last stand" against feminism. This is for real. A horror movie screenplay could not make this stuff up.
 
What unifies all these blogs is that they represent facets of the so-called "seduction community." They're the same people who say men need to fear long-term friendships with women (because a platonic friendship isn't giving men what they supposedly "need") and separates men into winners and losers based on whether they're getting any. These guys are corrosive on men's psyches; they're equivalent to the medieval scam artists who thought it possible and desirable to create magic love potions, and scientists who are trying to imbue products with pheromones to create attraction where it otherwise wouldn't have existed. I guess what they're ultimately aiming for is total control over one's life, but control over one's life should stop at the point at which you're just trying to reduce other people to marionettes meant to serve you.

The fact is, there's a statistical probability you're going to end up single in a society marked by the social freedom of both sexes, even if you don't tack on specific requirements like, "oh, he has to be 5'10," or "oh, she has to have an athletic build." The fact also is, George Sodini could have led a wonderful life marked by humanist accomplishments even with his single status. According to some reports he was sitting on approximately $250,000 thanks to his singleness if not an incredibly lucrative job, and that is not a small sum. He could have commissioned unemployed artists less fortunate than he was, or even started a potable water generation project somewhere in Africa. Instead, he bought into all this weird sexist mumbo-jumbo (that mainstream pop culture does have a hand in creating, as I've opined elsewhere) and it corrupted him into this horribly emo, "I'm going to blame society because I'm not getting my wishes fulfilled" kind of guy.

A more feminist worldview and a dash of the Springtime of Youth might have saved this man, and the women he killed. I think a couple people in this thread have wondered what feminism needed to accomplish next, or if our society even really had a need for feminism any more. I'd suggest that we start uprooting the "seduction community" by teaching people there's a fundamental value to the freedom of all human beings, for starters. I'm worried because the media has just totally dropped this story without really examining the deeper societal issues that might be at play.

EDIT: Out of curiosity, is there a seduction community geared toward single women out there? Or is this an overbearingly male-dominated facet of Western society's underground subcultures?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on August 09, 2009, 10:24:09 pm
I've looked into this "seduction community" thing, FW, and the most I can get from it is the movie "Hitch," or the show on VH1 "The Pick Up Artist." Is that what you're talking about? It seems a bit less...diabolical than what I had in mind when you were talking about it.

As far as Sodini and his mates are concerned, its not so much a societal problem as it is a few nuts being nuts.

It's much like the KKK, Black Panther Party or some of the more (in)famous eco-terrorist organizations in that none of these groups really represent the mindset of the typical member of our society.

All of their values and ignorance should be ignored and left to fester with the rest of the antiquated sexist and racist dogma. However, their actions are another story. Just like the FBI does with the KKK or Black Panther Party, I think they should start monitoring some of these groups too. Hopefully this will prevent more Sodini's from making headlines.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on August 10, 2009, 12:33:28 am
As far as Sodini and his mates are concerned, its not so much a societal problem as it is a few nuts being nuts.

No, you are entirely, exactly wrong. Your dismissal of people like him as an extremist fringe is part of the problem of sexism, and I find it more than personally offensive: It is dangerously naive. People kill females every single day for similar reasons, in this country. Sexist murder is up there with war--gang war, religious war, guerrilla war--as one of the highest causes of murder on Earth. What he did was uncommon--not even "rare," merely uncommon--only because he killed several females at once, not because his resentment led him to murder.

And that's "only" murder; there is a whole world of lesser hurt done, on a daily basis, to millions of females in this country...by people just like him--by all those who people buy into the notion that the sexes are fundamentally different and that males are superior and therefore entitled to control females. FaustWolf has already pointed out that this murderer's actions have attracted considerable sympathhy. That's because a significant percentage of our society agrees with him--not necessarily with the act of murder (although most often the only thing stopping them is their own cowardice), but with his resentment against sexual equality and against female rights.

Such resentment leads to many things, including murder. Don't you dare pretend there is no connection, because obliviousness to the obvious is as odious as sexism itself. It is the supposedly "normal" people like you who, in providing sexism with even the tiniest escape route by saying that "extreme" forms of it are somehow different from the rest, even when the underlying motivations and mindsets are exactly identical, enable sexism to flourish popularly and enable the murderers and rapists of our world to be dismissed as alien when in truth they come from us. You are talking out of your androcentric ass to call this an issue of fringe extremism. Sexism is the most deeply entrenched prejudice in the entire human civilization; it's everywhere, at every level of society, in every culture, all the time. In many other countries, people with mindsets like his are the ones who write the laws and keep the peace! Even in America until recently, people like him could speak openly without facing any significant backlash. Sexism is not defeated; it's not even on the ropes; not even in San Francisco and Seattle, your favorite punching bags of unfettered liberalism. All we have managed to do to this very day is to blunt the obscenity of sexism's worst excesses out of our legal system, and even that narrow victory has been partial. And when I say "we," I exclude people like you who think feminism is some kind of blight.

The relationship between resentful attitudes and oppressive or vindictive behavior is so glaring, and the sociological evidence of it so overwhelming, that I would more easily be persuaded that triangles have four sides. What kind of idiot are you to make excuses so idly, without even realizing the nature of your idiocy? Do you give no thought at all to the consequences of actions and to the progressions of ideas? Do you think you exist in some special place of awareness, knowledge, and information that entitles you to talk about these things which you clearly know nothing about? Do you think your own opinion is so important that it outranks your irrefutable ignorance on this topic? Would it have been so hard for you to admit to yourself--not even to the rest of us but simply to your own mind--that you don't really know about this stuff, and that intuition cannot create truth?

I've noticed with some approval that, even if you still manage to be wrong most of the time, you're at least somewhat open-minded. Well, consider this: Hold your tongue. Be quiet. The things you say have consequences that you don't realize, and to talk when you don't know what you're talking about is worse than embarrassing to you; it is dangerous to other people--not necessarily directly, but indirectly, in the spaces where sexism thrives: Your attitude will shape others; it is the interconnectedness of sexist attitudes which produces the occasional sexist murderer. When it comes to other people's lives and wellbeing, you're either a responsible human being who speaks only what he knows, or you're a disgrace and a a failure and an enemy of progress. It's that simple. Think before you speak, or don't say anything. And, by gawd, if you post "TLDR," I swear I'll kick your arse so hard you kiss the moons.

Let me leave you alone now and speak more generally...

The "fringe" is those people who are truly devoted to sexual equality; the vast majority of humanity is not interested in sexuality equality. They are interested only in picking the degree of sexism that is most comfortable to them, with their preferences typically resulting from their personal upbringing and sources of influence in society.

Did you know that air conditioners don't actually produce a net cooling effect? They produce more heat than cool, so the heat has to be vented outside the building. If you've ever walked past an air conditioner exhaust fan outside, you're familiar with the blast of hot air they put out. One of the reasons that I cannot condone ZaichiArky's fondness for "benign" sexism is that it's not benign. It's like running an air conditioner inside a room but not venting the heat outside: That little bit of cool air is quickly overpowered by the larger output of heat, and the room's overall temperature rises.

The only counterbalance to sexism is sexual equality. Absolute equality between the sexes. I cannot emphasize that enough. If you want to make a difference, you have to understand for yourself that all sexist thinking is interconnected, and that the vast base of "moderate" sexism is what sustains the extremist fringe: The two are not disconnected; the extremists are like mountain peaks on the landscape: Don't tell me they float in the sky simply because they're tall. You should always strive to refrain from sexism yourself, and you should usually oppose it or at least point it out in others. Why "usually" and not "always"? Because, for example, if I lived in Saudi Arabia I could be put to death for writing this. One must usually temper their activism so as not to get themselves or others needlessly killed or stripped of their sole livelihood. But that's it. Everything else is fair game. If you want to make a difference in this life--if you want to do your part to destroy sexism--there is no end of reward in doing so, but you'll have to accept that you'll be committing yourself to making other people uncomfortable.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on August 10, 2009, 12:38:55 am
Yeah, that's exactly what I was referring to Truth. I view some of their underlying assumptions and arguments as anti-humanist. I mean, just look at the attitudes one might run into within this community:

Quote from: the previously linked blog
Well, ladies, you want to spurn the betas of the world [...]? Fine. But the price you must pay is the risk of having a bullet fired into your brain by unstable lunatics like Sodini. And this doesn’t cover the millions more men who will dump their chivalrous pretensions and disrespect you in a thousand tiny ways, like letting doors slam in your face. You could stop this madness tomorrow by [...] actually liv[ing] up to your claims of wanting nice guys – but I doubt you will. You’ve made your bed, ladies – now sleep in it.
Words typed in poor taste by this guy omitted. This is diabolical, because it's implying that women have to bear violent acts for the simple freedom of choosing who they want their significant others to be, or to have no significant others at all.

These "seduction community" people claim to be all about self improvement, and certainly self improvement and gaining confidence are wonderful things. However, their goal is tainted by the following considerations:

1.) They promote unhealthy expectations of direct control over the actions of fellow human beings.
2.) They employ language that implicitly -- if not outright explicitly -- denies the worth of people who remain single voluntarily or otherwise. Given that books are being sold over this whole phenomenon, I suspect they do this to generate a sense of urgency amongst single men (singles often accumulate $$ after all) and thereby increase sales.
3.) In playing up the "nice guys finish last" trope, they're presenting women as these trashy people who purposely victimize men who actually respect them, which is patently ridiculous on its face.

I wouldn't be as concerned if I weren't worried these communities are drawing from larger themes and motifs present in mainstream Western society. And as with numerous other issues regarding men's psychological health, this isn't discussed, dissected, and treated in the open. Or at least not to my knowledge. And again, women may very well be subject to the same pressures, or analogous pressures.


I'll give you that Sodini might have suffered from some kind of psychosis that prevented him from processing his emotions properly. However, I thought his particular interest in young women (as opposed to women his own age) was a sign of clear psychosis at first, but whaddaya know. (http://www.amazon.com/How-Date-Young-Women-over/dp/0962067156/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1249874195&sr=8-1) Turns out R. Don Steele is probably making all sorts of money by encouraging this sort of thing.

I fear there could be another explanation here, one the media has dismissed from consideration all too hastily: that certain aspects of our culture -- aspects related to sexist attitudes and preconceptions of proper living -- encouraged Sodini to immerse himself in a subculture which counterproductively devalued him, and encouraged him to devalue himself, and that this situation warped his attitude over time. If this is indeed what happened, it's possible that in a society less defined by gender norms, he might have sought help from a professional psychological counselor, friend, or family member rather than trying to "take it like a man." That's ultimately what I'm getting at in the end, and why it applies to this thread.


However, all said and done...I think the main reason Sodini never secured a date is that he was... really bad at hand-shaking. (http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2009/08/nice_guy_must_d.php)

Now, this is a real handshake. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WI0iIOqPGak#t=00m14s)

EDIT:  Ninja'd voluminously by Lord J.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Uboa on August 10, 2009, 02:12:44 am
Thank you, FW, for bringing this madness to our attention. 

There are so many things running through my head right now with regard to these revelations.  I can't help but wonder about the events and factors in a person's life which might make them embrace this kind of attitude.  Now I know that there is a community which condones (or at least accepts as normal) this kind of thinking, but what would make a person pick up on this mindset and react so positively?  It almost sounds like something that one would have to be a victim of some form of child abuse to readily accept, to need to exercise that kind of control and simultaneously want to alleviate alienating pain and loneliness.  Is it more acceptable that a man should adopt an attitude like this than accept that kind of pain?  Is that why people are driven to this?

Also, why is it that for many men sex is always the quintessential end goal?  Why is this singular act readily accepted as the division line between success and failure?  The men who share this point of view don't seem to want a happy marriage, or a family, or anything like that.  It's all a matter of guaranteed sex, which is such a juvenile fantasy.  I guess it's one of those things that can just "stick" in a person's head, like it's the most important thing in the world.  But it's a pity that people really can't see beyond it.  Like FW said, Sodini could have been a hero if he had wanted to be, with the resources and the diligence which he obviously had.  Instead he couldn't see beyond this one silly matter in life.  What a waste, what a shame.

To tie this back into my wondering why people are drawn to this mindset, it seems that Sodini had some issues with his mother -- he called her "very dominant" in his blog.  (Apparently she was also the last person whom he called before the shooting...)  It's absolutely no excuse, but it's just a bit of an insight.  I wonder what else from his past may emerge and shed some light on this.  Would those who offer any defense of his actions be willing to accept that they are beholden to similar traumas?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on August 10, 2009, 03:34:28 am
Thought provoking questions! I'm interested to see what everyone else's insights are on these.

Quote from: Uboa
...what would make a person pick up on this mindset and react so positively?  It almost sounds like something that one would have to be a victim of some form of child abuse to readily accept, to need to exercise that kind of control and simultaneously want to alleviate alienating pain and loneliness.  Is it more acceptable that a man should adopt an attitude like this than accept that kind of pain?  Is that why people are driven to this?
Well, as far as my claim, "They promote unhealthy expectations of direct control over the actions of fellow human beings" goes, it's probably not an overt consideration on the part of the "seduction community" members; their ideal is probably that the target of seduction will realize all the wonderful, fantastic attributes of the seducer after giving him a chance, and thus it's not really control at all in their minds. But I'd argue it's a sort of implied control, because the seducer is in the mindset that he can literally trick someone into being attracted to him, if only his "game" is good enough. It just smacks of the fairytale love potion all over again to me.

I think it's entirely possible Sodini grew up normally and just snapped inside somewhere after negatively obsessing over his singlehood long enough (his exorbitant expectation of dating women much younger than himself certainly didn't help things), but I could see where an inability to experience empathy would contribute both to Sodini's shooting spree and to some of the attitudes one finds in the more alarming corners of the seduction community. If a man's unable to empathize with someone he finds romantically desirable, it might not cross his mind that she's simply exercising control over the course of her own life, and that her decision not to date him is still a desirable outcome. I'm sure a number of us have been faced with the choice of returning someone's advances just because they're making advances; in essence, granting that person's wish. And those of us who have actually gone out on a limb and done that might report more often than not that the results were disastrous for all involved. The only time it's actually desirable to pair up with someone is when the feeling is really, truly mutual, and both partners are inspired to give it their all. Anything else just doesn't cut it, but a "me, me, me, my loneliness, my pain" mentality would prevent someone from seeing the flipside of the situation, so to speak.


Quote from: Uboa
Also, why is it that for many men sex is always the quintessential end goal?  Why is this singular act readily accepted as the division line between success and failure?  The men who share this point of view don't seem to want a happy marriage, or a family, or anything like that.
Supposedly we're wired this way evolutionally, but nowadays I tend to think that's a convenient excuse for doggedly reinforced stereotypes. I'd venture that women probably like sex as much as men do; and that men like romantic emotional connection just as much as women do. Or if there is a real difference forced by evolutionary brain wiring, that the difference is less important than we typically make it out to be. However, in our gender norm-heavy society, these dual wants, which naturally go hand-in-hand, can only be expressed acceptably in a lopsided manner.

Sodini may have simply felt lonely and distanced from others on an emotional level, but felt that his masculinity would be threatened if he confided in someone meaningfully about his feelings. So instead, he does the societally acceptable thing and tries to improve his chances of getting laid -- possibly with hopes of eliminating the emotional loneliness in a continuing romance. Again, all conjecture on my part. It's possible to take Sodini into more American-Psycho-friendly directions and say that his fixation on younger women specifically reflects some Freudian thing that happened to him in his teens or twenties. He becomes reminiscent of Humbert Humbert in Lolita when viewed in that light.


Yeah, it was interesting that the media picked up on the whole mother thing and brought on psychologists who emphasized that as an explanation for his actions. I guess I suspect the media of trying to brush aside real hard-to-tackle societal issues by labeling Sodini a simple crazy, but I can't deny that there could very well be something to it. I hope low-level media interest in this story continues long enough for this to be addressed. It just seems like the media sensationalizes these things for a day or two but doesn't address the deeper issues at play; however, I'll give the press credit for dealing at some length with school bullying after the Columbine massacre.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on August 10, 2009, 03:53:58 am
I did read all of your post this time, and the one thing that really stuck out with me is you telling me to shut up and stop expressing my opinions on this forum. You used far more words than that, but the overall message made it undeniably clear that you felt that me presenting a worldview different from your own was dangerous and supported sexism.

So, allow me to be blunt, when I say in the nicest way possible, screw you, it ain't gonna happen.

You said before that there was only one legitimate side to the sexism debate: to stop it. Fair enough. Makes sense. However, while I agree with you on that point, and several others regarding sexism, I disagree with your overall view of the sexism debate and the lopsidedness with which you present it.

Perhaps its because I'm not as educated, or perhaps even then I'll still think you're wrong. Either way, as my worldview begins to evolve and even before then, my discourse is no more destructive than yours or FW's.

Quote
it's not even on the ropes; not even in San Francisco and Seattle, your favorite punching bags of unfettered liberalism.

I've had this feeling for awhile now, and this statement finally proves my assumption. This vibe kept telling me that you and Z considered me, a conservative-leaning Libertarian, to be the same as Sean Hannity. You need to stop that. Your prejudices against him seem to be rubbing off on me, and that in and of itself is unfair. I have not once spoken against either of those cities for their "unfettered liberalism." I might compare California, a very liberal state, to South Carolina, a very conservative state, when debating a point, but nothing more than that. I hold no disdain for either of you for being liberally minded. I generally disagree with you, but I don't hate you.

I don't consider feminism a blight. I consider extremists, man haters and people pushing for a gynocentric world a blight on feminism.

Now, onto the actual discussion of feminism.

This Sodini guy was clearly off his rocker. The men who support his ideals are not going to gain any footing in the policies of the United States of America. The difference between the US and Saudi Arabia on sexism is that the general society of the US condemns these people rather than put them in positions of power. Society itself its pushing these people to the fringes, and the more belligerent groups should be monitored just like other violent groups are to ensure perfect safety.

Now, if these men do gain footing, and the public starts sympathizing with them, then, yes, there is something wrong. If that is indeed the case, then perhaps you should look elsewhere than the misogynists for the root problem, simply because they don't speak for the majority of Americans. FW mentioned pop culture, and I definitely think that's the first place to look. However, as it stands now, I doubt these men will get any sympathy and will recede to the Internet to spout their beliefs.

The seduction community always struck me as a tad...creepy. But, there are some good points to it that I can't begrudge them. Speed dating, for example, is a well-meaning endeavor that has a decent trend. It introduces people that would otherwise never meet and that's not an entirely bad thing.

The crux of the seduction community seems to always be about sex, which can be a very very bad thing. In this way, its practically the same as prostitution, except with the degree of control and the statistical chance that you'll still lose.

Hopefully, these practices will fail horribly and be driven back into the shadows. If they aren't though, then something is definitely wrong, and we'll need to fix it. Fast.

This whole ordeal has brought me to realize that FW and Zaichi were right: way too much emphasis is put on being in a relationship in American society, and people in turn, will rush into relationships blindly just to be a winner, or to not be alone. That's not good either.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on August 10, 2009, 04:52:09 am
You're being hypocritical. So let's bring it out, one-by-one.

Quote
you felt that me presenting a worldview different from your own was dangerous and supported sexism.

You don't even attempt to back up your worldview with factual argument.

Quote
I disagree with your overall view of the sexism debate and the lopsidedness with which you present it.

You barely even considered sexism a problem in the past few weeks. Now, it seems you've given the problem a little validity in order to position yourself as a more reasonable person so you can speak from the center.

Quote
This vibe kept telling me that you and Z considered me, a conservative-leaning Libertarian, to be the same as Sean Hannity.

Lord J already covered this. You reference these right-wing talk show hosts to make yourself look more moderate, even though you hold  most of their positions. Already called out.

Quote
I don't consider feminism a blight. I consider extremists, man haters and people pushing for a gynocentric world a blight on feminism.

Your definition of extremism is what kneecaps you. You could probably consider Lord J or myself an extremist, and someone like ZaichikArky, who doesn't feel a real need to do anything about the situation, a regular feminist. Not true.

Quote
This Sodini guy was clearly off his rocker.

People who are off their rocker have to have a floor on which to fall off the rocker. Some people shoot abortion doctors. Others blow themselves up in the name of religion. Others kill because of social envy. And this guy was motivated by sexism. This issue cannot be separated.

Quote
perhaps you should look elsewhere than the misogynists for the root problem, simply because they don't speak for the majority of Americans.

The majority of Americans are misogynist. You've failed to grasp this, but Lord J said it clearly: sexism is present in every civilization, all of the time, and males have an innate privilege in this world. Any man who implicitly accepts the pay inequality between men and women, blindly accepts the convention of women taking the male surname in marriage, or accepts any of the other multitudinous things we've covered in this thread already is by complete, simple definition a sexist and part of the problem. The same goes for every woman who accepts these things or resigns herself to navigate through them. It's tough, because people are raised in this mindset and privilege, and have to come out of it, just like religious people have to overcome years of childhood mental conditioning from being raised in religious families.

Quote
Also, why is it that for many men sex is always the quintessential end goal?  Why is this singular act readily accepted as the division line between success and failure?  The men who share this point of view don't seem to want a happy marriage, or a family, or anything like that.  It's all a matter of guaranteed sex, which is such a juvenile fantasy.  I guess it's one of those things that can just "stick" in a person's head, like it's the most important thing in the world.  But it's a pity that people really can't see beyond it.  Like FW said, Sodini could have been a hero if he had wanted to be, with the resources and the diligence which he obviously had.  Instead he couldn't see beyond this one silly matter in life.  What a waste, what a shame.

It's important not to give shallow people more credit than they're due. A lot of people don't even consider their goals in a relationship or what defines a good relationship; they just go out and date, and suffer the consequences. There's ignorance on both sides, but I do tend to sympathize more with women because in my experience, they seem to desire long-term relationships more (I'd like to find some hard research on this, though). Stlil, it's been in my experience that for every man who's just out looking for a good fuck buddy, there's a woman looking to see past his obvious shallowness in hopes of changing him or that he'll stick with her for some reason. I can't blame them, considering how rare intelligent men must seem in a world filled with things like Spike TV.

~

As for the entire seduction community, it's a tried-and-true coping mechanism for cowardly, insecure men to blame their lack of sex or relationships on women, whether by demonizing them for being shallow, accusing them of having too high standards, etc. and it's also usually the case that these men are fixated upon the media's idea of supermodel beauty. They can all go fuck themselves. They're misogynists, ignorant pigs, and striped cowards who write off their responsibility to be good human beings to be able to enjoy the fruits of this world. Motherfuck those losers.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Shee on August 10, 2009, 05:02:32 am
Quote
Stlil, it's been in my experience that for every man who's just out looking for a good fuck buddy, there's a woman looking to see past his obvious shallowness in hopes of changing him or that he'll stick with her for some reason. I can't blame them, considering how rare intelligent men must seem in a world filled with things like Spike TV.

And for every man looking for a fuck buddy there is A WOMAN looking for one as well!  And a man who hopes she won't be so wild and crazy all the time in a world filled with girls gone wild.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on August 10, 2009, 05:17:22 am
Yeah, exactly. It is not hard to have sex in this world. These guys need to get over themselves.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Uboa on August 10, 2009, 09:39:07 am
Sodini may have simply felt lonely and distanced from others on an emotional level, but felt that his masculinity would be threatened if he confided in someone meaningfully about his feelings. So instead, he does the societally acceptable thing and tries to improve his chances of getting laid -- possibly with hopes of eliminating the emotional loneliness in a continuing romance. Again, all conjecture on my part. It's possible to take Sodini into more American-Psycho-friendly directions and say that his fixation on younger women specifically reflects some Freudian thing that happened to him in his teens or twenties. He becomes reminiscent of Humbert Humbert in Lolita when viewed in that light.

It's amazing how reliable an archetype Humbert is...

I haven't read the book American Psycho, but Sodini does seem somewhat reminiscent of the Bateman in the movie.  Does the book go more deeply into his psychology with respect to relationships?  (This is a book that I had forgotten I need to read!  Until now.)

Z, while I agree that these guys need to get over themselves, I wonder if it wouldn't be enough for them just to have a sex partner.  They seem so fixated on rejection that they might freak out at the thought of seeing any woman who was not guaranteed to be exclusively "theirs".  Well, at least Sodini did seem so fixated.  

On a side note, I find it entertaining that whenever I go to programming reference pages like w3c I see all of these ads for code cheat sheets that say "Recall like a man", "Get help remembering, stud", or "Steroids for your memory".  I feel like I've entered web programming's smelly locker room.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on August 10, 2009, 01:12:29 pm
Quote
Lord J already covered this. You reference these right-wing talk show hosts to make yourself look more moderate, even though you hold  most of their positions. Already called out.

...And once again, you fail to separate me. The only time I've ever quoted Sean Hannity was on healthcare, and that's because me and him found some common ground there. His is more based on a hatred of Obama rather than the good of the nation, but we agree on the basic concepts.

The fact of the matter is you're losing a valuable resource in your efforts when you're unable to separate Libertarians from the right-wing talk show hosts that you despise so much. You're kneecapping your own cause there.

Quote
You barely even considered sexism a problem in the past few weeks. Now, it seems you've given the problem a little validity in order to position yourself as a more reasonable person so you can speak from the center.

I've always considered sexism a problem, otherwise I wouldn't be posting in this thread. I stated before that I don't think that females are "oppressed," but I have acknowledged several inequalities. In fact, I'm one of the few that actually came up with a solution to the four biggest problems as I see them.

Quote
Your definition of extremism is what kneecaps you. You could probably consider Lord J or myself an extremist, and someone like ZaichikArky, who doesn't feel a real need to do anything about the situation, a regular feminist. Not true.

No, I consider all of you to be various strains of feminism. From what I've seen on the feminist front, it is just as splintered as any other political group, with extremes and moderates all around.

As for extremists, I consider:

1) People who set bombs off at men's clubs that don't allow women extremists.

2) People who hate every man because they feel he's a part of some central patriarchy extremists.

3) People who insist that women be allowed government seats simply because they are women without any base on merit extremists.

Quote
The majority of Americans are misogynist.

Bullshit. I would say that you're using an extremely broad sense of the word, but you're not; you're using the word misogynist because of all of the extremely negative connotations used with that word. People don't hate women simply because they accept cultural norms, but you seem extremely quick to label them as misogynists because they interfere with your worldview. Or if you honestly believe that most Americans hate women, then perhaps you are an extremist.

Quote
People who are off their rocker have to have a floor on which to fall off the rocker. Some people shoot abortion doctors. Others blow themselves up in the name of religion. Others kill because of social envy. And this guy was motivated by sexism. This issue cannot be separated.

I agree. The other three also don't show a problem with society in general, as much as a problem with a subculture of zealots that should probably be looked into.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on August 10, 2009, 06:08:28 pm
I chose my words carefully, Truthordeal, telling you to silence yourself--because you're right: I'm not going to try and do it to you. I was in a bad mood yesterday afternoon and I didn't realize it until much later, so perhaps my post came out more harshly than it needed to, but the point stands: You do need to control yourself, however, because your comments on this subject reveal that: 1) you don't know what you're talking about; and 2) you are very much an enabler of sexism.

Sexism is a touchy subject for me; I hate to see people practicing it who are unaware of their problem, or who don't recognize it as a problem...not for their sake, but for the world they help to shape, in which others have to live. The more serious a problem is, and sexism is one of the most serious in history, the less inclined I am to stand by while people talk irresponsibly, or ignorantly advocate for the continuation or expansion of sexism, or against the sexual equality movement. I find your comments about the recent shooting to be dismayingly similar to those of a century ago, when racists dismissed lynchings by saying that they were the work of fanatics, when the truth is so obviously to the contrary.

You're doing harm, and you don't realize it. Perhaps it's not here, by influencing others on the Compendium, but I can only imagine what the rest of your life is like, and what kind of people look up to you or are persuaded by you. I don't care if you're a Republican or a Libertarian or whatever label you want to call yourself. Your views speak for themselves, and I find them chilling, and, like I said, extremely irresponsible. Just because you have the right to say almost anything doesn't mean you should. I think you should think before you speak (or type). Specifically, I want you to look at the fact how so much of what you say is geared toward rationalizing your existing views: That is the opposite of intellectual curiosity; it is ego-stroking and nothing more.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on August 10, 2009, 07:51:04 pm
My entire point of this particular argument was that the motivations of one subculture of despicable human beings did not reflect the motivations of society as a whole. Even if you're right in saying that sexism permeates every layer of society, I doubt regular people would or do condone this. It's not always society's fault that a madman is born.

You yourself are a feminist. You look at this problem and you see it as a sign of a sexist society. I'm a education guy. I look at this problem and see it as a sign of someone who wasn't properly educated about social matters, or was indoctrinated rather than educated. There are elements of both of these in this case, as a misogynist who had been brainwashed by a subculture committed the crimes. But it's not society's problem to make sure that everyone is normal. In fact, if we did do this, then there would be no free will at all.

You're comparing an isolated incident like this shooting to an acceptable and oft ignored practice in lynching. Sure, sexism is much more widespread that I care to imagine at this point, but how often does it end like this? If more shootings like this or a following of this subculture begins popping up, I'll be more inclined to agree with you. But unless that happens, I'm not going to blame society for the folly of a few idiots.

Now, if this seems chilling to you, then you can cozy up to the fact that a majority of Americans think the same way, to varying degrees. Yes, this includes misogynists and seduction community members, but it also includes Joe and Jane Everyman(or, if you prefer that Jane keeps her maiden name, Everywoman) and that is the type of people you have to convince.

The man was a jackass. A murderous psychopath who followed a subculture that became more like a cult, much like David Koresh, and just like Branch Davidian, the entire religious community shouldn't be blamed because a certain group is particularly violent.

Now, I've said my bit, and I know that I haven't changed your mind in the least, so let's agree to disagree on this particular point as nothing more can be said until the fallout of this event is felt.

Quote
Specifically, I want you to look at the fact how so much of what you say is geared toward rationalizing your existing views: That is the opposite of intellectual curiosity; it is ego-stroking and nothing more.

Uh-huh...except when your personal values are being stomped on in front of you, and you feel that as a Christian male surrounded mostly by atheists, you need to defend your values. The venom you and Z often spit on religion may be well founded in your mind, but in some cases it's utterly repugnant to everyone else. 

I suppose me chiming in with the occasional, "No, this is how I think it should be," followed by the obligatory accusation, condescension and defense on my part might be seen as "ego-stroking," but whatever. I'm simply providing dissent in an oftentimes one-sided debate.

I've been on the defensive since the flag incident. I stay because I like the Chrono series, and outside of religion and sexism debates you, Z and myself actually seem to get along. That, and I'm actually intrigued by a number of things that you, Z, FW, Zephira and everyone else on here have to say, whenever some vitriol about religion or isn't attached to the message.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Uboa on August 11, 2009, 04:00:59 am
As for extremists, I consider:

1) People who set bombs off at men's clubs that don't allow women extremists. (?)

2) People who hate every man because they feel he's a part of some central patriarchy extremists.

3) People who insist that women be allowed government seats simply because they are women without any base on merit extremists.

Who are these people?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on August 11, 2009, 11:28:27 am
Who are these people?

Do you mean a specific case? Bill Ayers and his group of wackos attempted this back in the 1960's, but their bombs exploded before they could get to the site.

(http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l242/Truthordeal/Magus-PonderFront.gif)(http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l242/Truthordeal/Magus-PonderFront.gif)

Double facepalm. The first one for being stupid terrorists, and the second one for being stupid terrorists.

Then last year there was a case of a strip club bombing in...one of the central European countries. I'm trying to remember which one. It was like, Slovenia, or Austria, although I don't think it was a German speaking country. I want to say it was Bulgaria, but I'm not sure. I'll have to check that out later.

Now, there are far less of these than say, abortion clinic bombings or car bombings. One thing I am impressed with the feminism movement as a whole as compared to others is that it's fairly non-violent. But, there are still people like this, and they are extremists either way.


Whoa! Looks like our two favorite gamers over at PennyArcade have a few choice words on the subject:

http://www.penny-arcade.com/

If you're seeing this on or after Wednesday, be sure to look through the archives to find this page.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on August 11, 2009, 01:17:09 pm
... I would more easily be persuaded that triangles have four sides.

Six, actually, or two, depending on how one wants to think about it. There is an inside and outside, so two. Or each line, of which there are three, has two sides, so six. If we combine the two we could say there are eight sides.

But yes, four is just right out.

If this is indeed what happened, it's possible that in a society less defined by gender norms, he might have sought help from a professional psychological counselor, friend, or family member rather than trying to "take it like a man."

I am often frustrated by this perception that a "man's man" is supposed to be some sort of untouchable thing; effected by nothing. Where did the idea that men aren't supposed to feel emotion, or get sick, or need help come from? I suspect at least part of it came from the old sexist idea that women are ruled by their emotions. It doesn't seem like a large leap from saying that women are ruled by emotions to saying that emotions are inherently feminine and thus unmanly. Which is one example of why sexism of any sort is harmful to both genders.

Motherfuck those losers.

Actually, in this case that literally might have helped the guy, if he did have such a significant maternal fixation.

As a side note:

Quote from: Wikipedia
The seduction community is a loose-knit subculture of men who strive for better sexual and romantic success with women through self-improvement and a greater understanding of social psychology.

It exists largely through Internet forums and groups, as well as over a hundred local clubs, called "lairs".

"Lairs?" Really? That's just... wow. It sounds like they're identifying a little too much with bad animal psychology.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Mr Bekkler on August 11, 2009, 01:28:19 pm
I'm a education guy.

ORLY?
... I would more easily be persuaded that triangles have four sides.

Six, actually, or two, depending on how one wants to think about it. There is an inside and outside, so two. Or each line, of which there are three, has two sides, so six. If we combine the two we could say there are eight sides.

But yes, four is just right out.
Don't forget the triangle may exhibit signs of disassociative identity disorder, or be otherwise just a two-faced meany sometimes, so there may be several sides you don't see. There could theoretically be an infinite number of sides in a triangle. But only six angles. Or else it's something other than a triangle.  :lol:
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on August 11, 2009, 06:49:35 pm
Changing gears slightly, I really do frown on hypocrites who get uppity because there are females out there, usually in the feminist movement (but by no means always), who resent males. The hypocrisy comes into play because their criticism of females stands in stark contrast to their attitude toward the much larger ranks of males who resent females. Compounding their hypocrisy, these people are also the last to notice that society doesn't have a male rights movement comparable to feminism, and doesn't need one: Male rights are secure, and the resentment of females is fully institutionalized.

Criticizing feminism, which fights for sexual equality, on the grounds that some of its individual members are sexist, while ignoring the fact that society as a whole does not fight for sexual equality and has an even higher proportion of sexists, takes some chutzpah. (That, or some profound naivete.)

Analogy time:

I suspect these same people are the ones who argued against Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court on the grounds that, in addition to being qualified, Sotomayor is a Latina--a female minority. In making that criticism, these folks conveniently ignored the fact that the current Supreme Court is packed with white males: and it didn't take no stinkin' affirmative action for them to get there, because, if you're an affluent white male, you don't need it: All of society is already set up for you to succeed. Sexist, yeah. Racist, yup. Classist, definitely. But hey...at least it's not social engineering, right? Right! Because if you're a rich white male in a society that favors rich white males, extending the franchise is exactly the kind of big government you're eager to avoid.

That is, unless you have a conscience. Unfortunately for us, bigots are seldom known for theirs.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on August 11, 2009, 07:19:14 pm
I can't stand the Supreme Court as it is. I'm hoping that the Wise Latina Woman might do some justice(pun intended). Then again, I'm a proponent of judicial restraint, so that might not be possible.

Anywho, back to sexism.

It's an interesting point you bring up, Lord J, about the image of the feminist movement. I mentioned an article a while ago that talks about the feminist movement's PR problem.

I think the statistics were something like, 90+% of women support "women's issues," like lifestyle choice and equal pay, but only a quarter or so define themselves as feminists.

Now, this might have something to do with the feminist movement's nasty habit of stopping after achieving a goal, or it might have to do with a very crippling image problem; that being, the Birkenstock wearing man hater.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on August 11, 2009, 07:29:27 pm
The feminist movement does have PR issues, at least among certain audiences, whether feminists have brought this upon themselves or not. I was in a college psychology class where the students were under the impression that lesbianism was a pre-requisite of membership in the feminist movement. What does that say about the cause, how it's being presented, and how it can better promote its goals?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: KebreI on August 11, 2009, 08:42:27 pm
I felt compeled to link this thread to the latest  Blog post at PA [LINK] (http://penny-arcade.com/2009/8/10/)

Its an nice back and forth of Mike and Jerry concerning some course on dating or at least "pre-dateing". 
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on August 11, 2009, 08:54:36 pm
Yes, it seems that their...dispute, on the matter has boiled over even more than when I last saw it.

Holkins is certainly a learned man, if nothing else, and to take a quote from him:

Quote
Jeezy Creezy.  This thing is fucking rabbit hole.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Ema on August 12, 2009, 04:55:41 am
This is one @#$%ed up thread...
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: IAmSerge on August 12, 2009, 02:24:24 pm
This is one @#$%ed up thread...


Yep
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on August 12, 2009, 02:32:18 pm
You two just made it more fucked up; thanks. I didn't have the interest to reply to this again until something noteworthy came along, but the vague whining from you two just reeks of offensive mediocrity. Not very many people care that you think it's a fucked up thread.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Romana on August 12, 2009, 02:45:54 pm
This is one @#$%ed up thread...

Better to debate, make progress and learn more rather than sit back and "O_o" at everything everyone says.

Yep

(http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk1/FaFniR_Medley/morph-ball-cat.png)
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Ema on August 12, 2009, 07:01:32 pm
There really isn't much to say, because from what I've read if you're not an atheist you're branded a sexist.

We all have different point of views, but this thread just doesn't respect each people's beliefs... I mean...there's just so many point of views
how can you be so arrogant to believe your views on life are superior to someone else's? I have my own views on the subject and Zeality and other
atheists have their own views, it's fine to point out why we think abortion is good or bad...but seems like here if you tell about your views on the subject
all the atheists just get flat out mad at you and start to bash at you and tell you just how wrong your antique conservative ways are. It's like being an atheist in
here is like a new religion, you even got the people that tell you you must convert. Again I got my opinions but I'm not gonna force someone else to believe in them
because then again I am a human being and I could be wrong in my beliefs and in my way of perceiving what is good and bad...
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZombieBucky on August 12, 2009, 08:02:27 pm
ive been trying to stay away from this topic as much as i can. i cant compare to the eloquence of your arguments for and against. but this just pissed me off to no end.
lemme see if i can find it on the site...
nope, nothing.

the news piece described that women were drinking more than they were 30 years ago, possibly due to having jobs similar to men because of the growing equality in the workplace. this might say to some people that women shouldnt have the equal rights of men in the workplace so that theyll do more ladylike things, like tea parties or something (im not good at this, sorry). or that they shouldnt have equal rights to protect other people.
it disgusted me, quite frankly.

the news source was abc world news (i watch it with my father every night), but i  cant find the article on the webpage.
(also wtf is with the giant pink head?)
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on August 12, 2009, 08:54:47 pm
Quote
all the atheists just get flat out mad at you and start to bash at you and tell you just how wrong your antique conservative ways are.

Religious people have hidden behind some veil of sanctity for centuries. It's time that religion is brought out into the open and criticized just as any other idea or organization. There is no reason to hold it sacred.

(http://chronofan.com/Zeality/xQx4RgyjRV3hI2CRfK.jpg)

It's time the cross is broken. Ignorance doesn't deserve respect.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Ema on August 12, 2009, 09:03:14 pm
well good luck with your hate then
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on August 12, 2009, 09:13:54 pm
It's time the cross is broken. Ignorance doesn't deserve respect.

Then neither does atheism or any unique thought at all.

I don't know if you forget this or are simply too pigheaded to care, but ignorance is subjective. Surely the 80 some odd percentage of Americans that are Christians don't think that they're ignorant, and if you want to make the assumption that you are smarter than such a large majority and know better than them, simply because you're an atheist, well then, you're the ignorant one here. I've read your "facts" about religion over and over again, and they're no more factual than anything out of the mouth of Rush Limbaugh. Most of them seem to be analysis or assumptions than facts, and most of them are far more polarizing.

I, as a Christian, am fine with criticism of my faith; hell, I accept it and encourage people to ask the tough questions regarding religion and its role in the world. What I cannot say I'm fine with is the constant stream of anti-theist propaganda that inevitably makes its way onto this forum. And I know that I or another religious person would not get away with it without any rebukes, so enjoy the fact that your beliefs are finally being taken as seriously as any religion would be.

And for the love of God, will you, Ramsus, V, whomever is in charge of it, please get rid of this damn emote!?

 :hey
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: IAmSerge on August 12, 2009, 10:08:55 pm
You two just made it more fucked up; thanks. I didn't have the interest to reply to this again until something noteworthy came along, but the vague whining from you two just reeks of offensive mediocrity. Not very many people care that you think it's a fucked up thread.

Funny, because from what I see, we were making a comment, and then we got flamed from it.
:fuk
lets just face it, your comic, funny or otherwise, is a stereotype... and one that I have yet to see anyone in our community fit.

And props to anyone who found the pun
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on August 12, 2009, 10:17:30 pm
I'll take a wild guess here and say it has something to do with the word face, and the face of that guy.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: IAmSerge on August 12, 2009, 10:27:43 pm
I'll take a wild guess here and say it has something to do with the word face, and the face of that guy.

You, sir, have recieved props!

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v203/maggiekarp/poshul/didnotgetthefontright.png)
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on August 12, 2009, 10:50:54 pm
Regardless of whatever conversation follows, I move to have that picture in IAmSerge's post added to the supplemental smilies menu.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: IAmSerge on August 12, 2009, 10:53:26 pm
Regardless of whatever conversation follows, I move to have that picture in IAmSerge's post added to the supplemental smilies menu.


I was thinking the same thing, which is exactly why I used it!

Maggiekarp = win
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZombieBucky on August 12, 2009, 11:51:46 pm
you guys go off topic easily lol
i have never experienced sexism, aside from the fact that being a white male is always a bonus. i do feel that it is a big problem. aside from having the pay issues, many women usually experience some sort of harrasment. they get unwanted attention, simply for being female. many people portray them as stupid and ditzy, not good at math or science. my little sister megan is a whiz at math, but shes afraid to go into an advanced placement course for math because it is mostly guys.
women are more likely to be stalked than men. rape is primarily associated with a man forcibly having sex with a woman. women are more likely to suffer domestic abuse. its disgusting, and if i ever stalk, rape, or beat my girlfriend, or do any of that crap, i will kill myself. i try and spread the word as best i can, but i dont know how to actually stop it, or at least increase the equality.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on August 13, 2009, 02:11:00 am
There really isn't much to say, because from what I've read if you're not an atheist you're branded a sexist.

That’s not quite correct. My point, and that of ZeaLitY and others, is that religion has consistently upheld itself through use of sexism. To get away from sexism, one must either reject that aspect of their religion, which is usually harder than rejecting the religion entirely. It’s an oversimplification to say that atheism is a prerequisite to sexual egalitarianism…but it’s an oversimplification which nevertheless usually holds true.

I personally don’t see it as useful to limit this issue of sexism to the terms of divine faith or a lack thereof, because sexism is bigger than religion; it may be true that virtually all believers are sexist, but so are most nonbelievers.

Sexism comes in degrees; everybody (or almost everybody) who ever lived has had sexist tendencies, because sexism is built into the human condition. Sexism is pervasive enough to be a person’s default position: To get away from sexism, you have to explicitly recognize it, and, once you learn how to do that, you will see that sexism is everywhere.

To borrow a Christian concept, sexism is like sin. Just because you don’t know how to recognize it doesn’t mean it’s not there, and it’s no shame to admit that you have within yourself both the ignorance and the imperfection which set you up to think and behave sexistly. Rather than defending yourself against the charge, you should plead guilty and seek redemption.

Otherwise, you will only continue to be a part of the problem.


We all have different point of views, but this thread just doesn't respect each people's beliefs... I mean...there's just so many point of views
how can you be so arrogant to believe your views on life are superior to someone else's?

I don’t think you were talking to me personally—or maybe you were after seeing my comment to Truthordeal the other day—but in any case I can answer your rhetorical question directly: When it comes to conflicting ideas, I would say that most people, in their “heart of hearts,” think that their views are equal or superior to other people’s views, by whatever their inner measure of value may be. This would make sense, because we all have an ego, and ego is essential to our ability to function. What kind of a world would you live in, if you honestly felt that your convictions were crap?

Some of us are more aggressive or passive; some of us are more tolerant or intolerant; but all of us who are not depressed or mentally imbalanced must proceed from some kind of self-assuredness on some level. Thus your question, “How can you be so arrogant…?” is irrelevant: People are, and that’s how it is.

What you are effectively implying with your rhetoric is that we must always agree to disagree, because the real truth is inaccessible. In this contention, you are wrong. Some people’s “arrogance” (to use your word) is more justified than that of others, because some people’s convictions are simply more logical, or are better in tune with reality, or are more beneficial for humanity or life on Earth—all of which are objective measures with some obvious merit.

It isn’t a lie, or even a “matter of opinion,” that religion has promoted sexism extensively, and it is also isn’t a lie or a matter of opinion that sexism is rampant. These are facts. It doesn’t matter if a majority of people disagree; majority opinion does not create truth. ZeaLitY, and at times Lord J Esq, and many others besides, may be ungracious with the way we present these facts, but we’re only the messengers and you shouldn’t be paying such attention to our style anyway.

I understand where your concern is coming from: You don’t like other people demeaning your religious values or your religious faith. I do sympathize, but I have no patience for your ignorance, stubbornness, or virulent self-defense. Some days you lose the fight. Some days you are the one who is wrong. Some days you need to look up at the stars and admit that you don’t know it all. Some of your peers know better than you do, some of the time, on some things. This is one of those occasions. I urge you to consider it.

I apologize if my own personal weaknesses pollute the importance of the message, and I apologize for the overbearingness of people like ZeaLitY, who is simply caught up in the midst of a massive awakening and doesn’t yet fully realize the effects his displays of passion can have on others. You would do better to ignore us messengers and focus exclusively on what we have to say. If you have an open mind, the rest will take care of itself.

...but seems like here if you tell about your views on the subject
all the atheists just get flat out mad at you and start to bash at you and tell you just how wrong your antique conservative ways are.

There is a hidden question that I didn’t answer above: How does one know that their point of view is superior, when all of us are predisposed to self-assuredness even though it is usually unwarranted?

The only way to earn that kind of knowledge is to learn this stuff that our ancestors have created and bequeathed unto us…reason, judgment, critical analysis. These tools won’t get you 100 percent of the way to certainty—for certainty has little place in a scientific mindset—but they can easily teach you to recognize flaws in other people’s thinking, and in your own thinking. “Antique conservative ways” are evidently, extensively riddled with illogic, incomprehensiveness, fallacy, inconsiderateness, prejudice, malice, and fear. I understand that there are many conservatives out there, who exist because they were brought up in a society which predisposed them to such a fate, and I admit that theirs is an unfortunate lot—as unfortunate for the rest of us as for them. However, they are what they are, and what they are is wrong—deeply and dangerously so.

Conservatives will disagree with that. But they don’t have the power to defend their ideas. The intelligent conservatives can hold their own in debate only by chipping away at their conservative premises, until they cease to be “conservatives” in the conventional sense of the word, or until they reach the limits of current human understanding—the boundary of our political, social, economic, and anthropological theories, beyond which lies only human ignorance: a realm where differing points of view are purely speculative and therefore tentatively valid.


I don't know if you forget this or are simply too pigheaded to care, but ignorance is subjective.

I don’t know how you can say that. Do you know what “ignorance” is? Either a person is aware of a thing, or not. There’s no in-between. Another way of looking at it is that the word ignorance is a cognate of the word ignore. Don’t you see that?

Surely the 80 some odd percentage of Americans that are Christians don't think that they're ignorant, and if you want to make the assumption that you are smarter than such a large majority and know better than them, simply because you're an atheist, well then, you're the ignorant one here.

I know you’re talking to ZeaLitY, but I’ll intercept this one. As I said before, majority opinion does not create the truth. That isn’t controversial. If you disagree anyway, you’d better be prepared to prove your claim.

I've read your "facts" about religion over and over again, and they're no more factual than anything out of the mouth of Rush Limbaugh. Most of them seem to be analysis or assumptions than facts, and most of them are far more polarizing.

ZeaLitY’s arguments, in between his diatribes and foul language, are becoming increasingly sophisticated and, in my view, effective. If he is still failing to persuade you, is that him being inadequate, or you being intractable?

I, as a Christian, am fine with criticism of my faith; hell, I accept it and encourage people to ask the tough questions regarding religion and its role in the world.

I think your problem here is that you’re only willing to accept criticism on your own terms, which are entirely too narrow for your own good.

What I cannot say I'm fine with is the constant stream of anti-theist propaganda that inevitably makes its way onto this forum.

“Propaganda”? ZeaLitY’s “springtime of youth” may, at a stretch, be construed as propaganda, but his political arguments never are. You are welcome to substantiate your allegation, but don’t bother if you’re not prepared to accept defeat, which would follow almost immediately.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: IAmSerge on August 13, 2009, 02:30:19 am
To go on to a similar topic of predjudice, racism, I believe the worst of my racism comes to being that I don't look anyone who isn't white in the eye (this only applies to non-white people I don't know)...

...contrary to how it sounds, however, I am doing this out of fear...  I have an overwhealming fear that if I look at someone who isn't white, they will think that I am staring and that I'm doing so out of racism...  I feel bad for not looking them in the eye because that in itself may be racist but its not my intention, and I feel kindof trapped in a circle. =(  At least I feel bad for doing things either way... =(

and back on topic, the worst of my sexist thoughts and feelings, that I can think of, is me thinking I'm not worthy for any woman.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Shee on August 13, 2009, 03:36:16 am
Your fears are very silly.  And obvious fear invites problems from anyone.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: IAmSerge on August 13, 2009, 04:08:13 am
its a fear of being seen as a racist or sexist...

...not because I am afraid of getting sued or something like that, but because I don't wanna be racist or sexist V.V
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Mr Bekkler on August 13, 2009, 10:34:55 am
To go on to a similar topic of predjudice, racism, I believe the worst of my racism comes to being that I don't look anyone who isn't white in the eye (this only applies to non-white people I don't know)...

...contrary to how it sounds, however, I am doing this out of fear...  I have an overwhealming fear that if I look at someone who isn't white, they will think that I am staring and that I'm doing so out of racism...  I feel bad for not looking them in the eye because that in itself may be racist but its not my intention, and I feel kindof trapped in a circle. =(  At least I feel bad for doing things either way... =(

and back on topic, the worst of my sexist thoughts and feelings, that I can think of, is me thinking I'm not worthy for any woman.


As far as people of other races, you should look them dead in the eye, and when they look back, smile. A smile is the easiest, fastest, and most universal way of saying "no offense" and works more wonders than most people care to remember!

And as far as ladies, and "girl advice", I'm not sure I won't get bashed for saying it, but that's an easy fix. Ladies don't like attractive guys, or smart guys, or creative guys. That's all stuff that's a plus. They like guys with confidence. That's all you need to know. Pretending you don't care (in my experience) gets the girl to like you almost every time. Unless she's not playing 'the dating game' or whatever you'd call the confusing sexual battle.

So basically, if you don't worry about coming off as racist or sexist, you won't come off as racist or sexist.

I actually used to think that if I didn't finish listening to a Christian band's song aboug God, God would be angry with me. (It turns out he wasn't? I guess.)
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on August 13, 2009, 11:49:01 am
There really isn't much to say, because from what I've read if you're not an atheist you're branded a sexist.

Other than Lord J and Zeality, who has said that?

At least three of the active participants in this discussion have been some form of what might be classified as religious (Faust, TruthorDeal, and myself). While I could be wrong, I don't think J or Z would start calling Faust a sexist.

If I recall correctly, Zephira is atheist and… I can’t remember and am not sure if Zaich or Uboa have said their stances.

We all have different point of views, but this thread just doesn't respect each people's beliefs... I mean...there's just so many point of views
how can you be so arrogant to believe your views on life are superior to someone else's?

Well if one didn't believe in his or her belief, then it wouldn't be a belief, yes? The very fact that one believes in a particular stance necessitates that one also think it is superior to alternate stances. If one didn't believe that a particular stance was correct, then one wouldn't hold said stance. So really, you seem to be taking offense at individuals having any belief at all. I don’t believe that this was your intent, but I do believe that is the logical conclusion.

But I believe I can be wrong too.

“Propaganda”? ZeaLitY’s “springtime of youth” may, at a stretch, be construed as propaganda, but his political arguments never are. You are welcome to substantiate your allegation, but don’t bother if you’re not prepared to accept defeat, which would follow almost immediately.

In the words of Inigo Montoya, "I do not think it means what you think it means."

Propaganda is merely the active spreading of ideas, concepts, information, believes, etc with the intent of furthering or hindering a particular cause. There is, admittedly, a negative connotation with the word, but I would argue that such a connotation is the result of incorrect social perceptions. American society seems to dislike the idea of being actively convinced of something. We want the information presented "neutrally" so that we may judge for ourselves, free of external pressure. Propaganda is seen as a negative because it is active, not passive. Likewise with rhetoric. They are associated with the idea of "making" someone believe something, as if against their will, which we find distasteful. Yet at its heart, that is what a logical and reasonable argument is; an attempt to spread a particular conclusion, and if you do that with the intent of spreading a larger goal, it is propaganda. But that doesn't have to be a bad thing.

ToD does hit on an irritance, however, and it wouldn’t d to sweep such a thing under the carpet once it has been brought up. Zeality in particular, but you as well, often bring religion into a myriad of topics. It would be nice to occasionally be able to discuss something without it developing into a religious debate. However, given Z's perspective and your own, it should be expected that religion will get brought up whenever you two are talking about the ills of the world, as from your perspectives religion is at fault for much of it. While I might disagree with the premise, I cannot fault the result, as it is merely the logical outgrowth of it. Any irritation that comes from that should not be more of a blemish on you two than the monitor settings I use on the computers on which I read your posts. Still, an irritation does exist. To deny such would be dishonest.

To go on to a similar topic of predjudice, racism, I believe the worst of my racism comes to being that I don't look anyone who isn't white in the eye (this only applies to non-white people I don't know)... contrary to how it sounds, however, I am doing this out of fear...  I have an overwhealming fear that if I look at someone who isn't white, they will think that I am staring and that I'm doing so out of racism...  I feel bad for not looking them in the eye because that in itself may be racist but its not my intention, and I feel kindof trapped in a circle.

To be fair, you are being a little racist -- not in not looking them in the eyes, but in worrying about being racist. By being afraid that you'll appear to be racist, you will be treating them differently, and thus are engaging in racist behavior. The remedy is actually to hang around people of said race more. Even if you have nothing against people with rainbow colored hair in concept, for example, the first meet one you'll notice that their hair is different. The very act of noticing a fundamental difference is the seed from which prejudice can grow. If you hang around such people more, those differences will fade to the background of your mind. You'll still know that they are different, but that difference will take a back seat in your mind and you will no longer focus on it. By not focusing on it, you'll then be able to treat them as you'd treat anyone else.

and back on topic, the worst of my sexist thoughts and feelings, that I can think of, is me thinking I'm not worthy for any woman.

The wonderful thing about love is that it doesn't ask us to be "worthy" or perfect. This is a particularly good thing, as love tends to eventually lead to people living together in a limited and shared space. Such living usually results in conflicts, but love keeps individuals together through such things.

I would also argue that feeling that one is "unworthy" if a far better place to be in than if one were to feel that one was "perfectly worthy." Neither is an ideal place to be, mind you, but comparatively. Part of love is self-improvement. Love does not demand that we are perfect, but that doesn't stop it from desiring the removal of our imperfections.

And as far as ladies, and "girl advice", I'm not sure I won't get bashed for saying it, but that's an easy fix. Ladies don't like attractive guys, or smart guys, or creative guys. That's all stuff that's a plus. They like guys with confidence. That's all you need to know. Pretending you don't care (in my experience) gets the girl to like you almost every time. Unless she's not playing 'the dating game' or whatever you'd call the confusing sexual battle.

Speaking of seduction community, is that something that should be rejected entirely on principle or might there be useful elements that can be salvaged from that ideological trainwreck?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on August 13, 2009, 12:00:30 pm
I know perfectly well what propaganda is. I'm a writer. I stand by my comment: It'd be within reason to call his Springtime of Youth outbursts propaganda, if we assume that they're more than just fits of passion and are deliberately intended to persuade. His political arguments, however, are not. They are declarative, not persuasive, and I'd say one of the reasons they fall flat is that they don't have enough persuasive intent in them, since his preference is to bludgeon rather than argue.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on August 13, 2009, 12:02:48 pm
Declarative statements are persuasive, however. Indeed, bludgeoning is itself a form of persuasion.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on August 13, 2009, 12:05:28 pm
They are declarative. Anything else is an addition by the originator or an inference by the recipient.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on August 13, 2009, 12:08:11 pm
Quote
Speaking of seduction community, is that something that should be rejected entirely on principle or might there be useful elements that can be salvaged from that ideological trainwreck?

As someone who's just gotten out of the high school train wreck of a dating community, I can say that I'm sick of this "dating game," that people seem to play and the seduction community seems to only be perpetuating that. Ugh. I suppose its find if it helps men overcome their personal weaknesses in the dating world, but as Jerry Holkins("Tycho Brahe" of Penny Arcade) said in an earlier linked blog post, there are some elements that are comparable to hunting out of a Jeep in the Savannah, and that's not nearly as noble.

I forget how, but FW also linked the seduction community with this Sordini guy, the one that shot up the gym full of women.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Mr Bekkler on August 13, 2009, 12:19:14 pm
I'm no fan of said game. But it does seem to be very prevalent, and the rules are very easy to learn. Now to follow those rules...that's a whole new challenge altogether!


But Thought, the problem isn't with the community in general, it is biology. Naturally a quiet, calm, confident "man" would make a better "protector" than a blushing, confused, emotions-on-his-shoulder kinda guy. At least, that's how instinct would look at it. When looking at animal mating patterns, lots of sexuality issues arise.

There are some animals who form strong homosexual bonds.

Plenty of sex in the animal world could be considered rape if those involve were personified in any way.

The question of right and wrong in the sense of sexual intentions is a very very fuzzy question (In the animal kingdom, that is. it's pretty clear-cut in the human world.)
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: IAmSerge on August 13, 2009, 01:12:34 pm
To go on to a similar topic of predjudice, racism, I believe the worst of my racism comes to being that I don't look anyone who isn't white in the eye (this only applies to non-white people I don't know)...

...contrary to how it sounds, however, I am doing this out of fear...  I have an overwhealming fear that if I look at someone who isn't white, they will think that I am staring and that I'm doing so out of racism...  I feel bad for not looking them in the eye because that in itself may be racist but its not my intention, and I feel kindof trapped in a circle. =(  At least I feel bad for doing things either way... =(

and back on topic, the worst of my sexist thoughts and feelings, that I can think of, is me thinking I'm not worthy for any woman.


As far as people of other races, you should look them dead in the eye, and when they look back, smile. A smile is the easiest, fastest, and most universal way of saying "no offense" and works more wonders than most people care to remember!

And as far as ladies, and "girl advice", I'm not sure I won't get bashed for saying it, but that's an easy fix. Ladies don't like attractive guys, or smart guys, or creative guys. That's all stuff that's a plus. They like guys with confidence. That's all you need to know. Pretending you don't care (in my experience) gets the girl to like you almost every time. Unless she's not playing 'the dating game' or whatever you'd call the confusing sexual battle.

So basically, if you don't worry about coming off as racist or sexist, you won't come off as racist or sexist.

I actually used to think that if I didn't finish listening to a Christian band's song aboug God, God would be angry with me. (It turns out he wasn't? I guess.)

Haha thanks Mr. B, thats wonderful advice!

And don't worry... if he's ok with me listening to Muse in my sleep, I'm pretty sure you'll be fine haha =D

And I apologise for the off-topicness of my recent posts.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Mr Bekkler on August 13, 2009, 01:52:46 pm
I was very young when I held that belief. Maybe even pre-Chrono Trigger young. Like six or seven years old?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: IAmSerge on August 13, 2009, 01:54:16 pm
I was very young when I held that belief. Maybe even pre-Chrono Trigger young. Like six or seven years old?

I was making a joke =D
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Ema on August 13, 2009, 07:02:20 pm
Quote
Well if one didn't believe in his or her belief, then it wouldn't be a belief, yes? The very fact that one believes in a particular stance necessitates that one also think it is superior to alternate stances. If one didn't believe that a particular stance was correct, then one wouldn't hold said stance.

This is true, but when you tell me your stance on something I don't try to make you feel bad about your stance and try to persuade you.
I don't try to make you believe in my beliefs because I believe in them 'cause of some experiences that I have had that you haven't. And only I believe it because of that particular experience, so it would be useless to try and explain it to you because you haven't been through it. Plus it even goes against my own belief to try and persuade you or convert you.

Quote
I understand where your concern is coming from: You don’t like other people demeaning your religious values or your religious faith. I do sympathize, but I have no patience for your ignorance, stubbornness, or virulent self-defense. Some days you lose the fight. Some days you are the one who is wrong. Some days you need to look up at the stars and admit that you don’t know it all. Some of your peers know better than you do, some of the time, on some things. This is one of those occasions. I urge you to consider it.

Up until now it only has come from people that do not let their ego take the best of themselves. None of the things mentioned in here are strong enough to make believe I lost a "fight".

Quote
The only way to earn that kind of knowledge is to learn this stuff that our ancestors have created and bequeathed unto us…reason, judgment, critical analysis. These tools won’t get you 100 percent of the way to certainty—for certainty has little place in a scientific mindset—but they can easily teach you to recognize flaws in other people’s thinking, and in your own thinking. “Antique conservative ways” are evidently, extensively riddled with illogic, incomprehensiveness, fallacy, inconsiderateness, prejudice, malice, and fear. I understand that there are many conservatives out there, who exist because they were brought up in a society which predisposed them to such a fate, and I admit that theirs is an unfortunate lot—as unfortunate for the rest of us as for them. However, they are what they are, and what they are is wrong—deeply and dangerously so.

Umm...with the swine flu currently infecting thousands of people here in Puerto Rico conservatives, to prevent from getting infected, use masks and gloves. Liberals don't do anything for I saw many of these, and thus they are exposed and have a higher rate of getting infected. Sex, if you have it you're risking your body of getting infected with an STD, so as a conservative I consider abstinence. Sure there's always the condom but it's not like a liberal is gonna lose his chance if he didn't bring the condoms along...Hmm I could keep going but I gotta hurry here so...really please explain to me how being a conservative makes me have an unfortunate fate because simple logic tells me having a conservative way of life (nothing to do with religion or G-d) makes me have a more fortunate fate than a liberal person whose only purpose in life is to feed their ego.


Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Mr Bekkler on August 13, 2009, 08:12:22 pm
Simple. You're talking about a different kind of conservativism. They're talking about the political ideology and you're talking about personal ideals. Very different. Many conservatives in the USA also tend to be huge assholes. That's all I've got.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on August 13, 2009, 08:56:36 pm
Many conservatives in the USA also tend to be huge assholes. That's all I've got.

At the same time, many liberals, libertarians, atheists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, sexists, feminists, environmentalists, businessmen, CEOs, union leaders, politicians, special interest group leaders, talk show hosts, radio hosts, and journalists are assholes.

Assholery isn't specific to one ideology; its rather universal.

And that's all I've got.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Mr Bekkler on August 13, 2009, 09:58:09 pm
Many conservatives in the USA also tend to be huge assholes. That's all I've got.
At the same time, many liberals, libertarians, atheists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, sexists, feminists, environmentalists, businessmen, CEOs, union leaders, politicians, special interest group leaders, talk show hosts, radio hosts, and journalists are assholes.

Assholery isn't specific to one ideology; its rather universla.

And that's all I've got.

Touchy much? I never said anything about it being specific to that ideology. Ema said he's not from the USA and he wanted to know why somebody was busting his chops for being conservative. I answered his question without bias.

And If you're gonna be that specific, do tell...what's a universla?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on August 13, 2009, 10:12:07 pm
I wasn't being touchy. If I was being touchy, I would've insulted you. I was merely elaborating on your point. And if you were answering without bias, you would've said why people were busting his chops specifically for being a conservative, rather than a liberal. Your answer that "many conservatives are assholes," implies that they specifically are assholes, whereas others are not.

And If you're gonna be that specific, do tell...what's a universla?

My post says "universal," so bleh :P
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Mr Bekkler on August 13, 2009, 10:13:50 pm
I wasn't being touchy. If I was being touchy, I would've insulted you. I was merely elaborating on your point. And if you were answering without bias, you would've said why people were busting his chops specifically for being a conservative, rather than a liberal. Your answer that "many conservatives are assholes," implies that they specifically are assholes, whereas others are not.

You didn't read my whole post if that's all you got out of it. I didn't say most or all. I said many. Which is not biased. It's truth. Like the word in your name.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on August 13, 2009, 10:43:19 pm
Assholery isn't specific to one ideology...

Assholery, it's a renewable resource.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on September 03, 2009, 05:05:32 am
I read this interesting article where this author was trying to prove that the "good girl" image was inherently sexist and detrimental to young girls' development.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32631120/ns/today-today_books/

I tend to be wary of a lot of articles from MSN, but this author brought up a lot of research that shows girls are taught to be less independent, modest, and polite and this causes them to undergo a "psychological glass ceiling". The problem with this article is that I think a lot of what the author herself says is sexist. Actually I had my bf read it and this is what he had to say:

Quote
I do not see why this is something that applies only to women, for one. People who try to be good in general can have a stigma associated with them, certainly in places like highschool where teen dickery is at an all time high.
 But what surprises me is that she seems to automatically assumes girls have an inability to rise above the limitations she thinks they have because they're girls.
I don't know when she grew up, but I am certain we have long grown past that meek, seen-but-not-heard nonsense being forced upon girls. I certainly never saw it.

I like to think that I have risen above the image of the good girl. But the problem is, I was never raised with this "good girl mentality" that the author mentions. I'm not sure if other girls I know were taught to be good and to have the good girl values the author speaks of. How prevalent is this in today's society? I was taught by my parents to be independent and hardworking. I wasn't taught to stand up for what's right and defend others, this is something I developed on my own. I wasn't taught to be modest. I suppose they only value my parents expected me to have growing up was to do well in school (not sexist because that's something most parents want from their kids). My dad is kind of sexist in some ways, and he's very traditional about some things. I would say one of the most annoying things is that he can't stand the way I dresses and says that I'm a girl and I need to dress better because all girls have to dress well and not look like a "shmarovoznik"(I don't even know, some yiddish word maybe).

So anyway, while the author does bring up some good points, I don't think that most of what she's saying accurately reflects our society which is teaching girls to be less modest and more independent and opinionated(though with girls like me, too opinionated is not really great either!).

Comments?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on September 03, 2009, 11:39:01 am
Yes, being the goody-two-shoes type of person is both encouraged by our mentors and discouraged by our peers. There's a lot of stigma attached to it, especially for males. The reason I say especially for males is because of the sex factor. If you haven't lost your virginity by the end of high school, you're a loser, whereas if you're a girl, you're encouraged to wait.

This is typical of just about anything "bad," though. If you don't get wasted at some yahoo's party, you're a loser. If you never get stoned, loser. If you decide that 8 hours of sleep is worth more to you than partying until 4, you're a loser. If you don't smoke, or chew dip, loser. If you actually obey traffic laws, you're a loser(as well as whatever other names they toss at you at a standstill). If you're not actively pursuing a piece of tail every five minutes, you're a loser, or gay. If you try to beat the odds and have a someone stable relationship during your high school years, you're a loser, because you're limiting yourself to one person rather than the entire female student body. If you go to a public school, and try to retain any sort of religious mannerisms(i.e., praying on your meal, praying during the moment of silence) then you're definitely a loser. Far from what people here will tell you, teenagers are being influenced everyday that God is not cool, and talking about him or following His word makes you a loser, even in the Bible Belt where I'm from.

According to this list, being a "good kid" is the most loserish thing you'll ever do, and I'm probably the biggest loser you'll ever meet.

This is but a short list though. I'm sure I can think of more examples than this.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on September 03, 2009, 12:18:42 pm
Vaguely interesting, but I am dubious as to how valid some of the author's analysis (as presented by the article) actually is.

For example, following the rules is unrelated, at least in a direct manner, to risk taking. Indirectly I could see an argument that someone who follows rules may be uncomfortable venturing into areas where there are no rules. But as noted, this is not a direct correlation. Gamblers, for instance, are notorious for taking risks while following rules. This ranges from the average poker player to the hardcore gambler with his or her "system." Though perhaps because "rule followers," as opposed to "rule breakers," are conceptualized as more likely to perform their due diligence, their "risky" behaviors are not seen as risky as it might otherwise be?

Then there is the opposite, the "Bad Girl." The author associates critical thinking with being artistic, a rebel, and someone unconcerned with social expectations. First, artistic individuals tend to be conceptualized as the exact opposite of a critical thinker (if this is a valid conception is beside the point for now), likewise being a rebel says nothing of one's mental capabilities (indeed, "social rebels" are often depicted as having street-smarts, which is distinct from critical thinking skills). It is only in being unconcerned with social expectations that she even approaches a real definition of a critical thinker, but someone who is thinking critically may well take social expectations into consideration (they just won’t be ruled by those expectations).

Yet, that is a bit of nitpicking. There is a legitimate theme that the author picks up on: children are faced with social expectations. She does make a mistake in implying that this is unique to girls, but as at least some aspects of it are comparatively unique, it is marginally excusable to do so (most "good boys," for example, aren't expected to have boyfriends, and few "bad boys" would be characterized as wearing "Jelly bracelets," whatever those are). However, humans are social animals; we all have a very compelling drive to fit in. To be thorough, there is the conception that women tend to be more social than men, so if that is a correct conception, I could see the argument that in turn women also are subject to the drive for social acceptance more than men, but that is a pretty big if.

This seems to tap into the larger social oddity. Society expects people to behave in a certain way, but at the same time success often comes by violating those expectations. The book essentially is saying that "good girls finish last," while there has been a similar saying for "nice guys" for quite some time. Success is marked by breaking from cultural norms, but cultures survive because only a few people do this. Social conformity is, to a degree, an evolutionary advantage.

I'd want to read the book myself before passing final judgment, but the article makes it look like the author has a predetermined position and fits the data to that. To be fair, the data already fits relatively well on its own, but it isn't a perfect fit. Instead of fitting a square peg into a round hole, she's trying to fit a decagon into a round hole, as it were.

Random side note: it is interesting that "good girl" and "good woman" seems to bring up different perceptions, likewise with "good boy" and "good man." It would seem that girls get a trifecta of social drives, sexism, and ageism.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on September 03, 2009, 05:09:49 pm
Yes, being the goody-two-shoes type of person is both encouraged by our mentors and discouraged by our peers. There's a lot of stigma attached to it, especially for males. The reason I say especially for males is because of the sex factor. If you haven't lost your virginity by the end of high school, you're a loser, whereas if you're a girl, you're encouraged to wait.

This is typical of just about anything "bad," though. If you don't get wasted at some yahoo's party, you're a loser. If you never get stoned, loser. If you decide that 8 hours of sleep is worth more to you than partying until 4, you're a loser. If you don't smoke, or chew dip, loser. If you actually obey traffic laws, you're a loser(as well as whatever other names they toss at you at a standstill). If you're not actively pursuing a piece of tail every five minutes, you're a loser, or gay. If you try to beat the odds and have a someone stable relationship during your high school years, you're a loser, because you're limiting yourself to one person rather than the entire female student body. If you go to a public school, and try to retain any sort of religious mannerisms(i.e., praying on your meal, praying during the moment of silence) then you're definitely a loser. Far from what people here will tell you, teenagers are being influenced everyday that God is not cool, and talking about him or following His word makes you a loser, even in the Bible Belt where I'm from.

According to this list, being a "good kid" is the most loserish thing you'll ever do, and I'm probably the biggest loser you'll ever meet.

This is but a short list though. I'm sure I can think of more examples than this.

I find this interesting. It's like you're saying that girls are encouraged to be good, while boys have a social stigma of not being too good. I saw this a lot at school. The good boys were always made fun of, sometimes in really cruel ways if they were huge dorks, and the bad boys were always the "cool" ones. Also I really HATE that mentality of "Good guys always finish last" where a lot of guys like to bemoan their fates because they're not giant dicks and hence don't get women. I don't understand why guys think that most girls want a bad guy who will treat them poorly. I know myself, and a LOT of women, want a good boy who makes a wonderful partner. The guy I have now is so straight-laced that it's not even funny. Doesn't drink (AT *all, which means has never gotten drunk), doesn't smoke, not interested in recreational drugs, not interested in clubbing or the bar scene, not interested in hanging around other women whatsoever. I guess I tend to go for the nerd/dork type who has social problems. I think they make the best partners because they're quite devoted. That's just my opinion though. I am definitely the jealous type and would possibly be upset if my guy had other girls he liked to hang around with >_>;.

Quote

Then there is the opposite, the "Bad Girl." The author associates critical thinking with being artistic, a rebel, and someone unconcerned with social expectations. First, artistic individuals tend to be conceptualized as the exact opposite of a critical thinker (if this is a valid conception is beside the point for now), likewise being a rebel says nothing of one's mental capabilities (indeed, "social rebels" are often depicted as having street-smarts, which is distinct from critical thinking skills). It is only in being unconcerned with social expectations that she even approaches a real definition of a critical thinker, but someone who is thinking critically may well take social expectations into consideration (they just won’t be ruled by those expectations).

Yeah, that was one of the points I found most flawed in her analysis. There was a list based on a survey that was given to girls and I found that I fit some of the descriptors on the "bad girl" side of the spectrum. I just can't find myself agreeing that girls are discouraged from speaking their minds, especially since the author has emphasized that girls outnumber boys in higher education these days. How can these girls get so far if they have little pride in themselves, do not speak out,  and possess poor critical thinking skills? I really do think that in Western culture, attitudes about sexism are changing, so I think the detrimental qualities of the "good girl" that the author highlights are not completely applicable in this day and age. It's not like schools and teachers ever discourage girls from not speaking out or being poor critical thinkers. In my case, I was almost always the best class participant in class. I always spoke out the most in class and my teachers really loved me for it. I might not have been the *best* student, but I was always the most engaged, and this quality was encouraged by my teachers who wanted more kids to be engaged with the material like I was. When I went into University, I was much more reserved and was less likely to be an active participant. This wasn't because it was discouraged, there was just a lot of other factors to consider. I guess I naturally became a little more reserved, but I didn't attribute it to sexism.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: GenesisOne on September 03, 2009, 05:42:22 pm

Thank goodness we have "Revenge of the Nerds."
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on September 03, 2009, 06:01:21 pm
But wasn't "Revenge of the Nerds" just the "nice guys" turning mean? Hah, I'm not familiar with the movie at all though, so I could be way off. We need more pop cultural examples of "nice guys" being successful. It happens in real life all the time.


I saw today that women now outnumber men in the US workforce, or will soon. Does it mean that the average woman is smarter and more productive than the average man in the United States, or are employers just hiring more women because they feel that they can pay them less? One thing is for sure though -- in a capitalist society, those with money (now women by default since men are being hired less often altogether) will be treated better. It's a theory I have based on the struggle for gay rights since the 1990s. More products and pop culture artifacts will be marketed to women, and their social stature will rise because of it, though that probably depends heavily on the nature of their likes and dislikes. For example, if women feel it's fashionable to be ditzy, then they'll buy products with ditz-oriented advertising. But if they're attracted to products marketed via images of Sigourney Weaver carrying plasma rifles and shooting aliens, it'll be a different story.

The age of the Wise White Woman may be at hand, and the eclipse of the White Man in American culture. He may soon join the ranks of the Black Man, who is already bombarded with negative pop cultural impressions that contribute to a cycle of real world negativity.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on September 03, 2009, 07:46:33 pm
But wasn't "Revenge of the Nerds" just the "nice guys" turning mean? Hah, I'm not familiar with the movie at all though, so I could be way off. We need more pop cultural examples of "nice guys" being successful. It happens in real life all the time.

No, you've got it right. A nice guy being successful...

One example that comes to mind is Will Smith's character in "The Pursuit of Happiness," whose name eludes me at the moment. He was never abusive to his kid, despite practically being homeless and having a lot of other BS thrown at him, particularly because he was a nice guy.

But he made it. He didn't have a "Happily Ever After" with a girl on his arm, but he made it.


Quote from: FaustWolf
The age of the Wise White Woman may be at hand, and the eclipse of the White Man in American culture. He may soon join the ranks of the Black Man, who is already bombarded with negative pop cultural impressions that contribute to a cycle of real world negativity.

Bah, don't get me started about racial impressions. You guys think women have it bad.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Uboa on September 03, 2009, 09:23:00 pm
Was I the only one who got the impression that the article just tried to sell girls another image to live up to?  I mean, it seemed more rooted in practicality, but it still had this air of salesmanship to it.  Real girl is the new good girl, you know?  Put that on your mannequin.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Uboa on September 05, 2009, 06:39:04 am
Apologies for double-posting, but I feel this deserves a separate post.  Also, no takers on my devils advocacy ^there?  Heh, I was actually pretty serious when I wrote that, but I was wondering if anybody felt it was too jaded.

I mentioned in the frustration thread, which took on the guise of the this thread for a while, that I had something to add to the discussion of feminism.  But, ultimately I felt it belonged in this thread, since said "something" was very eye-opening to me in the same fashion that this thread has been.

I stayed in town for a couple of days this week at a very nice and very enlightened woman's ranch house.  I say enlightened because of the kind of work she does, helping at-risk teenage girls get through school in order to make a better living for themselves.  She was out of town, and she had offered a spare room to me if I needed to sleep after my classes so that I wouldn't kill myself driving back to where I live.  While I was staying over, I met another woman who had been hired to feed and care for her animals.  She had a remarkably steady air about her, something I picked up on immediately.  Every time she came by to take care of the animals we would talk, and I mentioned to her that I was looking for a cheap place to stay in town.  She told me that the apartment complex she lived in was the cheapest place in town, and suggested I look there for a space. 

So, I went to the office and met the man in charge of the place.  He seemed very eager to talk to me, and he mentioned that his wife had just died, and I figured that was why.  Well, after a long time talking about this, that, and the other thing, he made a very strange remark about my hair, and then about me in general, in essence saying that he had never really wanted to marry his wife and would have rather married somebody like me.  He had to have been at least, say, in his late 50's! and here he was telling this to me.  Then it dawned on me that the whole time we had been talking he had been hinting at that, but I hadn't picked up on it until that point.  After that I got out of there as quickly as possible, and the guy actually followed me out the door, asking me to come back and talk even as I was getting in my car.  I drove back to the ranch house where I met the animal caretaker later that evening, and I told her about what had happened to me.  "Oh yeah, he's very inappropriate," she told me, and I let her know that his remarks at the end of our conversation had been a deal-breaker for me, as far as my staying at his apartments.  She asked me, "Ah, so you can afford not to live with that?"  I was a little taken aback.  I had never thought of it that way before. 

Apparently the manager of the apartments behaved inappropriately toward her all the time, even asking her if she wanted to "have a little fun" on occasions when he came over to fix things.  I reacted as I figure any person would react, saying it was awful and the like.  She shrugged and said, "What can you do?" in her consistently steady tone.  She told me that she had put up with similar things her whole life, giving me an overview of some of the jobs she had worked:  Construction, mining, waitressing, and others all had her situated with men who sexually harassed her, to my astonishment, fairly regularly.  At one of her waitressing jobs a cook would constantly touch her and hug her on the job, and when she brought it up to the other staff they thought she was ridiculous for letting it bother her.  Heaven forbid she ask it to stop or anything.  Well, this cook she was having a problem with also happened to be a drinker and, somehow, knew where she lived.  One night he actually got drunk and broke down her door and almost forced himself on her.  When she complained about this, SHE was fired, because the restaurant would have an easier time finding a waitress than finding a cook.

(Another tidbit I learned from her about waitressing:  Apparently in Vegas most nice restaurants will only use male waitstaff for dinner services because waiters are considered to be more classy than waitresses.  I thought that was pretty weird.)

She had to have been in her late forties, almost fifty.  She didn't tell me her age.  I didn't ask, but I got a sense of it from the life stories whe told me.  She was born to parents who followed a really strict religion, and from what I gathered they were pretty emotionally abusive toward her.  When she ran away, they apparently let the state have her because they didn't even want to pay to bury her.  I guess she spent most of her teenage years in state facilities or on the street.  By the time she was 30 she had been married twice, and both husbands had died.  She really hadn't had any chance to get ahead by going to school, so she took low paying jobs oftentimes surrounded by men.  I guess that her experiences had led her to just not be bothered by that kind of behavior (and I'm guessing this is why she seemed so emotionally steady), but I was sitting there thinking, god, how the hell would I live with that nonsense?  And her question to me about being able to afford not to put up with sexual harassment really stuck with me, because at that moment it dawned on me that a lot of women are expected to put up with offensive crap on a daily basis just so that they can make ends meet.  Literally, expected by co-workers and supervisors who would rather not put up with a harassment claim, even if their door gets broken down.  If they make a noise about it, they're liable to get fired.

If I could see the feminist movement get behind anything, I'd like to see it expose more stories like this, to let people know that there is a very insidious and oppressive indifference toward low-income women in this country.  This is the kind of oppression that arises from thinking we've done all we should do as a society, which is a tempting notion to become attached to.  It would be comforting to think that, but rather than live with false comfort I wish we'd all be on the lookout for the sake of those who need looking out for.

I hope the woman I mentioned would not be offended that I recounted her story in this light.  I'm pretty sure she'd appreciate what we talk about here.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on September 05, 2009, 06:52:49 am
Yeah. These stories are even more common in third world countries with arranged marriages and even more abusive cultural conventions about female life.

Anecdotes like these can illuminate more than the statistics of the pay gap, gender development index, or other metrics and research do. It's like that list of male privilege, or Lord J's haunting comments about having to perpetually exist under special, twisted scrutiny not tied to merit in this world. To empathize with this woman, who tolerates sexually-motivated abuse and discrimination daily, is to suffer and understand the terror and epidemic of sexism.

It is horrifying to think that this goes on every single day, along with a slew of other atrocities. It is absolutely, profoundly horrifying, in the most tremendous sense that word can afford. Some people wonder why I'm so passionate about these things. Hah. Anyone who knows the real extent of sexism and female oppression in this world and isn't horrified is heartless.

Thanks for sharing. Although anecdotes like that make me a little fatigued because of the depth of negative emotion and anger it conjures, it still provides extra motivation and reminder of the urgency of efforts for social justice and women's rights.

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2106/2218833746_48dc90335b.jpg)

Fight the power. Fight the power. Fight the power.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on September 06, 2009, 08:48:12 pm
http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSTRE5815E920090902?feedType=RSS&feedName=oddlyEnoughNews&rpc=69

Interesting article about forced marriages in France's Muslim communities.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on September 08, 2009, 02:58:01 am
Sorry to hear about that, Uboa. I always have to deal with people hitting on me when I'm not interested in it all the time. Like, just this weekend, I met this homeless bum who was really into me while I was walking back from 7-11 at 2 in the morning. He looked harmless, so I entertained him, but my dad always tells me the same thing before I go out "DON'T TALK TO HOBOS!!" He always tells me,  yet I always do it anyway. I think I might get myself into a dangerous situation one of these days. Well this guy really was harmless the most he did was get annoyed that I didn't give him my phone number. He said that guys would be afraid to pick on me anyway because "I'm so intimidating". I found that kind of silly because I actually come off as really friendly almost all the time, but he said that didn't matter. Because of how big I am, I "intimidate men" and so they wouldn't want to pick on me. Yeah, well no one's really picked on me, I guess they've just picked me up. The entire weekend I also had to deal with this friend of a friend who hung around me for a lot of my time in Seattle and who had this huge crush on me. At some point he asked if I had a boyfriend and I said yes. He seemed a little discouraged, but that didn't last for long as then he proceeded to hit on me some more.

Then last night, I found out that he was invited to our hotel room where he proceeded to make it his goal to see me naked by the end of the night. I had to leave by 4:30 in the morning, so we decided to just stay up all night and play cards. We played some things for a while, but then at some point, all they wanted to do was to play strip poker. Yeah, I'd rather not talk about that anymore >_>. I guess he got what he wanted. At least my boyfriend's not pissed. I'm not sure if that has to do with feminism and sexism so much that it has to do with women being afraid to speak out. People who know me well know how independent I am and I'm not really liable to crack under peer pressure. I guess that when it has to do with unwanted guys hitting on me, they don't really end up touching me anyway, and I don't get compliments often... I guess it's because I'm SO INTIMIDATING that they're scared to do anything other than pay me a bunch of compliments and hope that I will fuck them later. Yeah, doesn't really work that way with me, but I don't really put up a front against the pick up lines because it's really clear to me what the guy wants. And this guy was so into me, and I thought it was clear that he had no chance with me, but I don't think he really cared anyway because all he wanted to do was to see me naked.

 I wonder what happens when it's someone like that lady, who gets discriminated for not putting up a front and it actually affects her safety? I've never had that happen to me before, but I don't think situations like that are so uncommon. None of my friends really experienced that, though 2 of my friends have been sexually molested or raped before.

I know this is going to sound uh... discriminatory, but I do know that the more educated the woman is, the less likely she is to experience discrimination. So while the glass ceiling exists and she may get less money than her male colleagues(though this is not true for many, many companies) ,  she will face much less situations like sexual harassment compared with a woman who works in a more blue-collar environment. This is why I really hope my education will soon be worth it so I dont' have to put up with that shit. I never have before, even in my blue collar jobs (my most important goal in the next couple months is to find work, most likely it will be blue collar) put up with any kind of sexual harassment. I hope I will never have to because I know I would not put up with that shit and yes, similar to that story, I'm sure I'd be fired for complaining rather than have the situation dealt with.

OH, wait. There is one experience where I was sexually harassed at work. It was my first job. I just recalled it and I'll share that story and how it was dealt with. So when I was 17 and 18 respectively, I worked for 2 summers at the county fair doing janitorial work. My first summer, I was driven here and there by this old Mexican guy who really tried to pick me up. Actually, there were two Mexican guys who hit on me. Both were in their mid to late 40s, I'd guess. One of them ended up asking for my phone number and I gave him a fake one. Well when I was 18, there was this huge bitch that ended up getting fired and I took over her work. She accused one of the men of doing something to her (most likely a lie) and I was brought into the mess because it was discovered that he sexually harassed me as well. So what happened is that I had to talk to some kind of representative from HR about what happened and what kind of harassment I experienced. I told them my story (including to emphasize that the girl was probably lying about the severity about the incident) and essentially just said that the guy didn't understand American cultural norms, because in Mexico, this kind of behavior was more accepted. He didn't really bother me much, he was just a little annoying(100 percent of my sexual harassers). So this anecdote is important because it shows that even in blue collar jobs, some people DO take sexual harassment very seriously. This guy had been working for the fair for many years, and I'm thinking he got fired for whatever he said to that girl. So it isn't always that nothing is done. Progress is important.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: IAmSerge on September 08, 2009, 03:01:23 am
I dont really like the "Hit on girls to pick em up" tactic.  I prefer become their best friend first, then slowly wade into deeper waters.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Uboa on September 08, 2009, 04:08:12 am
I dont really like the "Hit on girls to pick em up" tactic.  I prefer become their best friend first, then slowly wade into deeper waters.

...Did you learn this from XKCD?

ZaichikArky, I guess I had never thought about what an ideal, or at least a more ideal, society would be like with regards to gender equality before I had talked to -- I'm getting tired of saying "that woman", so I'll give her a pseudonym -- S.  Up until that point I had never felt "in the shoes" of a person like her, but when I did I realized that it was not a good feeling. 

All I've ever really wanted in life is to be able to live for myself, and strike whatever balances and pursue whatever goals I see fit.  That's it.  I don't like the idea of "living for" other people, or living for other people's prerogatives, and I never have.  I barely get by dealing with people much of the time.  Anyway, during my conversation with S it dawned on me that, had I lived in her shoes, I would never have been able to strike a balance in life that was really my own.  That is, I would have always had this unwelcome and unjust force (to illustrate in terms of physics) in my life, which I would necessarily have to counter with my own vector, which would in turn render me perpetually off-kilter.  I wouldn't be able to feel the balance or peace I deserve, and all because society at large doesn't see fit to look out for people like me (again from S's point of view), a woman who puts in a full working week, and essentially plays by all of the rules. 

It is far less likely that a man would end up in S's position, that is constantly having to ward off and evaluate advances by his colleagues.  It is more likely that any given man would be able to play by society's rules and be rewarded with the kind of peace of mind that a woman like S might never truly feel.  As a woman who simply wants to make it on her own, this prospect is daunting.  Luckily I've already accepted and acted on the notion that I probably have to play by different rules than men to afford that peace of mind, and from what you say it seems you have as well.  But is the fact that we have to play by different rules in the first place really fair to us?  Is it a fair expectation to have, that if we fall on hard times we may also have to welcome unjust and unwanted attention into our lives?

In an ideal, or even just a slightly -more- ideal society, this expectation would not exist.  If people would just look out for one another, if they would extend the courtesy of a fair workplace to low-income women, we could rest assured that we would be that much closer to being able to live as much for ourselves as we choose.  That's what it means to be free, right?

It's good to know that your situation at the fair was handled well.  Maybe in businesses large enough to have a dedicated HR department it's less likely that sexual harassment goes unanswered.  Note to self, in case.

Truth, thanks for linking that article.  I was unaware of the concept of forced marriages, but it seems that along with female circumcision this is something that has long sailed under the radar of European governments.  I'm glad that they're now assuming an attitude that protects their citizens from these injustices rather than writing them off as cultural differences.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZombieBucky on September 08, 2009, 04:20:06 am
zaichikarky said that the more educated a woman is the less likely she is to be discriminated against. i want to think on that a bit...

higher education is usually harvard, yale, private schools, and other fancy things. those cost money. lots of money. money that youd find in upper classes. my impression of the richer class is that the guys do business and the ladies... look pretty. they rarely partake in business stuff and they get to organize the ridiculously lavish parties.
on the other hand, one could say that a woman experiences the same amount of discrimination (is that even the right word?) no matter her class. perhaps only the intelligent know of it.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: IAmSerge on September 08, 2009, 04:39:47 am
I dont really like the "Hit on girls to pick em up" tactic.  I prefer become their best friend first, then slowly wade into deeper waters.

...Did you learn this from XKCD?

No, is it a bad strategy? V.V  Its more appropriate than a 1 night stand atleast.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on September 08, 2009, 04:46:32 am


No, is it a bad strategy? V.V  Its more appropriate than a 1 night stand atleast.

No, it's not a bad strategy. Just don't expect to get laid any time soon at all. If you don't mind that, then expect to wait a long time before you get laid (in general). It worked out that way for me and my  boyfriend. We'd been best friends for a year and then something ended up working out between us and still all the time he says to me "I don't know how I fooled you into thinking I was worthy" >_>. But I lost my virginity at 18 anyway, so it was ok.

I'm not really one to give dating advice myself, but a lot of girls prefer to be friends at first and then to have sex way later. The only problem with that is the "friends zone". My best online friend has that REALLY bad. He's a really, really great guy and is friends with a lot of girls, but he has never had them really consider him to be something more than that.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Uboa on September 08, 2009, 04:53:09 am
I dont really like the "Hit on girls to pick em up" tactic.  I prefer become their best friend first, then slowly wade into deeper waters.

...Did you learn this from XKCD?

No, is it a bad strategy? V.V  Its more appropriate than a 1 night stand atleast.
Relationship apropos aside, http://xkcd.com/513/
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: KebreI on September 08, 2009, 01:28:46 pm
I'm not really one to give dating advice myself, but a lot of girls prefer to be friends at first and then to have sex way later. The only problem with that is the "friends zone". My best online friend has that REALLY bad. He's a really, really great guy and is friends with a lot of girls, but he has never had them really consider him to be something more than that.
I'm the poster child right here! That's why I prefer this route (http://xkcd.com/595/).
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on September 08, 2009, 01:39:01 pm
Same here, weirdly enough. I don't much care for the "pick-up" game to begin with. I'm probably the one who gets picked up over the picker-uper.

I suppose that's my way of empowering women and doing away with gender roles. Hah. 
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on September 08, 2009, 03:01:26 pm
Same here, weirdly enough. I don't much care for the "pick-up" game to begin with. I'm probably the one who gets picked up over the picker-uper.

I suppose that's my way of empowering women and doing away with gender roles. Hah. 

Lol, I do the picking up when I'm interested in a guy XD;. I mean my boyfriend, when he was 18, he really liked me and saw me struggle one year through this relationship that was really unhealthy but he never made any move to tell me his feelings. I ended up telling him later that I liked him and I wasn't sure if he liked me but then he said he liked me all along XD;. I guess then he felt more secure with expressing his feelings for me. Insecurity in a guy is a turn on for me because I'm not an insecure person in many, many ways and I like for the guy to have humility and not be pushing himself on me. A friend of mine is much worse in that respect. She's into the whole dom-sub thing, I guess, and she likes to be the dominant one and boss the guy around a lot and do sadist things to him.

A lot more girls are like that these days. I know that when a couple is married and especially if they've been married for many years, these days the woman is the boss in a lot of ways, especially when it comes to micro-managing, and the guy just goes along with it because he doesn't want to cross his wife for she can be scary. My parents are like that. Mom's the boss and she has uh, anger problems sometimes so I think dad's scared of crossing her or not doing what she says. But, she's improved a lot and it's not like she doesn't allow dad to do most things he wants. She's the epitome of a micro manager though. I know a LOT of wives like this. She likes to have everything super organized and is very, very pissy if there is any tardiness and other random things. The other thing she likes to micro manage the way he dresses(if he's out in public with her), and he doesn't really care for that but has learned not to put up a fuss. I find that so funny, because I think she hates how I dress even more but only puts up a front if I wear really ratty shoes. That's my worst dressing habit. I don't like to throw my shoes away. I remember one time my band director got pissed off at me for wearing really ratty shoes to a performance and he made me take them off and go on stage with socks only!

Uh anyway, I think the stereotype these days is that the woman is the boss in the marriage anyway. If it's not a hetero marriage, the same kind of patterns tend to form. Most married people I know are like this. As for relationships in general, I notice that it doesn't work out if both couples think they are dominant. I sometimes feel really guilty about that because I know that I am the dominant one and I boss my bf around and get pissy about really stupid things. I feel like I'm acting like such a girl when I do that, and I hate it because most of my life I've always thought I was the opposite to the stereotypical female in terms of her behavior and her interests. My interests are what get me the guys hitting on me anyway. I like video games a lot... So I always need to be in a relationship where I boss someone around and they don't put up a huge front about it. I hope it doesn't seem like I seem like a huge control-freak. I generally don't even care what the guy does as long as he does what I say about things I find *SUPER IMPORTANT* like... buying me cake! Or... giving me a hug when I say to! Unfortunately, the guy and I don't always agree about the things I find super important, but that's not all that common anyway . One example is his hideous hair which I am always pissed off that he won't do anything about. He's 25 and balding pretty badly and the hair that he has left is all the way down his back. A long time ago, when he wasn't balding he said that as soon as he started balding, he'd cut his hair and have it not be long anymore. But he didn't fulfill his promise and I'm always pissed off about that because I never really liked his hair to begin with XD;. Anything that has to do with appearance, he doesn't listen to me about! So I can't micromanage that even if I wanted to!  A friend of mine said that if his girl told him to change his hair or to lose weight, he'd definitely do it. hehe...

Man I think I've turned this thread from the sexism thread to the relationship and dating advice thread. But I did talk about gender roles in it!! I tried to be productive.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: IAmSerge on September 08, 2009, 04:25:28 pm
No, it's not a bad strategy. Just don't expect to get laid any time soon at all. If you don't mind that, then expect to wait a long time before you get laid (in general). It worked out that way for me and my  boyfriend. We'd been best friends for a year and then something ended up working out between us and still all the time he says to me "I don't know how I fooled you into thinking I was worthy" >_>. But I lost my virginity at 18 anyway, so it was ok.

No sex? lol.  Like I even cared in the first place.  I like relationships for the relationship, not the sex.  I know its the stereotypical guy thing to be into sex... but insult me if you will I'm being abstinent.

Relationship apropos aside, http://xkcd.com/513/

Yes, yes I am afraid of being rejected.  And thats a fear that sucks ass.

Also, IE 8 HATES these text boxes.   Fuckin IE 8.  I don't even remember telling it to install that.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on September 08, 2009, 05:00:01 pm
Quote
I like relationships for the relationship, not the sex.
Helllll yeah! A dinner and a conversation with an attractive person of the opposite sex (or preferred sex for that matter) is a dinner and a conversation with an attractive person of the opposite/preferred sex, and it's completely worthwhile the way it is. The supposedly scary "friend zone" fosters human development just as all friendships do, and it's great just being able to spend time chatting with people of all genders without further expectations or goals attached.

It's also for this reason that men who act possessive of their wives/girlfriends/domestic partners are ridiculous. You can't just cut off a person's interaction with half of the entire human population; it shows a lack of trust firstly, and more importantly I'd argue, dampens the partner's intellectual and human development.


Serge, you should see a "compatibility view" button right next to the page refresh button on IE8. The posting system works normally for me when I use that. Just be sure to copy what you've posted so far into the buffah before clicking on it, because the option will erase anything you've typed already.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: IAmSerge on September 08, 2009, 09:01:44 pm
Quote
I like relationships for the relationship, not the sex.
Helllll yeah! A dinner and a conversation with an attractive person of the opposite sex (or preferred sex for that matter) is a dinner and a conversation with an attractive person of the opposite/preferred sex, and it's completely worthwhile the way it is. The supposedly scary "friend zone" fosters human development just as all friendships do, and it's great just being able to spend time chatting with people of all genders without further expectations or goals attached.
Im not sure if youre supporting me or... iddunnoo...  I think youre on my side (thank you) but I have NO idea the point you're trying to pass with this statement (sorry!).


Quote
Serge, you should see a "compatibility view" button right next to the page refresh button on IE8. The posting system works normally for me when I use that. Just be sure to copy what you've posted so far into the buffah before clicking on it, because the option will erase anything you've typed already.


Thank you, good sir! it works! it really works!
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on September 08, 2009, 09:39:17 pm
I wasn't being facetious at all. What I was trying to express was the fundamental worth of platonic relationships with members of the opposite/preferred sex. I sense an undercurrent in Western pop culture to the effect that being in the "friend zone" is somehow useless and should be feared, but I say only inasmuch as any other friendship is useless and should be feared.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on September 08, 2009, 09:51:49 pm
That's something I've always noticed. Guys like to bitch about the friend zone alll the time but I've never met a girl who felt sad because she was in the friendszone. I guess for guys, there is some stigma about being left in the friend zone due to some reasons. I'd rather not share what I think the reasons are because it's pretty sexist XD; I'm glad that some men don't mind being in the friend zone, though. I've never met a guy who wanted to be my friend and not fuck me or at least date me at some point. There's been really only one friend I've kept who at first wanted to do that with me, but quickly accepted it wouldn't happen anyway. We've been friends since 2003. That's a record for me.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on September 08, 2009, 10:14:02 pm
This is something I attempted to explain with the good boy/bad boy topic earlier, but failed to do so. The stigma with sex and men, especially men my age, is freaking unbearable at times. If I'm not actively pursuing a lay every night, then I'm failing as a man. Its stupid. At this point, I'm just not looking to get any. Hell, I'm not even looking for a relationship, as I've got papers to write and no money in my wallet. I don't even know half of the female students here yet, and I'm not about to hit on a stranger.

Moreover, as I've said earlier, the whole picking women up thing never really suited me. Enough about me personally though.

But try explaining that to a group of guys, and of course, you're instantly gay.

Furthermore, I've never understood why being gay was such an insult for anyone over the age of 15, particularly for men.

Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on September 08, 2009, 10:31:32 pm
I think the automatic expectation on the part of men that Zaichik mentioned is a factor in the sort of nebulous but ubiquitous oppression this thread describes, and once again, it hurts both sexes. While there's always a certain amount of sexual tension that exists in friendships with the preferred gender, it's wrong to frame the relationship completely within that context. When you've got "ZOMG! Potential mate!" firing off in the back of your brain constantly and you let that distract you or guide your behavior, you're missing out on cultural trade with another human being and hampering your own development. IMHO anyway.

Quote from: Truthordeal
But try explaining that to a group of guys, and of course, you're instantly gay.
This. Homophobia and sexism are so intertwined in our society. Sometimes I wonder if fear of being labeled "gay" drives men to seek sex prematurely in an effort to prove themselves to other men, at least on a subconscious level.

Quote from: Truthordeal
Furthermore, I've never understood why being gay was such an insult for anyone over the age of 15, particularly for men.
For once I'm going to go out on a limb and be completely blunt on this, and suggest that the stereotypical depiction of gay men engaging in "sodomy" is part of this, but it's only my theory. The (somewhat) lax persecution of lesbians in comparison to gay men seems to suggest this. But I'm probably skimming over very real instances of persecution against lesbians, and furthermore, if I'm right, feminists have pointed out that it's really a slap in the face to lesbians because it's tantamount to denying that they're even capable of sex.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on September 08, 2009, 10:52:08 pm
Ok, I just randomly ran into this article a couple mins ago. Not only did it make me laugh, but it has to be one of the most sexist and false things I've ever read. Go Askmen.com!

http://www.askmen.com/dating/curtsmith_150/162_dating_advice.html

I ESPECIALLY loved:

Quote
But men are different. Since we aren’t saddled with psychologically crippling emotions, we aren’t burdened with the senselessness of separating friendship from sex. In fact, for us, it’s just the opposite: When a man likes a woman, he naturally wants to express his feelings by drilling her deep into the mattress. This is natural.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on September 08, 2009, 11:06:02 pm
Thanks for sharing your story, Uboa.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Uboa on September 09, 2009, 12:21:24 am
Ok, I just randomly ran into this article a couple mins ago. Not only did it make me laugh, but it has to be one of the most sexist and false things I've ever read. Go Askmen.com!

http://www.askmen.com/dating/curtsmith_150/162_dating_advice.html

I ESPECIALLY loved:

Quote
But men are different. Since we aren’t saddled with psychologically crippling emotions, we aren’t burdened with the senselessness of separating friendship from sex. In fact, for us, it’s just the opposite: When a man likes a woman, he naturally wants to express his feelings by drilling her deep into the mattress. This is natural.

I can't remember the last time I laughed so hard while reading something so deplorable.  From a satirical angle, this would be brilliant work.  Word for word I could almost imagine this being a Stephen Colbert commentary, if Colbert was one to make light of these kinds of issues.  
 
It's a shame that this is, instead, presented as supposedly sound advice.

Edit:  J, you are welcome.  I'm just happy, in a way, that I gained some valuable insight.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on September 09, 2009, 01:55:32 am
Oh, no. Waitaminute...that was serious advice on AskMen.com? Like...seriously?

Just look at this:
Quote
If she‘s just not into you, you have a choice to make: Either stay as her friend or blow her off for more productive territory.

More "productive territory?" What the hell is not productive about simply enjoying the company of a person of the opposite sex, no strings or expectations attached?

I mean, I get what they're saying -- but they're making an assumption about the goal any man is going to have when in a woman's company. And in doing so, they're implicitly emasculating the male reader who doesn't conform to this cultural stereotype, trying to make him feel ridiculous somehow for acknowledging to himself what should be obvious. Sure, the author left open the possibility "Either stay as her friend or..." but it's clear from the overall tone of the article that the author thinks the male reader should go with the "or."

Not to mention this part:
Quote
How to avoid it
Is there any way to escape the Friend Zone? It’s not easy, but not impossible. Here are a few tips.
...
Start treating her like a girlfriend
Ask her out on dates. Take her to romantic places. Put your arm around her.
O RLY? So the male reader is suddenly entitled to the body of a female friend now? Which century did this writer spring out of?

What the hell. I see in that article the very pop cultural message that poisoned George Sodini over the years and corrupted him into a misogynist.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Uboa on September 09, 2009, 03:03:00 am
What the hell. I see in that article the very pop cultural message that poisoned George Sodini over the years and corrupted him into a misogynist.

I was actually thinking the same thing, and I have to speculate on just how many men take this kind of crap seriously.  I don't want to think that this kind of nonsense is actually prevalent in male culture, and yet I'm not without reason to assume the worst.

The whole askmen.com website reads like a ridiculous male pop-psych parody.  When I visited the main page I really had to decipher whether or not it is meant to be taken seriously.  Unfortunately, it looks like it is, which makes me wonder just how many men do or would take it seriously.  I actually want demographics on this.  Not to sound paranoid or anything, but I'd really like to know the scope of this madness.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: IAmSerge on September 09, 2009, 03:37:18 am
I wasn't being facetious at all. What I was trying to express was the fundamental worth of platonic relationships with members of the opposite/preferred sex. I sense an undercurrent in Western pop culture to the effect that being in the "friend zone" is somehow useless and should be feared, but I say only inasmuch as any other friendship is useless and should be feared.


Would someone please explain what this alleged "Friend Zone" involves/ is defined as?  I only understand the concept partially

That's something I've always noticed. Guys like to bitch about the friend zone alll the time but I've never met a girl who felt sad because she was in the friendszone. I guess for guys, there is some stigma about being left in the friend zone due to some reasons. I'd rather not share what I think the reasons are because it's pretty sexist XD; I'm glad that some men don't mind being in the friend zone, though. I've never met a guy who wanted to be my friend and not fuck me or at least date me at some point. There's been really only one friend I've kept who at first wanted to do that with me, but quickly accepted it wouldn't happen anyway. We've been friends since 2003. That's a record for me.

I never just want to F*** a girl when I meet her.  The furthest I ever think is "She looks good, I want to meet her" or "She has a nice body".  Yes I know that it is inherently and inadvertantly sexist (because I don't think about guys bodies and how they look or if id like to meet em), but is it wholly bad?  "I would like to fuck her" is definitely sexist and bad, because its treating her like an object.

I have never straight up become a friend with a girl so I could fuck her (partially because I don't do that).  I try and become a girls best friend if I like them, but thats just to get closer to them and get the more comfortable with me.

Also... I'm assuming you don't count internet friends in that catagory?

When you've got "ZOMG! Potential mate!" firing off in the back of your brain constantly and you let that distract you or guide your behavior, you're missing out on cultural trade with another human being and hampering your own development. IMHO anyway.

If I'm persuing a friendship/relationship with someone because I have the idea that she's the kind of person I would marry, does that mean I'm doing something wrong?

Quote
Quote from: Truthordeal
But try explaining that to a group of guys, and of course, you're instantly gay.
For once I'm going to go out on a limb and be completely blunt on this, and suggest that the stereotypical depiction of gay men engaging in "sodomy" is part of this, but it's only my theory.

From my point of view, being called homosexual is only a problem because of the connotations that it has.  It connotates that I like men, and either wish to: marry a man or sodomize with him.  As a person, I am insulted because its a misdescription of me, and because the majority of the time it is thrown specifically as an insult.

Its kindof like someone calling me a muslim, because it connotates I have different beliefs that i actually hold and it is probably thrown as an insult.

In a general sense, I have no problem with either gays or muslims.  Its kinda disappointing that their ideals can be thrown as insults, too.


I would quote and reply to more posts but the general concensus would be that askmen.com is a sexist website with improper assumptions, about both sexes and even I am insulted.


now, when I say i dont want sex thats true, but...
I would go into it further but... this website is neither 4chan (where everythings disgusting) nor the Bruce Lobby (where everything can be talked about openly without consequence) so I decided against it.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Uboa on September 09, 2009, 03:44:38 am
By the way, IAmSerge, I didn't mean to imply you were afraid of rejection when I posted that XKCD comic.  I just thought that since you are an XKCD reader you might have been unconsciously referencing it.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on September 09, 2009, 03:49:28 am
Quote
I never just want to F*** a girl when I meet her.  The furthest I ever think is "She looks good, I want to meet her" or "She has a nice body".  Yes I know that it is inherently and inadvertantly sexist (because I don't think about guys bodies and how they look or if id like to meet em), but is it wholly bad?  "I would like to fuck her" is definitely sexist and bad, because its treating her like an object.

I have never straight up become a friend with a girl so I could fuck her (partially because I don't do that).  I try and become a girls best friend if I like them, but thats just to get closer to them and get the more comfortable with me.

Also... I'm assuming you don't count internet friends in that catagory?

Yeah, being someone's best friend at first and then partner later works well in principal, but often doesn't work in practice. Actually, it did for me, but it started off on the internet and kind of grew from there.

No, I don't include internet-only friends. Most of the guy friends who I've been friends with for a long time hit on me and we talk about sexual things all the time with each other, but a lot of them don't think of me in that way too. I think that this is because they've never met me >_>;. And no, it's not because I'm some really hot sexy chick. That's not it at all. I don't think I'm hot or sexy, but most guys who meet me and get to know me really do think so and I really don't get why. I'm not sure why I even come across that way, but I just think it's cause they're lonely and somehow they feel that because my bf isn't around, it's a good enough excuse to hit on me.

And also, some guys also have to realize that sometimes a girl really does like a guy, but she's trying not to show it for whatever reason. Like, I was so horny the entire time I was in Australia and totally wanted to do my friend, and he felt the same way, so it took a lot of control between us not to go to the next level. It seems like some stupid dating advice just spells out "Oh guys can't help acting like pervs because they're guys and they wanna have a ton of sex". A friend of mine is really, really sexual and she argues the opposite. That every guy she meets doesn't want to have sex with her, no matter how sexy she is (and she has a really great body and really comes on strong to guys). It's just sexist and I don't like that. Even though guys hitting on me is annoying, I also don't like it when guys are portrayed as creatures who can't control themselves at all in front of a girl they think is hot. They can control themselves just fine if they want to, the problem is that a lot of the time, especially when involved with a girl they like,  they don't feel like controlling themselves, and end up looking like asses.

My advice to guys would be to control themselves at first and if she seems interested, move on from there. Sometimes, a girl can come onto a guy real quick, and sure, if she's into you, go for it :p.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on September 09, 2009, 03:51:51 am
A little hint; "I want to be a girl's friend, not fuck her" may sound deep and noble, but it's pretty low on the chain of being a good person or very romantically aware. Leave it in the dust and stop worrying about comparing yourself to pick-up artists.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: IAmSerge on September 09, 2009, 04:05:40 am
By the way, IAmSerge, I didn't mean to imply you were afraid of rejection when I posted that XKCD comic.  I just thought that since you are an XKCD reader you might have been unconsciously referencing it.

Nah, thats actually how I feel, and yes I have read that one comic before >.<

Quote
No, I don't include internet-only friends. Most of the guy friends who I've been friends with for a long time hit on me and we talk about sexual things all the time with each other, but a lot of them don't think of me in that way too. I think that this is because they've never met me >_>;. And no, it's not because I'm some really hot sexy chick. That's not it at all. I don't think I'm hot or sexy, but most guys who meet me and get to know me really do think so and I really don't get why. I'm not sure why I even come across that way, but I just think it's cause they're lonely and somehow they feel that because my bf isn't around, it's a good enough excuse to hit on me.

I thought not! =D haha.
Also... A girl's body is not all that plays into it.  Most of the time, all my thoughts based on someones first-sight looks are extremely shallow, very unintentional, and are forgotten about 5 seconds later.
I honestly have to meet someone and know them before I can become interested in them.  So basically, a college semester for me is like a whole bunch of first dates with lots of girls: I basically just get to know them well and determine if i wish to take it any further.  Its not an actual first date, but it plays one of the roles that a first date does.

Quote
And also, some guys also have to realize that sometimes a girl really does like a guy, but she's trying not to show it for whatever reason.

I'm really freaking bad at taking hints... both the good and bad ones V.V

A little hint; "I want to be a girl's friend, not fuck her" may sound deep and noble, but it's pretty low on the chain of being a good person or very romantically aware. Leave it in the dust and stop worrying about comparing yourself to pick-up artists.

I honestly don't know how to take your post, but it overall sounds like a hit being thrown at me.  probably not your intention, cause you do have a habit of being blunt sometimes.  Z: Also, just because I dont wish to have sex with a girl doesn't mean I don't wish to become physically close.  I do, I definitely do.  However from my point of view sexual relations of any sort is just too far.  From my point of view, sex is sacred.  Honestly if I were to have sex with someone who I don't end up marrying, it will be a big deal to me and haunt me the rest of my life.  Go ahead and ridicule me and throw your "LoL abstinence"s at me, but w/ever, its not going to change my perspective.  It will just harden it.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on September 09, 2009, 04:08:55 am
Congratulations; you aren't the only one to romanticize sex. What I'm saying is, you're expected to want to get to know a person in a relationship and not just fuck them, so you don't have anything to gain by triumphantly announcing this repeatedly. It is a given; a preset variable to a good relationship. It's as if I came along and said "I don't eat food just because it tastes good, I eat it to survive!!" We know this.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: IAmSerge on September 09, 2009, 04:18:43 am
Congratulations; you aren't the only one to romanticize sex. What I'm saying is, you're expected to want to get to know a person in a relationship and not just fuck them, so you don't have anything to gain by triumphantly announcing this repeatedly. It is a given; a preset variable to a good relationship. It's as if I came along and said "I don't eat food just because it tastes good, I eat it to survive!!" We know this.

Ah, I see.  Yes, tis expected, however I was merely trying to state my point of view and stance on the current subject matter which was, atleast somewhat related to, the male sex drive and how it runs his drive for a relationship.

And yes, the satire adds a nice touch, Z.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on September 09, 2009, 04:30:29 am
The furthest I ever think is "She looks good, I want to meet her" or "She has a nice body".  Yes I know that it is inherently and inadvertantly sexist (because I don't think about guys bodies and how they look or if id like to meet em), but is it wholly bad?

That seems like a self-defeating comment, but you don't follow up on it. Where exactly were you going with this?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: IAmSerge on September 09, 2009, 04:37:40 am
The furthest I ever think is "She looks good, I want to meet her" or "She has a nice body".  Yes I know that it is inherently and inadvertantly sexist (because I don't think about guys bodies and how they look or if id like to meet em), but is it wholly bad?

That seems like a self-defeating comment, but you don't follow up on it. Where exactly were you going with this?

Its sexist in a way that I am treating women in a way such that I appreciate them more than males.  I suppose that yes the shallow part of the statements that involve me looking at a woman's body is shallow and bad, however what I was intending to get at was my general greater appreciation for females than males.  Is it wrong to appreciate women more than men, just because I'm hetero?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on September 09, 2009, 04:46:27 am
Its sexist in a way that I am treating women in a way such that I appreciate them more than males.  I suppose that yes the shallow part of the statements that involve me looking at a woman's body is shallow and bad, however what I was intending to get at was my general greater appreciation for females than males.  Is it wrong to appreciate women more than men, just because I'm hetero?

No, I don't think that's sexist. I look at guys all the time. Guys look at girls all the time. Actually, this is one of those universal things where something like all people who aren't asexual look at and appreciate people they find attractive. Actually, over all I find women more attractive than men, but I find men sexually attractive and I don't find women sexually attractive. Also, I think I'm the least bi out of all my female friends. Well, one of them anyway. My best friend turned bi a while ago and now I think it's a bi conspiracy cause sooo many girls my age think they're bi.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: IAmSerge on September 09, 2009, 04:50:01 am
if you don't mind me being momentarily off topic (ill get back on soon, promise!):

Zaichik, what IS your avatar of?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on September 09, 2009, 04:52:34 am
It ended up being hard to see... It's the arcanine Moemon. Arcanine is my favorite pokemon and I find the Arcanine Moemon very cute, but I couldn't find a good picture of *just* her : (. Actually a bit of trivia, the "Arky" comes from Arcanine XD.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on September 09, 2009, 04:59:41 am
Its sexist in a way that I am treating women in a way such that I appreciate them more than males.  I suppose that yes the shallow part of the statements that involve me looking at a woman's body is shallow and bad, however what I was intending to get at was my general greater appreciation for females than males.  Is it wrong to appreciate women more than men, just because I'm hetero?

Ah. No, it's not sexist or wrong to be sexually attracted to people--although you should be honest with yourself that those attractions are indeed sexual, which you seem to be going to lengths to repress.

The line between sexism and sexuality is a very thin one, and sometimes the two worlds overlap. But sexual attraction itself--independent of whatever actions we might take pursuant to it--is not sexist.

The "just because I'm hetero" bent is unnecessary. People of all orientations go through the same experiences that you do.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: IAmSerge on September 09, 2009, 05:05:16 am
Ah. No, it's not sexist or wrong to be sexually attracted to people--although you should be honest with yourself that those attractions are indeed sexual, which you seem to be going to lengths to repress.

I know indeed that it is sexual, I am not trying to repress that, I am only trying to repress a sector of it, the sector that involves the actual "sex" in "sexual"

Quote
The line between sexism and sexuality is a very thin one, and sometimes the two worlds overlap. But sexual attraction itself--independent of whatever actions we might take pursuant to it--is not sexist.

I suppose that if viewed from this point of view then yes, you're right, it isn't!  Thanks!

Quote
The "just because I'm hetero" bent is unnecessary. People of all orientations go through the same experiences that you do.

This bit was just added to distinguish that if I were not hetero, this statement would be opposite of true or completely invalid.  However it could have been rephrased to sound like less of an oppressive/oppressed format.

It ended up being hard to see... It's the arcanine Moemon. Arcanine is my favorite pokemon and I find the Arcanine Moemon very cute, but I couldn't find a good picture of *just* her : (. Actually a bit of trivia, the "Arky" comes from Arcanine XD.

Awesome, but... whats Moemon?  And nice trivia =D
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on September 09, 2009, 05:40:12 am
No one bothered to make a wiki page about it D:. Moemon is this really popular pokemon hack where all the original 151 pokemon are not really pokemon, but little girls (actually more like furries, though I don't like that term...).  That's the only difference, the sprites are little girls and you're supposed to catch 'em all.

Here is a rip of all the sprites in the game- http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a235/aicalo/sprites.png
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: kingpingu30 on September 09, 2009, 05:43:48 am
Haha, thats actually hilarious. I'm gonna hafta look for that...
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on September 09, 2009, 01:42:19 pm
Quote from: IAmSerge
If I'm persuing a friendship/relationship with someone because I have the idea that she's the kind of person I would marry, does that mean I'm doing something wrong?
Absolutely not. Why surround yourself with people you wouldn't want to be around long-term? Just because someone is the kind of person you want to marry doesn't mean that it's your goal to get them into bed. The point is to enjoy the relationship as it is and don't fret over "the friend zone" when pop culture tries to inform you that you're in it and you should get out.

Quote from: ZeaLitY
What I'm saying is, you're expected to want to get to know a person in a relationship and not just fuck them, so you don't have anything to gain by triumphantly announcing this repeatedly. It is a given; a preset variable to a good relationship. It's as if I came along and said "I don't eat food just because it tastes good, I eat it to survive!!" We know this.
This is the part that should be obvious, but I do feel we need to stress exactly this publicly sometimes just to counter cultural impressions like the ones given at AskMen.com. There's a huge problem because men in America (maybe Western society in general) are constantly bombarded with pop culture impressions to the effect that sex is the only desirable thing in a relationship, and furthermore, that men should act like assholes and everything they want will come to them. This tends to breed unhealthy relationships for those who actually buy into it.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: V_Translanka on September 09, 2009, 02:39:04 pm
Not to turn a sexism thread into something about furries, but I don't think girls in costumes would be furry. Is just cosplay, yar? Looks neat but weird...why would you be collecting girls in Poke-outfits? That's one demented Dex, Professor Oak!
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: kingpingu30 on September 09, 2009, 02:43:12 pm
Well, considering his original Dex probably got finished by some random kid, he wanted to make a new one... Maybe Oak just likes cosplayers that much.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on September 12, 2009, 09:06:42 pm
Getting back to the abortion issue, a curiosity: what do you all make of the Unborn Victims of Violence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act) act?

Obviously most, if not all, strains of Pro-Life theory would tend to support this unequivocally. I could see different strains of Pro-Choice theory split on this though -- might it depend once again on the question of whether the fetus is a person?

Under the principles of Judith Jarvis Thomson's Violinist rationale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion), I think one could be both Pro-Choice and support the law; according to the Violinist rationale the fetus is a person with full right to life, but has no right to the mother's body, which is wholly her own. Thus, the mother's decision not to allow the fetus to use her body for its development should be different in nature from what, say, Scott Petersen did to his unborn son. Or is it?

I thought this would make for some interesting argument and debate.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on September 12, 2009, 09:39:16 pm
I support the law because the child was murdered, not aborted. Abortion is legal, murder is not.

But to go deeper into it, I'd have to say that the amount of cowardice and cruelty it takes for a man to not only snuff out the life of a grown adult, but of a child as well, is deserving of a far greater punishment. There's a more eugenic quality to it, that we get rid of the most cowardly of the murders.

I suppose its not right to say that the murder of a pregnant woman is worth more punishment than the murder of a male or unpregnant woman, but the fact of the matter is, under these circumstances, two lives were destroyed rather than the one. The only regret I have is that we can only hang the bastard once.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on September 12, 2009, 09:42:49 pm
I think that even with its exception for abortion, it's still a bad legal precedent for people who would use it to argue personhood in order to limit abortion rights.

Still, pragmatically and ignoring those opportunists, it's a good way to codify and organize the crimes and damages sustained in expectation of childbirth. For example, a woman, her husband, their parents, etc. might all be emotionally invested in the birth of their child, which when killed, emotionally injures all of them. And that can be neatly punishable through a punitive legal fiction like fetal personhood.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Sajainta on September 12, 2009, 09:57:01 pm
My stance on the Unborn Victims of Violence act (or at the very least, the basic idea behind it) is complicated, mainly for personal reasons.  I'm pro-choice.  Very firmly pro-choice.

I also lost a pregnancy when I was very young.  I wanted to keep the child, but the circumstances behind the termination of the pregnancy were at the hands of someone else, and it was deliberate.  I had just turned 15.  And before anyone assumes I was some kid who didn't use protection and then got knocked up, I didn't choose to have the "sex" and I definitely did not want to become pregnant.  The situation was non-consensual, and no one would ever want to become pregnant through rape.

Regardless, I did want the child and I chose to keep them.  But I didn't get to choose, the "father" chose for me.  I don't know if I can classify what he did as "murder" or not.  It's something I've wrestled with a lot.  It's a very difficult issue.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZombieBucky on September 12, 2009, 10:09:44 pm
this is confusing to me. abortion okay butmurder of the child within the uterus not...? um.
isnt abortion technically murder?
or is it not?
then what does it mean when the child is killed within the womb?
or is it the same thing with a different name?

um.
killing a lady to kill the child aint cool.
killing the child without the mothers consent aint cool.
i dont know what else to say. this confuses me to no end. does this mean that up is down and two plus two is fish as well? thats what im getting from this lol
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on September 12, 2009, 11:58:19 pm
Jesus Christ, Sajainta. I'm really sorry to hear about that experience from every angle -- it seems the more women we get in here, the more stories we get about various degrees of abuse rooted in sexism. This isn't merely a coincidence, but probably hints that the degree of it in our society is every bit as bad as several here have suggested. I won't inquire any more than you're comfortable saying about your personal experience, although it does open up questions of how much right the father of a fetus has over its development vs. the mother. If seems to me that the mother should have greater right; although the child's DNA is merely half hers (if we can even quantify that aspect), the use of her body for the fetus' development has to count for something in addition to that.


Zombie, as someone who's previously crossed the Pro-Life/Pro-Choice divide, I think I understand your feelings of confusion around the matter. This is a complicated and messed up subject no matter which way you slice it; and the stakes are huge. If our society is getting it wrong, then it's getting it wrong hugely -- either depriving people of life unjustly or depriving women control over their own personhood unjustly.

What pushed me over the divide, other than a general shift from conservatism to liberalism, was the internal inconsistency of the popular "moderate" approach I had previously espoused -- Pro-Life except in cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother. That amounts to saying that the fetus has rights under some cases, but loses those rights under others. The "moderate" approach inherently admits that the fetus' right to further development has strings attached, and that the mother's right to her own person is a consideration. Once you're a moderate on the abortion issue, becoming Pro-Choice all the way isn't too much of a stretch at all.

Under the logic I offered earlier about the fetus' lack of personhood, the Unborn Victims act should be modified: the death of the fetus should be treated as an additional injury to the mother, as if she'd had her arm forcefully amputated in a cruel act. However, I've never been sure I was using the right logic and moral paradigms on abortion, especially after seeing how Prof. Jarvis-Thomson is able to reconcile the fetus' right to life and its personhood with a Pro-Choice stance. In the end, I think we can get this question objectively right through the creation of Birth Pods -- only the Artificial Womb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_womb) can preserve the fetus' life without denying the mother-to-be the right to her life, and control over her life.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on September 13, 2009, 12:07:07 am
Ah, so this is the fabled birth pod of which you seem so fond.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on September 13, 2009, 12:27:17 am
I've never really been a fan of sticking to natural ways of doing things. We live a superior moral lifestyle today than our ancestors did two hundred years ago precisely because we can do things that nature did not intend. Another way of looking at it is that such technologies are an integral part of our evolutionary progress.

I don't mean to devalue motherhood or anything; any woman who wants to experience gestation and birth is entitled to it. However, the "birth pod" as I like to call it offers an intriguing common ground between the interests of Pro-Lifers and Pro-Choicers, at the cost of raising its own questions.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Uboa on September 13, 2009, 03:42:14 am
Sajainta :(  That's terrible.  So sorry to hear.  Indeed it seems these stores are becoming more commonplace here, and with every one the real problems women face in this country, and everywhere, become more apparent.  But the solutions seem more convoluted, you know?  At least to me they do...

I understand the good intention behind the birth pod concept, but at the same time (I mentioned this at games night) it almost seems like a red herring in the face of the obstacles actually facing women today.  However, that's mostly because at this point large-scale birth pod implementation is too far-fetched, but it likely will be that way for a long time.

From what I've been hearing lately, it seems that one of the best solutions for the time being would be to allot resources to building and maintaining more women's shelter's and career guidance centers.  One prospective situation that has always scared the hell out of me is one where I would be dependent on (and possibly trapped by) a violent man, or violent men.  That seems like it would be one of the worst situation for a woman to be in in this country to be in, and from firsthand experience witnessing bizarre situations, and from reading about various cases, it has to be one of the most daunting situations to escape from.  A shelter in every city would be of great relief to so many women.  Another prospective situation that scares me now is being in S's position, and if I was in S's position I would like nothing more than to have access to a career guidance center, where I could find an escape from the torments of being in a consistently unjust workplace.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Sajainta on September 13, 2009, 06:46:29 am
FaustWolf--it is terrible, but not surprising, that many other women on here have gone through horrid things.  And the fact that this isn't surprising is truly abhorrent.  I absolutely agree with you--a great deal of people believe we've overcome (or are very close to abolishing) such things as sexism or racism, etc.--but fuck.that.  Anyone who knows how to read can simply look at the statistics to realize how prevalent and widespread these "things that have gone away" remain.  It's infuriating.

You do bring up an interesting point about how much of a say the father should have vs. the mother.  That is something I would have to think about, although your assertion about the mother's body is quite valid.

Also, I completely agree with you on the "moderate" stance.  I know quite a few people who say that abortion is understandable and acceptable only in the circumstances you mentioned.  Which I think is ridiculous, for the reasons you mentioned.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Sajainta on September 13, 2009, 06:58:49 am
Uboa--first of all, thank you for your kindness.

I agree with you, I wouldn't know how to begin a solution.  I know many disagree with me, but I'm a firm believer that humans are inherently selfish and cruel.  Not from a religious standpoint (I'm an atheist), but from what I've gathered through growing up in an impoverished, corrupt nation, being a history buff, and through personal experiences and the experiences of others.  I'm not saying that people can't change, or that there are no kind, wonderful, or gentle people in the world--because I only need to look at my family and friends to see this.  Because of them, and because of others who are genuinely decent human beings, I have a shred of hope that things may become better.  But I'm the wrong person to ask, really.  Eternal pessimist and cynic here.   :)
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on September 13, 2009, 03:01:59 pm
The fear of being locked in a relationship that exhibits domestic abuse suggests to me that sexism needs to be tackled on two fronts equally -- empowering women psychologically, socially and economically; and reforming men, or rather our society's perception of what masculinity should entail.

My current theory regarding the male side of sexism is that men often lack an ability to empathize with women. There's a sense of "The Other" that gets in the way thanks to sheer biology. When a man talks about being Pro-Life or Pro-Choice he is forced to think about and justify his position in abstract terms for lack of a womb; pregnancy has a 0% chance of happening to him, so he cannot possibly fathom the hopes, dreams, and fears every woman has with regard to the phenomenon of reproduction. Only women can truly argue from the gut on this matter. Similar observations could be made about other aspects of sexual relations between the sexes.

The problem of "The Other" also extends to everyday social interaction. If a man hits on a waitress, or worse yet, suddenly wraps his arm around her waist from out of the blue, he may be doing so with the notion that he's actually paying her a huge compliment. Since patriarchal society teaches men to be all sex, all the time, we would feel psychologically invigorated if a complete stranger of the opposite sex invaded our personal space like that. And that's if he bothers to even rationalize his action; although it isn't codified anywhere I can point to, there's also the strong cultural impression that men are simply entitled to women's bodies, period. It's the sum total of every book and movie featuring a male protagonist who has what amounts to a one night stand, and every male politician caught talking about the female lobbyist he "spanked" the previous night. The seduction community and the advice typically given on AskMen.com embody this message.

So, that's my brief treatise on the problem of "The Other" that's become a central theme in my own feminist musings. The basic gist is that feminism's goals can be accomplished best if men are just as wrapped up in women's studies as women are; how else are we supposed to know "what it's like for a girl," to borrow a phrase from Madonna? A guy like Chris Brown, who flies off the handle in a rage and just beats the everliving snot out of his significant other, does so because in that moment, he has forgotten that she is human like himself. I would be interested to know what critiques and additional observations other guys have on this topic, and its repercussions for the future course of feminism.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on September 13, 2009, 03:29:55 pm
Sorry that happened to you, Sajainta. It sounds like a pretty terrible experience to go through... especially for a 15 year old. Also, the chance of getting pregnant from an incident like that is pretty rare, so it's like it went from bad, to worse, to even worse because the molester got the choice of what to do with the  unborn child >_>;.  I'm a lot older than 15, but even today, I don't know what I'd do if I got pregnant because I would want to keep the baby,  but my parents would pressure me hard to abort it, even though it wouldn't be something I wanted. After all, my mom got 2 of them because my dad pressured her into it.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on September 13, 2009, 06:26:05 pm
I want to point something out that I think deserves further thought. Were it not for the fact that some of us have gone out of our way to create an anti-sexist, pro-sexual-equality atmosphere here at the Compendium--often stepping on some conservative (and neutral) feet in the process--this place would never have become an outlet for the stories that people have been sharing lately.

Those of you whose feet we have stepped on, either because you aren't interested in the cause of sexual equality or because you think the global crime of sexism isn't as bad as we have made it out to be, should give some thought to these developments. Where else in your lives has your indifference or hostility toward this subject contributed to the prevention of other, similar outlets taking form? What personal stories are your friends and acquaintances not telling because you have not nurtured a place for them to be told?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on September 13, 2009, 08:11:05 pm
People should read this conservative editorial, published in the conservative Weekly Standard, as an insight to the oft-obscured fact that, for religious conservatives, most of the impetus behind their "culture war" issues ultimately boils down, directly, to sexism: specifically, the control of females.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/533narty.asp?pg=1
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Sajainta on September 13, 2009, 08:30:18 pm
That's a sad situation, ZaichikArky.  Your father making those decisions for your mother was wrong, and your parents making that decision for you if you became pregnant would be wrong also.  Even them pressuring you would be wrong.  It's your body, not theirs.  I don't know how much they could do though, other than pressure you, since you said you were much older than 15 (I assume you're a legal adult).

It was really terrible.  I won't say it wasn't.  It wasn't an isolated event.  I became pregnant probably a month or two after the abuse started.  You're right, pregnancies resulting from assaults are rare, but probably not as rare as most people would think.

And Lord J Esq--the pro-equality atmosphere you and other Compendium members have created here has not gone unnoticed or unappreciated.  I haven't been on this site for very long, but that is something I have picked up on, as I'm sure many others have as well.  Thank you, truly.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on September 13, 2009, 09:45:37 pm
Holy cow, I was surprised at how candid that article was; it seems to me that the author is going out of his way to misrepresent modern marriage purely for the sake of undermining the concept of gay marriage. He's taking all the good stuff out of it (the stuff that gay marriage and heterosexual marriage have in common) to replace it with...control over female sexuality? For real?

To quote from the Newsweek Weekly Standard article, this is literally what he's saying:
Quote
Consider four of the most profound effects of marriage within the kinship system.

The first is the most important: It is that marriage is concerned above all with female sexuality. The very existence of kinship depends on the protection of females from rape, degradation, and concubinage. This is why marriage between men and women has been necessary in virtually every society ever known. Marriage, whatever its particular manifestation in a particular culture or epoch, is essentially about who may and who may not have sexual access to a woman when she becomes an adult, and is also about how her adulthood--and sexual accessibility--is defined.

Again, until quite recently, the woman herself had little or nothing to say about this, while her parents and the community to which they answered had total control. The guardians of a female child or young woman had a duty to protect her virginity until the time came when marriage was permitted or, more frequently, insisted upon. This may seem a grim thing for the young woman--if you think of how the teenaged Natalie Wood was not permitted to go too far with Warren Beatty in Splendor in the Grass. But the duty of virginity can seem like a privilege, even a luxury, if you contrast it with the fate of child-prostitutes in brothels around the world. No wonder that weddings tend to be regarded as religious ceremonies in almost every culture: They celebrate the completion of a difficult task for the community as a whole.

This most profound aspect of marriage--protecting and controlling the sexuality of the child-bearing sex--is its only true reason for being, and it has no equivalent in same-sex marriage. Virginity until marriage, arranged marriages, the special status of the sexuality of one partner but not the other (and her protection from the other sex)--these motivating forces for marriage do not apply to same-sex lovers.

Like organisms, social institutions can evolve to preserve themselves in the face of more modernized values. When they fail to evolve, then they're gone. If marriage is still about determining "...who may and who may not have sexual access to a woman when she becomes an adult," then screw it. Even a husband has no right to his wife's body -- she and she alone has a right to her body, and to control who she's going to have sex with, period. Rape is possible within the context of marriage, something the author skims over all too hastily. I'd recommend the movie Quills (but viewer discretion majorly advised) to anyone wondering what I'm talking about there. Maybe the movie Osama would be an even better choice -- that had the most horrific movie ending I'd ever seen.

Luckily, I imagine a lot of us disagree with the author's presentation of marriage. Marriage should be something founded on long-term trust and commitment between lovers. Since people may be married without procreating, it makes the most sense to extend it to gay couples. If marriage is solely for the promotion of the family (and I'm surprised the author of this article was arguing from a different viewpoint than this), then why extend marriage to childless heterosexual couples but exclude it from childless homosexual couples?


EDIT: Also, if you'll notice, the author specifically mentioned sodomy. He purposely glossed over it, to be sure, but it's still there, and it seems like a veiled appeal to the common man raised in a patriarchal society -- giving the author an automatically sympathetic audience.

If I may be blunt, might it not be possible to reject anal sex on health grounds (you can't tell me a perferated colon and a zillion times higher risk of contracting HIV is fun) but still embrace homosexuals? The author's thinking inside a box because he's programmed according to a phallocentric, penetrative sexual model. The brain, a few endorphin receptors, and a few square inches of any kind of flesh is all it takes to engage in sexual expression, but that depends on what the definition of sex is.

But I digress. That is the edgier side of my personal humanist theory. It arises when I get pissed, or when I've had a particularly good glass of beer. Both of which were the case when I was reading the article, hahaha.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on September 13, 2009, 09:50:15 pm
It was published in the Weekly Standard, a conservative mag, not Newsweek. And, yes, I would imagine that none of us on the Compendium share the author's view.

The importance of the author's view is that, from a historical perspective, he's almost exactly right. Marriage exists to perpetuate the control of females and the sexual access to them. Judging this by modern ethical standards is pointless: The value of this column is that it points out just where our world's societies are coming from (which is useful in aiding our understanding of just how deeply sexism runs), and that it highlights the origin of right-wing opposition to all kinds of social justice issues.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on September 13, 2009, 10:07:48 pm
Oh, I'm awfully sorry for misrepresenting Newsweek, haha. I meant the Weekly Standard. This is the one Billy Kristol writes for, right?

What bothers me is that the author isn't even veiling his criticism of gay marriage in the cozy language of child promotion, which could have some logical merit if you restricted marriage only to heterosexual couples who have children. He's just using some kind of weird tenth century logic. It would be like promoting rape just because wild animals do it, and we're descended from wild animals.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on September 13, 2009, 10:32:42 pm
We're "fortunate" that the West at least pays lip service to the idea of romance and love in marriage. Oh, it exists in other cultures—it pops up for a few seconds in Indian marriage rites as spoken by the person doing the union—but absent arranged marriages, and given oppressive but survivable chances for independent living, women in the West can "afford" (using that term in a minimalist sort of way) to discriminate their partners based on love and attraction, versus utility. Single women still have a much more difficult time making it in life than single men because of sexism, pay inequalities, etc. and economics forcing more women to work is setting the cause for female equality back a few years.

And all of it's control. Dowries, inheritances, political unions, familial alliances...it's all sick, and it all needs to fuck off and die. That Yemeni girl who died a few days ago giving birth at age fucking 12 has thankfully brought the savagery of arranged marriages back into the public consciousness, if only for a day or so. I don't see any ethical upside or justification for arranged marriages, so to hell with it; all of it. Fucking slavery. It's no wonder that several countries on this earth also have laws permitting husbands to keep their women sequestered at home; they can only leave with permission. Karzai recently legalized this in Afghanistan to appease Islamic conservatives in that country. I don't know enough about Afghan politics to even choose who I'd like to win the election, but Karzai lost it for me with that.

Edit: It's depressing, but here's the Karzai link: http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=8327666
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on September 14, 2009, 04:36:48 am
On the healthcare reform front, here's a goodie: Domestic violence as a preexisting condition.

http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/health_care_reform_and_domestic_violence/
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on September 14, 2009, 08:45:29 am
I'm assuming that has something to do with Battered Wife Syndrome rather than the actual physical damage caused by domestic violence.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on September 14, 2009, 11:30:59 am
Hmm, so this article seems to want to take a historical approach to marriage? Well I suppose we can be a little more historical, indeed a little more scientific, than the article was. Specifically, let us look at evolution.

I’m currently reading a book that might be of some interest: Man the Hunted. It takes a look at predation on human evolution. One curious tidbit that (so far) they mentioned but didn’t spend a lot of time on is the possibility that male cohabitation with other males is a somewhat recent evolutionary trait (around the time we moved into grassy planes, it would seem, so still pretty old) that developed to protect females and children. That might seem, on the surface, to support the idea that men are supposed to be the protectors of women. The oddity comes in how; the men in a group of our ancestors seem to have probably acted as decoys for predators. Populations that suffer a high predation rate can stand to lose a male much more readily than a female. Monogamous pairings, then, are to an extent a luxury; a people group has become stable enough and secure enough that the men don’t have to be expendable for the group to survive.

There is also some research (but, to my understanding, it does not yet approach the status of being definitive) that indicates human males are unusually inept at detecting children that aren’t theirs. It has been suggested that the human reaction to young is so broadly defined that it can even encompass non-human children (that is, random cute fluffy puppies, kittens, cubs, etc). Such a reaction would be evolutionarily advantageous where monogamy is not; in societies suffering from a high predation rate.

Curiously, the idea of a single male with a harem would actually be a bit of an evolutionary throwback. We might still classify a harem of one as a harem, if we define the term fairly loosely. Thus, male control of a single woman as a sexual partner is likewise an evolutionary throwback to a simpler, more brutal and savage time.

If the past may be used to defend a sexist perspective on marriage, then it may also be used to promote a liberal perspective on sex. If because marriage has traditionally been used to control sexual access to women it can continue as such, then an older, more traditional look would argue that restricted sexual access is an anomaly counterproductive to the survival of the group.

The problem, of course, is that just because something is very old does not mean that it is very good, particularly in the present day (thus, the concept f the argumentum ad antiquitam). Though being old doesn’t make something bad, either (argumentum ad novitatem). One must be willing to recognize the past and use it as a foundation for perceiving the future, but we aren’t chained to it. For example, traditionally, no one was allowed to vote. Curiously, not many conservatives arguing from tradition argue for that.

As a side note: since that article attempted to address gay marriage from an ultra conservative POV, this webcomic offers a fairly hilarious commentary on that sort of thing: http://www.shortpacked.com/d/20090907.html

... you can't tell me a perferated colon and a zillion times higher risk of contracting HIV is fun...

Don't forget incontinence.

Though it is fair to point out that this is not a sexual perfectly restricted to homosexual male couples.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on September 14, 2009, 02:08:30 pm
I wonder just how much sexism is rooted in our evolution. The Neanderthals, a supposedly more egalitarian species than Cro Magnon man according to some researchers (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04EED91F3EF936A35751C1A9609C8B63), didn't make it. But an alternative explanation is that the Neanderthals just weren't built right, period. Maybe if they engaged in the exact same practices but were a little more lithe on average, we'd really be coexisting with them like in the Geico commercials.

But if sexist behavior really is rooted in our species' earliest experiences, there may have been a number of archaic women's rights movements throughout prehistory as subsets of the population split off -- that had to have happened for several Native American tribes, African Pygmy tribes, and various other populations to develop either egalitarian or reverse-sexist societies by the time anthropologists from the developed world discovered them.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Uboa on September 14, 2009, 03:22:58 pm
I wonder just how much sexism is rooted in our evolution. The Neanderthals, a supposedly more egalitarian species than Cro Magnon man according to some researchers (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04EED91F3EF936A35751C1A9609C8B63), didn't make it. But an alternative explanation is that the Neanderthals just weren't built right, period. Maybe if they engaged in the exact same practices but were a little more lithe on average, we'd really be coexisting with them like in the Geico commercials.

Another theory is that a shift in climate caused the forests in which they were used to hunting to slowly change into grasslands.  Since humans were more adept at hunting in grasslands we simply out-hunted them.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Radical_Dreamer on September 14, 2009, 03:48:29 pm
I'm assuming that has something to do with Battered Wife Syndrome rather than the actual physical damage caused by domestic violence.

Alternatively, you could actually read the article, find out that your preconceived notion is incorrect, and then have a potentially meaningful contribution to the topic.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on September 14, 2009, 03:59:50 pm
RD, I said that because these psychological disorders are typically the ones that last longer, read: end up starting the cycle of abuse.

For example, if abuse occurs before the insurance plan is bought, and BWS is a result of that, and physical abuse occurs after that, then yes, BWS and the subsequent injuries are a preexisting condition by the definition of the term. I don't condone the fact that health care companies treat it this way; I'm merely pointing out a point of the matter that everyone else surely will and has passed up.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on September 14, 2009, 04:11:05 pm
Faust, have you read the Newsweek article on racism? http://www.newsweek.com/id/214989

Basically, research indicates that children naturally classify people in an "us" and "them" mentality. This leads to racism, but it isn't limited to race either (as demonstrated by the fact that children can become biased based on T-Shirt color). Thus, if children can see a difference between the "us" (males) and "them" (females), this same behavior could reasonably come into play.

If this is a valid interpretation, then it would seem quite reasonably to say that sexism may have had an evolutionary cause. However, this article also noted that simply directly talking to one's children about sexism and racism significantly changes a child's outlook (we just have to be intentional and direct about it).

Another theory is that a shift in climate caused the forests in which they were used to hunting to slowly change into grasslands.  Since humans were more adept at hunting in grasslands we simply out-hunted them.

Interestingly enough, it may be incorrect to suppose that early humans were much in the way of hunters. At least, depending on what one calls early humans. The ancestors that moved out of the forests and into the grasslands weren't very well adapted to being prime predators. Or in other words, our influence on other branches of early humans (which weren't even in the same genus, at the time) would have been minimal.

But as I said, that depends on what you call early humans. I believe  Australopithecine is usually credited with the species that made the move from the forest to the plains, which is a few million years before Cro Magnon and Neanderthals.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on September 14, 2009, 05:04:04 pm
I'm assuming that has something to do with Battered Wife Syndrome rather than the actual physical damage caused by domestic violence.

RD, I said that because these psychological disorders are typically the ones that last longer, read: end up starting the cycle of abuse.

For example, if abuse occurs before the insurance plan is bought, and BWS is a result of that, and physical abuse occurs after that, then yes, BWS and the subsequent injuries are a preexisting condition by the definition of the term. I don't condone the fact that health care companies treat it this way; I'm merely pointing out a point of the matter that everyone else surely will and has passed up.

He's right; you didn't read the article. Either that or you completely failed to comprehend it. The fact that you're proceeding with a diversionary tactic suggests that you're not interested in the discussion.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on September 14, 2009, 08:29:55 pm
No, J, I read the article, and the source material. The SEIU report is extremely vague, probably purposefully so, so that bloggers can derive whatever meaning suits them from it.

It could mean that X hits Y once and then the insurance companies refuse to cover Y for physical damage, but it probably means that X has a history of smacking Y around and refuses to cover Y because Y has Battered Persons Syndrome.

The only part of this release that is factual rather than editorial is:
Quote
But, in DC and eight other states, including Idaho, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Wyoming, insurance companies have gone too far, claiming that "domestic violence victim" is also a pre-existing condition.

After reading this article and source material, I made the conclusion that they were probably referring to long term spousal abuse with Battered Persons Syndrome rather than a one-time ordeal. I made it a point to communicate this because I was sure that everyone would instantly say "Oh, a woman gets stuck with the bill if she gets hit, sexism," when the cause might just be because BPS is a long-term psychological ailment.

Now, my response to the article: Is it right to do this? No.

Your response?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on September 14, 2009, 09:13:09 pm
Thought, that's a fantastic article (Newsweek this time -- this is the one Billy Kristol doesn't write for, right? :lol:). I think it speaks to some of the pitfalls to purposely creating a "colorblind" society. How can we translate this lesson to sexism? Unlike race, "gender" is a social construct separate from the natural distinguishing factor that is sex (which is closer to race in that regard). Gender seems to be something that the feminist movement seeks to ultimately destroy, or at least dull severely -- giving some "masculine" traits (competitiveness, industriousness, leadership) to women, and some "feminine" traits (willingness to discuss emotion, caring for social relations, being nurturing) to men.

I believe creating a "colorblind" society is still a noble goal, but that in the cases of the parents who refused to discuss race for fear of generating racial bias, other factors were "raising" the children in their stead. Perhaps evolutionary adaptations peeking through is a part of this. I'd tend to place the greater weight on pop cultural impressions, but that's simply my theoretical bias.

Regardless of the exact source of the factors influencing the children's attitudes when they're not discussing something with their parents, the studies mentioned strongly suggest parental discussion is capable of overriding those factors. Thus, a big lesson we can draw from the Newsweek article is that parents need to discuss sexism with their kids.

Anyone here ever remember having a talk about sexism with their parents when they were kids? My parents talked to me about race, how to recognize sexual abuse, and how to not get kidnapped and that sort of thing (this kid is in real danger) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tGbvfVpPGg), but I don't recall a sexism talk. On the other hand, I was also raised in a household where James Cameron flicks were playing half the time, and where the amount of housework was shared pretty evenly. Maybe it's the subliminal messages that speak loudest.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on September 14, 2009, 10:24:33 pm
On the other hand, I was also raised in a household where James Cameron flicks were playing half the time, and where the amount of housework was shared pretty evenly. Maybe it's the subliminal messages that speak loudest.

Yeah. I just never picked up on many of the sexist cues that most kids do. When I was a kid I was convinced that my parents were showing clear favoritism toward my little sister, but at the time I was convinced it was because she was younger, not because of her sex. I never prejudged or dismissed her because she was "a girl," although I did prejudge and dismiss her in other ways. My dad was the sole breadwinner, and I knew that many other moms were also of the stay-at-home variety, but I never thought about that as a sex thing, because there were many examples to the contrary as well.

Much of this, I figure I owe to the fact that the atmosphere in my house was pretty egalitarian. Racism, sexism, and other isms didn't even become apparent to me until I got older. There was a time in my youth when, to the extent I thought about them at all, I thought they were in the past. Golly, was I in for a rude awakening...

Oh, and at least some of my remarkably un-fucked-up outlook I owe to the fact that I'm a social misfit who doesn't absorb popular norms very well. =)


 where the expectations of sexism were not present.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on September 15, 2009, 01:26:32 am
That's a sad situation, ZaichikArky.  Your father making those decisions for your mother was wrong, and your parents making that decision for you if you became pregnant would be wrong also.  Even them pressuring you would be wrong.  It's your body, not theirs.  I don't know how much they could do though, other than pressure you, since you said you were much older than 15 (I assume you're a legal adult).

It was really terrible.  I won't say it wasn't.  It wasn't an isolated event.  I became pregnant probably a month or two after the abuse started.  You're right, pregnancies resulting from assaults are rare, but probably not as rare as most people would think.

And Lord J Esq--the pro-equality atmosphere you and other Compendium members have created here has not gone unnoticed or unappreciated.  I haven't been on this site for very long, but that is something I have picked up on, as I'm sure many others have as well.  Thank you, truly.

Ok, plural >_>;. See, I thought that you had only one incident that caused the pregnancy. That makes it even worse! At least you had a very supportive family by your side. One of my best friends, she has this step sister who kind of is a bad girl and does a lot of bad things. She got pregnant at 15 and did get to keep her baby. I really hope that she's turned her life around. Her parents are very kind and supportive, but she always does these really bad, bad things. Such as get really drunk and run away from home. I just don't understand how kids can do that if the parents are nice. Doesn't really make sense to me.

Anyway, in a lot of situations, the man gets to control whether his gf/wife has an abortion or not. I've always kind of resented my dad for that because I think I would have liked being a big sister(I'm an only child) and I think it's his fault that I never got that, but at the time, mom was young and impressionable. Actually, still in some ways, she's still quite impressionable in terms of my dad's beliefs on things. She was barely older than me, and I might do the same if people kept pressuring me to abort. Still, this should never be law. There should never be stipulations against abortions (I even support partial birth abortions), and the woman should decide if she wants to have one or not. I guess part of my pro-choice stand comes from my mom having them, but later when I got older, I realized it was complicated by the fact that dad made her get them >_>;.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Sajainta on September 16, 2009, 03:13:55 am
ZaichikArky,

It's a shame about the girl you know.  Some people just like acting out and being rebellious, to the point that it harms them and the people who love them.  I hope she'll come to her senses and return to her loving family  I hope that, at the very least, she is being a good mother to her child.

And hey...I don't blame you for resenting your dad.  I'm sorry you were cheated of younger siblings, that's really sad.  I hope that, if you do become pregnant, that you make the decision that is right for you, not what is right for your parents.  Although I can understand that there would be a lot of emotional turmoil involved.

You're right, I do have a wonderful family.  Although they didn't know of the pregnancy, nor the loss of it.  They didn't know about the abuse until 4 years after it had ended.  They weren't around while it was going on--I was living with guardians (not from Guardia, heh, but legal guardians) at the time.  And my guardians were involved in the abuse..  It's really complicated and really fucked up..
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Sajainta on September 16, 2009, 03:16:07 am
I grew up in an impoverished, male-dominated country where sexism is rampant and completely accepted.  The men didn't care because that's all they knew (not that that's any excuse).  And the women just accepted it, because that's what women were supposed to do.  Rapists?  No big deal.  The belief there is "boys will be boys" and that the men just can't help themselves (a superstition in the country is that if a man doesn't act upon every sexual urge he has, he will become infertile and impotent).  But too bad for the woman--for the most part they're kicked out of the house and disowned.  Because really...what whores.  Prostitution?  Perfectly okay.  Domestic violence?  Hey--she deserved it.  (All sarcasm, obviously.)

Without saying too much about where I grew up or why my parents work overseas, the community I was raised in was very religious (Protestant).  I was taught, from a very young age, that women should find a man to protect them, be subservient to them (arrgh, those damn Epistles >_<), and bear children.  And stay at home.  And fully accept this, because hey... "it wasn't women who ended WWII.  It wasn't women who stopped apartheid" (paraphrased quote from John Eldredge's Wild At Heart: Discovering the Secret of a Man's Soul, which is a Christian devotional for men).

Thank goodness I grew up in a loving, equality-based home.  My parents have gotten so much shit from the community they work with because 1)  They're both feminists, and aren't scared to say it.  2)  They voted for Obama (oh the horreur).  3)  They believe in the evils of evolution.  And 4)  They've raised three children who don't fit the "cookie cutter Christian children" norm and are true to themselves.  I'm an atheist and my one brother is transgendered (born physically female).  And my parents love us and accept us.  But that's a "bad" thing to do, apparently.  They're such "bad Christians", apparently.

But obviously growing up among such social ills and around ignorant, backwards people who served as teachers left its mark on me, and on other females I knew.  The vast majority of them just followed what they were taught their entire lives because they "know" that their purpose in life is to serve men.

It's disgusting.  All of it.  I grew up in a country where human trafficking runs rampant, and is mostly ignored by authorities.  And let's not forget that the U.S. is not free from something that despicable.  But the ignorance of it...it's enough to make anyone vomit.  Because, you know, that kind of thing doesn't happen here in the U.S.  Because, you know, we abolished slavery in the 19th century.  Because, you know, that stuff only happens in Thailand, or Albania, or Russia.  Because, you know, if it happened here, it would be stopped right away.

But some authorities here are not so different from the ones in the country I was raised in.  They don't care, or they're bribed, or they themselves are "customers"--knowingly raping the terrified teenager in that cheap motel who is kept in someone's basement.

(Do note that I'm not saying all police officers are like this.  Not at all.  But some are.)

It makes me sick.  All of this, all of it, needs to be stopped.  I know I can't do everything, but I will (and am) doing something to try and end it.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on September 16, 2009, 03:19:26 am
I was taught, from a very young age, that women should find a man to protect them, be subservient to them (arrgh, those damn Epistles >_<), and bear children.  And stay at home.  And fully accept this, because hey... "it wasn't women who ended WWII.  It wasn't women who stopped apartheid" (paraphrased quote from John Eldredge's Wild At Heart: Discovering the Secret of a Man's Soul, which is a Christian devotional for men).

Golly. Even I fail to fully appreciate sometimes just how flimsy a lot of the logic behind sexism is.

Also, I don't know which country you grew up in, but there's a fair bit of sexism right here in the United States, from groping to condescension to flat-out assault. The positive difference--the thing that sets America apart and ahead of most other nations--is that, if you're a victim of sexism in this country, the law is usually on your side. (Cue the frenzied clucking by conservatives that radical feminists are trying to destroy America...)
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Sajainta on September 16, 2009, 03:30:10 am
Also, I don't know which country you grew up in, but there's a fair bit of sexism right here in the United States, from groping to condescension to flat-out assault. The positive difference--the thing that sets America apart and ahead of most other nations--is that, if you're a victim of sexism in this country, the law is usually on your side. (Cue the frenzied clucking by conservatives that radical feminists are trying to destroy America...)

Oh yes, I definitely know that it happens here as well.  I've known too many women, myself included, who've gone through some pretty crappy things because of sexism.

It is indeed very fortunate that, for the most part, U.S. law is on our side.  There's a lot of work to be done, still, but the U.S. is leaps about bounds ahead of the vast majority of the world.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on September 16, 2009, 03:43:36 am
On the need for a man for protection: this is precisely because society is programming men to be violent. It's like women are wandering through a sea of pitbulls, and society is telling her that she needs to be accompanied everywhere by one pitbull to fight off the others. This is no solution for women's safety; all societies still marked by patriarchy need to stop turning men into pitbulls in the first place.

That poor Yale student who was just murdered and stuffed in a wall...I think we all know the gender of her attacker. Yes, I'm making an assumption -- a very sexist assumption -- but I'll bet a nickle that I'm right. There's a reason why the vagina has never been used as a weapon of war, and why we hear far fewer stories about women being aggressive and violent stalkers, murderers, etc. Something in our society is infiltrating men's psyches, specifically, successfully training a portion to lash out, to seize, to kill; we need to find whatever that is, and eradicate it ruthlessly. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics  (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/vsx2.htm) we're actually making some headway on this in the US. But have the causes for the decline been adequately studied, so that we may know what we're actually doing right?

Anyway, until men's violent tendencies are adequately managed, or better yet, deleted, I'd have to advocate that everyone (men are more often victims of violent crime than women according to the stats referenced above) carry a Taser (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taser) and learn how to use it. Provided it's legal to carry one. I'm not quite ready to jump on the free gun bandwagon, but I'm definitely beginning to see some worth in carrying an implement of self defense.


About human trafficking: aren't American and other Western tourists the main users of sex slaves? The topic needs to be addressed more openly here not only because people are actually trafficked through the US, but because the US may be the largest source of demand for such horrors.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: IAmSerge on September 16, 2009, 05:09:07 am
I'm not quite ready to jump on the free gun bandwagon, but I'm definitely beginning to see some worth in carrying an implement of self defense.

Im not going to say that guns free for everyone, everywhere is the way to go...

... however, what I will say is that anti-gun laws are not going to stop someone from shooting up a school.  If someone has the intent to do that, they will find a gun anyways, and they will bring it in anyways.  Laws like that aren't actually going to stop them from that, because if laws were a problem they wouldnt be shooting people up in the first place.  What I do support is the legality to own and carry a handgun in certain places... however, I also support tighter security in places like schools and such.  Security can definitely stop things like that from happening more often than laws can (unless the actual law involves security >.> )

I'm sorry. this probably belongs in a different topic...
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on September 16, 2009, 05:17:56 am
... however, what I will say is that anti-gun laws are not going to stop someone from shooting up a school.  If someone has the intent to do that, they will find a gun anyways, and they will bring it in anyways.

I don't know. I've heard that argument many times, but when a school, or an office, or a gym, or some other place where people gather gets "shot up," the media usually try and find out where the gun(s) came from. Often the guns were the legal property of the shooter, or the shooter's parents.

I'd be willing to accept that, if we had more restrictive gun ownership laws, some people would then seek out illicit guns to do their shooting. But inherent in this argument against gun control laws is the assumption that "some people" is more like "most people," and that closing some of the routes to legal ownership of firearms would have zero significant impact on reducing the number of gun crimes--which is implausible. If reducing the legal access to guns can lead to even modest reductions in gun crime, then a responsible person has to ask how many precious guns a dusty old human life is worth.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on September 16, 2009, 10:33:28 am
Anyway, until men's violent tendencies are adequately managed, or better yet, deleted...

A random curiosity, but have you ever read Gateway to Women's Country? It is a science fiction book that proposes just that.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on September 16, 2009, 01:39:30 pm
Thought, I'll check that out. Does the book end up portraying the de...violentized men as emasculated, or does the book portray it as a positive development?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on September 16, 2009, 01:57:20 pm
It depicts them as having telekinetic powers.

Depending on which particular wave of feminism one belongs to, the book either depicts a utopia or a dystopia. If you are planning on reading it, however, I won’t say more, so as to not spoil the read.

EDIT: As a side note, the book is really called "Gate to Women's Country." For some reason, I have a bad habbit of calling it "gateway" instead.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Sajainta on September 16, 2009, 04:19:34 pm
About human trafficking: aren't American and other Western tourists the main users of sex slaves? The topic needs to be addressed more openly here not only because people are actually trafficked through the US, but because the US may be the largest source of demand for such horrors.

It's very difficult to obtain statistics about trafficking, due to its illegal and underground nature.  However, from what I know and from what I have read sex trafficking is a huge demand in the U.S., and many overseas "customers" are Western.  It's not unheard of for Westerners to travel overseas specifically to have access to young children.

Roughly about 10,000 women and children are trafficked into the U.S. for sexual exploitation, although a lot of people have argued that the number is probably a lot higher.  And, obviously, that doesn't include people who are trafficked within the U.S., who are from the U.S. (because that happens, a lot.  It isn't just immigrants who are trafficked).

Also, if a young girl can make her trafficker X amount of money in her native country, she can make him ten times that in America, so many traffickers are keen to ship their "products" to the U.S.

A quote I found::  "If anything, the women I talked to said that the sex in the U.S. is even rougher than what the girls face on Calle Santo Tomas. Rosario, a woman I met in Mexico City, who had been trafficked to New York and held captive for a number of years, said: ''In America we had 'special jobs.' Oral sex, anal sex, often with many men. Sex is now more adventurous, harder.'' She said that she believed younger foreign girls were in demand in the U.S. because of an increased appetite for more aggressive, dangerous sex. Traffickers need younger and younger girls, she suggested, simply because they are more pliable."  From this New York Times article--http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/25/magazine/25SEXTRAFFIC.html?pagewanted=print&position= (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/25/magazine/25SEXTRAFFIC.html?pagewanted=print&position=).

(I'm sorry, I can't figure out how to insert the links within a sentence.)

It's been estimated that there could be as many as 50,000 people held captive as sex slaves in the U.S.

All-in-all, it seems more than likely that America is, at the very least, one of the highest demanding countries for sexual exploitation.  If not the highest.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Uboa on September 16, 2009, 04:41:50 pm
Frontline used to have this full program online, but you can glean a great deal from the excerpts and features they still have available:

Frontline: Sex Slaves (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/slaves/)

(By the way, the syntax for inserting links is "[ u r l = h t t p : / / b l a b l a . c o m / ] t e x t [ / u r l ]" without spaces.)

I'm not sure if the accounts of child prostitution are still online, but I remember from the program that it is quite common in Russia for local children to be pimped, and for poor families from far around to actually pimp their own children on the Russian streets for money.  Many of the customers are Americans.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on September 17, 2009, 01:50:14 pm
This sex slavery business is sick. Sick, sick, sick, sick, sick. These women are basically being stuffed into rape rooms then. I just can't...fathom what that's like for them. And right in the United States.

What is it that drives these men's desires to basically have sex slaves? What sociological and psychological issues are so unaddressed in patriarchal societies that they're producing an entire underground of serial rapists? Because that's what's happening here.

Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on September 17, 2009, 02:37:26 pm
I think I need to point something out here.

The current US population is a little over 307,000,000 people. The current population of the Czech Republic, Armenia, Bulgaria and Iceland(countries that have a, for lack of a better word, robust sex trade) is 10,000,000, 3,230,100, 7,500,000 and 319,000 respectively.

5,000 in CZ's 10,000,000 is about .0005%, 10,000 in the US's 307,000,000 is about .000003257%. I point this out to show a scale of number of sex slaves per capita, if that makes any sense. Basically, even though there are more instances, it happens less often.

Moreover, the estimated number of people trafficked in countries is about 600,000-800,000 globally each year. At 10,000 each year, the US sex trade makes up about .167-.125% of the annual global trade. I attribute this in part to our rather forceful approach to the sex trade(we even have a "czar" for it, established under Bush the Younger).

My point is, the sex trade in the US does indeed exist, but we are combating it and are taking a far more proactive approach than other countries. It is more prudent to start putting pressure on countries like the ones mentioned above where they aren't.

To be completely fair, Canada, Britain, most of Western Europe, Austrailia, New Zealand, Morocco, French Guyana, and Colombia are up-ing their methods too.

To give you a better idea, here's a map illustrating it. Yellow areas are doing "something," red areas are doing nothing, green areas are up to the US code, and the gray areas have no data.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trafficking_in_Persons_Report_2005.png

Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on September 17, 2009, 03:34:20 pm
Truth, thank you for the enforcement numbers. Yes, it's good that the US government and other governments in developed countries are aware of the problem and tackling it from a law enforcement perspective. But what worries me more is the demand side, and why a subset of the male population is bred to think this sort of thing is okay.

I mean, can anybody even imagine being the buyer (I would prefer the term "perpetrator") in the situations Rosario is quoted as describing a couple posts back? I mean, ramming your pickle or some other implement into every orifice of a young woman who's probably frightened, shuddering, and crying the entire time? It's a scene straight out of some...cheap horror porn flick. These men, and any women who might also be partaking in this abuse, are sick puppies. They have serious mental problems, notably a complete inability to empathize with the person they're doing this to. It makes my stomach churn that even a small percentage of Westerners are even capable of these things. They share traits with serial killers.

I'm assuming of course that 99.9% of the customers are men, but anyone have numbers on women also buying these torture sessions? It might reveal some undercurrent in Western society that affects not only men as I've been supposing, but women also.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on September 17, 2009, 05:18:16 pm
Truth, even though that's a small percentage of the population, don't forget to consider the network that those few people interact with. The article you linked to earlier suggested that the 2 encounters a day, 7 days a week, is the norm. So a single slave is sexually abused at least 712 time a year. 30,000 slaves in the US (a low estimate; also, keep in mind that the 10,000 you mentioned is just the reported influx, not the actual population) results in 21,360,000 instances per year. To be ridiculous, let us suppose that ever single instance was a unique perpetrator (a supposition I hope is horribly incorrect): ~7% of the US population supports these crimes per year.

The supply of flesh in the US might be low, but the demand for it...
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Sajainta on September 17, 2009, 05:47:05 pm
Truthordeal,

I apologize if my posts came across as saying that the U.S. isn't combating trafficking, because I know it is and that is not what I was trying to say.  I'm well aware of what organizations in the U.S. are doing to address sexual slavery.  I could go on a huge rant about how there is still a great deal of injustice and ignorance concerning sexual trafficking in U.S. courts (once a trafficker is caught or once a victim testifies), but the blunt truth is that it's still much better than most other countries.

My point was that, even though per capita there are more sex slaves in Eastern Europe, we can't deny that it seems the ideal goal of traffickers is to eventually ship their products to somewhere like the U.S.--where they will make ten or a hundred times more money than in their own nations.  We may not have as many slaves per capita as other countries, but we sure do pay a lot more money for it.

(For clarification's sake--the number of estimated sex slaves in America is 50,000, not 10,000.  10,000 is approximately the number of people trafficked into the country for sexual purposes.)
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Sajainta on September 17, 2009, 07:20:46 pm
I don't and won't claim to have all the knowledge, but I know more about trafficking than many other people in the world because I was trafficked.  The abuse that started when I was 14 eventually bled into slavery.  This was in the U.S., in the suburbs.  The man who got me pregnant and then got rid of the pregnancy was my main trafficker, or my "pimp" if you want to use colloquialisms.

Why do men rent people out for sex?  I don't know any statistics, but I can tell you what I know from experience::

Some of it is ignorance.  A lot of men think these girls are just run-of-the-mill prostitutes.  The men who trafficked me had a fake ID for me that said I was 18.

Another part of it is sheer apathy.  "Okay, so this girl is obviously not 18 but what do I care?  I just want to get laid.  If she wants to make a living selling her body, that's none of my business."

Another part is "desperation".  Homeless men, lonely men, etc.  They don't care about the well-being of the girl because they are that desperate for any kind of sexual contact.

Another part is the sheep mentality, especially if it's a group of men who are renting someone out (like a frat house, or friends celebrating someone's 21st birthday, etc.).  "Maybe the girl is underage, or seems just a little too scared, but all of my buddies are going to have sex with her and they'll call me a faggot if I don't do the same thing."

A large part of it is fueled by sick desire--those who knew the girl is under 18, they know that she is being kept prisoner, they know that there is absolutely no consent, and that turns them on.  What I don't know is why they think and feel this way.  I can't understand it.

The latter group will pay the most, especially if they want to be violent or sadistic.  Finding a "regular" prostitute is no feat whatsoever.  Finding a young girl on whom they can act out whatever rape or torture fetish they have is much, much more difficult.  If they physically abuse a "regular" prostitute (or most sex slaves), god forbid what will happen to them once the pimps find out.  But they can hit, kick, punch, strangle, push underwater, electrocute, cut, or burn a slave who is "singled out" for violent clients to their hearts content (like in the "damage group" from the link I posted).  As long as they don't kill the girls or disfigure their face, they can do whatever they want.  If they have the money.  Traffickers are smart, and they know that very, very, very rich men will shell out obscene amounts of money for X amount of time with a girl.

Within the trafficking cell that I was in, the sadistic clients were referred to as "special" clients.  From what I heard, they're the ones who really pad the pocket of slavery.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on September 17, 2009, 07:40:35 pm
Jesus.

So you were, I mean, you went through that first hand Sajainta? Like, with clients and stuff? How did you finally get out of it? A police raid? Just ran for it?

And what goes through the mind of a victim? Is there just this zombie-like, catatonic state you have to go into to get through it? I can't imagine actually thinking about it while it's happening.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on September 17, 2009, 07:51:05 pm
WE'LL FIGHT THE POWER

(http://chronofan.com/Zeality/02-1.jpg) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXaiwwD_y7w&fmt=18)

DOESN'T MATTER WHO IT IS, WE'LL CRUSH SEXISM

(http://chronofan.com/Zeality/3881382.jpg) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXaiwwD_y7w&fmt=18)

YOUR DAYS ARE DONE, MISOGYNIST FUCKERS

(http://chronofan.com/Zeality/vlcsnap-2009-08-29-01h15m06s211.png) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXaiwwD_y7w&fmt=18)

THIS IS MY SOUL

(http://chronofan.com/Zeality/4321074.jpg) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXaiwwD_y7w&fmt=18)

NEVER GIVE UP

(http://chronofan.com/Zeality/624131.jpg) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXaiwwD_y7w&fmt=18)

OUR BURNING BLOOD WILL CUT THROUGH FATE

(http://chronofan.com/Zeality/4924413.jpg) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXaiwwD_y7w&fmt=18)

IT'S A PROMISE IN THE SPRINGTIME OF YOUTH
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on September 17, 2009, 08:19:06 pm
Quote from: Zeality
Ultimate list of awesome bombastic awesomeness!

I only wish I had an image awesome enough to follow that up...

Oh, wait...maybe I do.

(http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l242/Truthordeal/TheSpringtimeOfYouth-1.jpg)


SPRINGTIME OF YOUTH ULTIMATE COLLAGE MUTHAFUCKA!

Ok, now that that's done, its time that I did a penance:

I have been wrong about most things regarding sexism over the past few months on this thread. The stories and arguments here have really shed a light on an aspect of humanity that I failed to recognize, whether through ignorance or indifference.

But rather than torture myself over that and work my penance in over guilt, I already have an awesome idea to make up for it and be proactive!

We're on the right track, but we need to push FORWARD TO EQUALITY!!
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on September 17, 2009, 08:30:12 pm
Yeah, catching a glimpse of the very worst society has to offer really puts things into perspective, doesn't it? When this thread started I was worried about things like the overbearing power male high school seniors and politicians sometimes are able to exercise in their relations with younger and less well-positioned women, and women being portrayed with exaggerated sexual characteristics more often than not in pop culture. But now we're getting into holy shit, we're still in the dark ages territory.

Well, for good measure:
(http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/4661/gallykickingass.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Mr Bekkler on September 17, 2009, 08:35:55 pm
I have been wrong about most things regarding sexism over the past few months on this thread. The stories and arguments here have really shed a light on an aspect of humanity that I failed to recognize, whether through ignorance or indifference.

But rather than torture myself over that and work my penance in over guilt, I already have an awesome idea to make up for it and be proactive!

We're on the right track, but we need to push FORWARD TO EQUALITY!!

NOW YOU KNOW, AND...

(http://www.projectsilence.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/knowing-is-half-the-battle.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on September 17, 2009, 08:36:50 pm
Damn. That would explain why you have trouble sleeping, and why you didn't post in the prostitution thread. There's not much I can say to someone who's actually been through the cogs of the sex slavery business. I guess ZeaLitY is on the right track: All we can do is work to help those who are still sexual slaves, and to prevent others from ever being stolen away into that world.

ZeaLitY and I are pretty serious about that. I hope others here will get to the same point, and make real contributions. Fuck sexism...
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Uboa on September 17, 2009, 10:49:44 pm
Sajainta, all I am able to think right now is, "I can't imagine."  Especially, I can't imagine how it would feel to talk about your experience here.  But, I know that your openness means a lot to many of the people here, myself included, but more so to those who have devoted a lot of time to trying to understand and do something about sexism.  Thank you.  

I told Z this, but I'll say it again here:  This forum has opened my eyes in ways I never imagined, and in a really brief period of time.  After I started posting here I started asking questions that I had never wanted to ask before.  Actually, not to sidetrack this thread or anything, but there's a reason why I never asked these questions before, and that's because my experience with "social justice" groups in the past was never positive.  For some reason, the groups I joined seemed to be headed up exclusively by closed-minded, poorly tempered control freaks who all happened to be men trying to put a better face on their shoddy personalities.  After just a short while here, something told me that the people here were different, and that if I wanted real answers I would have to leave behind those personalities and find a better way.  I don't know if it was just serendipity, but around this time I also began meeting several gentle, brave, and wise women involved in real social justice projects around a larger city nearby, one of whom I've mentioned here.  This has all brought me back around to actually feeling connected to social justice, and for the first time feeling like I can really understand and do something about all of the problems I've been reading about for a very long time.

Of course, now I'm not sure what "my part" to do will be.  For now I'm just building connections in the city and asking those who are more experienced than I am what they do and what they know, and, yeah, for the first time feeling like I'm not just signing up to be a pawn in some "visionary's" (read how you will) "grand design".  It sounds like a jaded thing to say for a reason; it is, and it's unfortunate that it is.  My point is the feeling of contrast with the present, which instead feels promising to me.  I feel I owe that to many here.  Again, thank you all.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Sajainta on September 17, 2009, 11:21:18 pm
There is too much badass-ness on this thread.   :)

Thank you for fighting against it.  That sounds stupid, right?  No one in their right mind would say "Oh yeah, this is a great thing!  Keep it up!"  It'd be the same as me saying "thank you for wanting to find a cure for AIDS and cancer."

But people are unaware of trafficking, or willfully ignorant, or just plain apathetic.  So thank you for being aware, and for being serious in stopping it.  I can't stress that enough.

Fuck sexism indeed!

FaustWolf,

Yes, it was first-hand.  I'm fortunate in that it didn't last very long--it was less than a year.

I didn't really "get out"--the trafficker let me go.  It was purely a mind fuck.  He had always said I was his "favourite", his "favourite object" and he was letting me go because he wasn't merciful enough to kill me.  He said he wanted me to be in incredible pain for the rest of my life, and killing me wouldn't do anything but put an end to the suffering.  And the suffering gratified him far too much.  So he just let me go.  He was allowed to do so because he was the head of that cell and his words were law to anyone working underneath him.

And what goes through the mind of a victim? Is there just this zombie-like, catatonic state you have to go into to get through it? I can't imagine actually thinking about it while it's happening.

That's pretty much it.  "Zombie-like, catatonic state" is quite accurate.  You train yourself to "check out".  Focus on anything but what's actually going on.  After a while it becomes routine.

Unfortunately, traffickers (or at least, mine) aren't stupid and some of the clients aren't either.  They'll make you do or say things in order to make sure you're not shutting down, so that you fully "comprehend" what's happening and you have no way to block it out.  It's just another form of control for them--see to it that you're as traumatized as possible.

It's all a bunch of mind games, with the ultimate goal of creating a completely subservient, irrevocably destroyed human being.  Toward the end, I became so catatonic and robotic and passive that I stopped thinking of myself as a human being.  I couldn't differentiate my individual thoughts from my main trafficker's.  I honestly began to believe that I had no individual thoughts, because I knew that I was literally the property of someone.  You can only be abused and tortured and traded off and told "You're an object", "You're a thing", "Objects don't cry / scream / speak, etc."--and told to repeat those things--so many times before you start to "accept" those things as being true and being what you deserve.  And it's sick and it's sad, but permanently shutting down sounded wonderful.  The gift of intelligence, thought, reason, and comprehension is a terrible, terrible thing if you're a slave.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on September 17, 2009, 11:32:36 pm
The gift of intelligence, thought, reason, and comprehension is a terrible, terrible thing if you're a slave.

Aye.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Uboa on September 18, 2009, 12:24:12 am
Thank you for fighting against it.  That sounds stupid, right?  No one in their right mind would say "Oh yeah, this is a great thing!  Keep it up!"  It'd be the same as me saying "thank you for wanting to find a cure for AIDS and cancer."

But people are unaware of trafficking, or willfully ignorant, or just plain apathetic.  So thank you for being aware, and for being serious in stopping it.  I can't stress that enough.

Fuck sexism indeed!

One thing I've found out over the past couple years is that real headway is being made into the most confounding problems facing our world.  It just isn't always apparent unless you do some digging.  Unfortunately those who do make real headway also have a hard time getting their voices out over the noise that's often purposefully meant as distraction.  That's why it's important to be able to cut through the noise and be able to talk in a frank and forward-thinking environment.  This is my first experience of an on-line setting where I've actually been able to witness and take part in such a phenomenon.  Actually, I take that back, this is my second.  My first was a forum in which participants were actually able to have open dialogue with doctors and researchers making headway into cancer cures.  My first "real-world" experiences of frank and forward-thinking discussion have been in the city near where I live.

God, reading the rest of your post I feel like I'm trying to comprehend an account of a nightmare (a dream) which deeply disturbed someone but which I can only minutely understand.  But, unlike a dream, this was something real, is something real, and being closer to that reality is a weight, a sink, something that changes my world view for the worse.  At the same time, knowing what I know now, I'm relieved that you are here.  I'm relieved that you are able to be frank, that you held onto your intelligence, and your spirit.  I'm relieved by your strength, and I'm relieved that there will be some good that comes out of this, even though I am tempted, wrongly, to diminish it in the face of this ugly reality.  It shouldn't be diminished, because its importance is apparent in the fact that minds, and likely lives, are changing right now.

It is safe for you to talk about this, correct?  I am really curious to know whether anything has been done in terms of investigating or breaking up this ring...
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on September 18, 2009, 12:35:17 am
Damn. All I can say is that I'm sorry you had to live through that and I don't know how you have the strength to try to live normally after it >_<. I'm with Uboa. It sounds like a complete nightmare, but it was real. I hope the experience hasn't left you with too much psychological trauma. Did you get any help after the experience happened and your parents found out about it?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on September 18, 2009, 12:39:19 am
Thank you for sharing your story and your perspective, Sajainta. Even though you said you were fine with it, I wasn't sure whether it's painful on your end to share this, so I actually felt kind of guilty about asking -- I hope that doesn't actually keep anyone from asking questions, should they ever come across someone who's been through something like this. It's important to know what's actually going on in the world, and while documentaries are good, there's no substitute for getting a first-hand account.

What's impressive is not only your ability to survive an experience like that, but the fact that you're so humble about it. I mean, I wasn't putting two and two together when you introduced the subject of slavery even though you basically prefaced it with what you'd written earlier. It's really inspiring how you're able to pick up the pieces and rebuild a more normal life after that nightmare.

EDIT: Oh, do you have any advice for spotting the kind of, uh, "slave houses" and other staging grounds enslaved people are kept in in the US? I'm sure everyone who lives near an impoverished city is cognizant of those broken down "message parlors" you see from time to time. Also, is there any way to spot a woman who's going through this in public? The articles indicated that they'll make quick runs to low-end convenience stores; while they seemed to be trained to fear asking for help, I wonder if there's any solid telltale clues. Or something.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on September 18, 2009, 12:45:51 am
I debated making this post, since inviting self-criticism always carries risks.

When I posted that springtime of youth explosion up there, it was more to comfort and cheer up myself than anyone else. Besides my growing progressivism and humanism, one of the reasons I'm motivated to immediate action against sexism is empathy with its "victims" (if that word isn't too denigrating). I learned last year that one of my friends was raped when she was 19 years old, and it was the kind of thing that I couldn't get out of my mind. For months after, it would lead to incredibly unpleasant thoughts and painful empathy; I'd sometimes cry about it, and it would come up especially if any TV shows or movies I was watching brought up or suggestively depicted rape. At some point, I felt, "fuck this; I don't have to sit here and suffer."

But this is an example of deriving motivation and energy from negativity, and I do it a lot. More than imagining some happy utopia, cases of religious and sexist abuse are what shock and angrily propel me towards action. If I'm ever down, or apathetic, all it takes is simply a visit to the atheism subreddit or reading/remembering sexist abuse to wake me back up. Broad strokes of emotion are what carry me closer to my own heavy strokes of action and activism. Still, this kind of negative motivation leads to a lot of wild passion and more negativity, and I notice it's bleeding out a lot. It's especially worse here, because I'm fucking sick of the Compendium not being updated, and I feel like my extremely meticulous and slow method of managing this interminable analysis update is investing so, so much work for so little gain. So not only am I bleeding out negativity towards sexist abuse, religion, and ignorance, but I'm also venting my own frustration with the Compendium, which I wish I could just "finish" and not have to consistently manage. The imperfections I'll have to accept also torture me, like the fact that we won't have Chrono Trigger DS location maps in the encyclopedia.

Bleeding negativity is not how this struggle is going to be won. While motivation from negativity can still be used for a lot of good, it's better kept burning internally, with one's ideals. The class I'm in about the current state of feminism across the world and getting a sense of what can be done has even spent the first three weeks stressing, stressing, and stressing again how important it is to be empathetically persuasive when trying to effect change. It's made so much sense, even if it's antithetical to my internal monologue, which is more like "here are the facts; you're either an idiot or you're not." What reminded me that I still have my own problem to work on was the topic of female circumcision in the last class, commonly called genital mutilation. And to me, it is mutilation, just like male circumcision. It's barbaric, cultural, religious ignorance and stupidity that needs to be fucking crucified. And my attitude towards it is one of "take no prisoners" imperiousness; of "I don't care if we disrupt your fucking culture; it ends now." But with a struggle like this, that's not the attitude that will most effectively create change among the people who are doing it. If you approach them with that attitude, they'll shut down and tune you out; no dialogue will take place. And so, even if it's mutilation in our hearts, and even if we hate it, it is more expedient for our goal of change to "respect" the cultural and traditional background around it in order to persuasively destroy it.

Perhaps even more than my desire to see religion abolished, I feel that dismantling sexism and male privilege will be the main social justice effort in my life. Atheism is already getting up to serious speed in the United States; the increased furor of the religious is only demonstrating that they're feeling threatened by new gains. Many atheists that I've seen on the Internet like to use the term, "the last under-represented minority" to describe themselves, since irreligion is political poison in the US. Well they're wrong; the last great under-represented minority in this world are females. And if I'm ever going to maximize my impact in illuminating humanity by eliminating injustice and inequality among the sexes, I need to be as effective as possible.

So I invite criticism and suggestions for my own argumentation. Let me know what works, and what doesn't, and what should be eliminated completely. I have a few things I know I should work on, but you guys are the most "intimately" exposed to my passions for this kind of thing, and are probably best equipped to provide criticism. I encourage any help. Because...

(http://chronofan.com/Zeality/05.png)

Determination. We'll break the curse. We'll end sexism in this world. A real dream never dies.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on September 18, 2009, 12:58:20 am
Nah, self criticism can only endear people to you in the end. So few are willing to do it, so it's refreshing.  :)
(http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/3228/gallypanel.jpg)

(What kind of geeks are we that we're able to find a manga page to go with every situation? Hahaha.)


What are the exact mechanisms for making our society better? I've troped on pop cultural images quite a bit already, but what else is there? What's everyone's perspective on combating sexism as a practical matter?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on September 18, 2009, 01:03:03 am
Instead of trying to abolish religion, get the religion behind the cause. If Christianity as a whole started deprecating sexist practices, you'd see an end to it in as little as 50 years.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Sajainta on September 18, 2009, 01:11:23 am
Instead of trying to abolish religion, get the religion behind the cause. If Christianity as a whole started deprecating sexist practices, you'd see an end to it in as little as 50 years.

The problem with that is that many people see Christianity as an inherently sexist religion..
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on September 18, 2009, 01:36:38 am
Instead of trying to abolish religion, get the religion behind the cause. If Christianity as a whole started deprecating sexist practices, you'd see an end to it in as little as 50 years.

There are many progressive Christians who, at least consciously, don't stand for sexism, and there are even conservative Christians who mean well in this area. Such people have been around for a long time. Yet sexism persists, and thrives, in large part because there continue to be innumerable sexist Christians, and the religion provides them with every excuse and authority they might require. I've met secular sexists, but sexism is so much more native, so much more comfortable a fit, so much more natural within a religious context. After all, these religions originally began as instruments of social control, and one of the major forms of social control turned out to be the subjugation of the female half of our species.

You can't wish that away. Christianity is damned on two fronts: The premise of an all-powerful deity who people use to justify their actions guarantees that Christianity will attract people who are looking to rationalize the very worst misbehavior. Their...wickedness, if I may borrow the word, washes outward and affects all the corners of Christianity, seeping into the customs and norms that are practiced universally within the godly community. Secondly, Christianity's history, doctrine, and organizational structure all serve to disenfranchise females. That cannot be ignored or excused; it's a part of the religion. This can be changed, and in some quarters it has been, but the religion's structure is still inherently a flawed structure. It can be modified, jury-rigged, patched up....as we have seen with many churches now welcoming divorcees, female heads of house, female careerists, female ministers and pastors...but the framework itself is bogus. If it were an airplane, it would never fly. There's a reason that more sexism comes out of the heavily religious parts of the country, that progress occurs first in the cities and other centers of culture where ideas can flow with less obstruction by the dominant religion. I am sorry Truth, but the way ahead does not lie inside Christianity, nor any of the Abrahamic religions, nor most religions in general. If you really want to do the most good, you won't patronize these social institutions which have committed tremendous injustice for as long as they have existed. If you faith is more important to you than anything else, then so be it, and I hope we can eventually look forward to your assistance in the cause of sexual equality, but to suggest that religion would be the ultimate engine of progress against sexism, when the reality is so strikingly the opposite, is ignorant.

It's not even that religion always actively schemes to perpetuate these injustices. A great deal of sexism is unwitting; if you confront such people, they will reject any claims that their behaviors or attitudes are sexist, and they will genuinely mean it. But they will be mistaken. Worse: Subtle sexism is not benign or insignificant. It may not be as glaring as "Women belong in the home!" but it still ruins or upsets people's lives and livelihoods. It's everywhere, from television to that book you read in church every Sunday. What I'm trying to say is that Christianity, like nearly all religions, is built up (in part) on sexism, and that aspect of it simply cannot be erased, and reforms can only go so far before the religion itself starts to dissolve and there is either a religious backlash (see: America in the 1970s) or else people go secular (see: Western Europe in the late 20th century). It's a part of the structure, a part of the "soul" if you will of Christianity, to promote sexism. A whole lot of the structural aspects of the religion--a whole lot--would have to be radically altered for this simple truth to change. Much of how our society regards females and males, both as groups without context, and in the context of their relationship to one another, is Christian in design. The idea that a female breast is less appropriate to show on television than a hundred bloody murders...that's a Christian sentiment. And it's just one of tens of thousands.

As a Christian, I suppose you will say that you want to reform your religion rather than abandon it, but, not being a Christian myself, I suffer from no such loyalties or obligations. Christianity is so objectively bad that it would be far easier to simply persuade people out of the religion. Christian activists have always played a role in the advancement of social justice--especially back in the times when it was an extreme taboo not to be a Christian. But it's no coincidence that, despite being outnumbered ten to one in the general population, the people at the heart of these causes are overwhelmingly secular.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on September 18, 2009, 02:01:05 am
Sexism began far before the Bible and New Testament were recorded; far before Zoroaster even hopped onto the scene. Although I hardly have any data to back this supposition up, I imagine it's possible that sexism predates human understanding of a God, Goddess, gods, or a nebulous Great Spirit; the fact that men have employed religious institutions as practical instruments for codifying sexism tells me that if you did away with religion in the complete absence of addressing other problems that somehow crop up in the male psyche, some other abusive institution would just arise to take its place.

This is not meant to be a defense of religion as much as it is a plea to examine other issues that may also be concurrently at play, yet overlooked if we say sexism will be abolished concurrently with religion and then wash our hands of it. Men who run sex slave rings and become serial rapists can't even claim to have internalized Christian norms -- Jesus did not go around ramming his pickle into unwilling women of the day anywhere in the New Testament, and I suspect he isn't reported as doing so in the Book of Mormon.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on September 18, 2009, 02:11:03 am
...the fact that men have employed religious institutions as practical instruments for codifying sexism tells me that if you did away with religion in the complete absence of addressing other problems that somehow crop up in the male psyche, some other abusive institution would just arise to take its place.

Definitely. Religion is far from the only sexist social institution, and sexism itself originated in our animal past, long before the first social institution was ever conceived.

Nevertheless, any comparison between the civilization today with that of early humanity must necessarily be limited due to the extensive differences in today's lifestyles, technologies, interconnectedness, and education, versus those of the past. With regard to religion in particular, it rarely happens to be that a major social institution comes along that: A) is one of the principal sexist institutions in society; and B) can be almost entirely done away without completely retooling the way the rest of society works. ZeaLitY, for all his acerbic comments against religion, is basically on the right track: We can do a lot of good simply by relieving people of their religious mindset, and those very people, once they begin to see the world in more objective terms, can themselves become much more powerful forces for change, as they will no longer be held back by religious considerations. At the same time, as we're taking people out of the religion, we reduce the influence of the religion itself. It's a good place to focus our energies, albeit far from the only place worth focusing on.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Zephira on September 18, 2009, 02:21:21 am
Just remember, while your arguments may hold water, they aren't necessarily the most effective way of accomplishing your goals, and they can be quite painful to both parties involved. The easiest way to get anything done is to respect your 'enemy'. If you enter an argument by immediately stating such strong opinions, those you are trying to convince will cover their ears and look away. You don't get anywhere by offending everyone, you must take into account someone's religious or ethnic sensibilities and ease them into your views slowly. As you coddle them with smaller issues and kind word, eventually they'll soften to your point of view, and you can chip away further.
When trying to change anyone's perspective, you have to be diplomatic. Your way might have worked on a couple of people, here on your own forum, but elsewhere you must be diplomatic. Tolerate that which you want destroyed, until you have the sway to do it. Work with people, not against them.

At least, that is my approach to arguments or engagements of any kind. I generally try to avoid confrontation, so I'm not that versed in it.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on September 18, 2009, 02:28:18 am
For those of you who are interested in taking your passion to productive places, Bill Clinton gave an interview on The Daily Show tonight, wherein he touched on the centrality (to world progress) of his foundation's work toward empowering females of all ages:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-september-17-2009/exclusive---bill-clinton-extended-interview-pt--1
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-september-17-2009/exclusive---bill-clinton-extended-interview-pt--2

There are organizations out there which specialize in this very thing...too many to list! If you're serious about fighting sexism, this is an excellent place to start: All you need is drive, and these organizations can provide you with an outlet. I'm partial to Planned Parenthood, because they provide extensive low-cost, high-quality healthcare to women who need it, which is so important because feeling sick or in pain is one of the most overwhelming of all obstacles to progress and self-betterment. I also admire their resolve despite taking a considerable amount of heat from the conservatives due to the fact that they provide abortion care.

But, literally, there is a female rights organization for just about every aspect of life you can think of, both at home and abroad, from major organizations like the Peace Corps which are large enough to be able to focus on female rights among many other initiatives, to much smaller organizations like Women Helping Women that focus exclusively on female rights.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on September 18, 2009, 02:55:16 am
I think Zephira's precisely right. An important question in social progress is, how does one get the most bang for one's buck?

For what it's worth, I think it's good to dissect specific institutional and doctrinal practices that produce clearly observable social harm, and perhaps an easier pill to swallow for the religious or self-proclaimed religious you're attempting to sway. Tell a Catholic to look inward on his or her institution and observe how the church is practically killing people in Latin America and Africa by proscribing condoms; this should give many a Westerner pause, and the revulsion is turned toward the church itself. Tell a Catholic that he or she won't be resurrected like Jesus, and the revulsion could be directed at the bearer of the message, muddling the goal of reforming sexist behaviors.

Still using the lack of condom use in Latin American Catholic communities as an example, the problem must be attacked from another angle as well: men are motivated to use Catholic doctrine as an excuse not to wear condoms, because men have this psychological thing about feeling vaginal sex completely, without plastic getting in the way. With modern condoms it could be a complete misconception, but given that, what is the origin of this thing? Why don't these men take into consideration the chance of contracting AIDS outside a monogamous relationship and then spreading it to their wives and future sex partners?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on September 18, 2009, 03:04:11 am
Just remember, while your arguments may hold water, they aren't necessarily the most effective way of accomplishing your goals, and they can be quite painful to both parties involved. The easiest way to get anything done is to respect your 'enemy'. If you enter an argument by immediately stating such strong opinions, those you are trying to convince will cover their ears and look away. You don't get anywhere by offending everyone, you must take into account someone's religious or ethnic sensibilities and ease them into your views slowly. As you coddle them with smaller issues and kind word, eventually they'll soften to your point of view, and you can chip away further.
When trying to change anyone's perspective, you have to be diplomatic. Your way might have worked on a couple of people, here on your own forum, but elsewhere you must be diplomatic. Tolerate that which you want destroyed, until you have the sway to do it. Work with people, not against them.

At least, that is my approach to arguments or engagements of any kind. I generally try to avoid confrontation, so I'm not that versed in it.

QTF. I find it a little concerning how stressed out you apparently can get because you find it so difficult to achieve your goals. Sometimes it can take decades upon decades to succeed in large-scale social improvement such as sexism, and racism. I don't agree with your view on abolishing religion, but I find something like that not succeeding in your lifetime, if at all, so really the most you can do is to be as diplomatic as possible and try to educate people on how to wrong the rights in the world. I don't always appreciate how aggressive you can be in promoting your agenda. I guess in part of it was due to my anthropology education, which taught us to view cultural beliefs in as non-biased a mindset as possible (though I sometimes found this very difficult) and always view other cultures thorough the idea of "cultural relativism" rather than ethnocentrism. Though I guess it is passionate people like you who make it on the news...

I am very familiar with female genital mutilation as this was one of my professor's special focus of study when I was doing anthro (and she was one of the best profs in the program). It is a sick practice and so many young girls die from it, and those who do survive remain affected for basically the rest of their lives. The worst kind of female genital mutilation is called infibulation, where the clitoris is hacked off as well as some parts of the labia, I believe, and then the labia is sewn shut. This is very difficult to live with and if the girls remain in the community, it can be difficult to reverse. Many girls even live with it in the US and some organizations try to help girls reverse the procedure while helping to keep it secret from parents and community members.

Quote
And my attitude towards it is one of "take no prisoners" imperiousness; of "I don't care if we disrupt your fucking culture; it ends now." But with a struggle like this, that's not the attitude that will most effectively create change among the people who are doing it. If you approach them with that attitude, they'll shut down and tune you out; no dialogue will take place

Well at least you recognize this is the wrong attitude. This practice is primarily in Africa and I believe some Middle Eastern cultures. They generally don't care for westerns going to tell them their way is wrong. While I appreciate Alice Walker's (Color Purple author) stance on exposing FGM, I don't always think her approach is right. She actively goes to the women performing the procedure and tells them how evil it is. I don't think this is effective.

In other, more successful, scenarios there is a team of "educators" who communicate with villages and educate them as best as they can about the harmful effects of FGM, and there has been success. The village men are involved with the discussion, and the young girls are very vocal about how their friends have died from the procedures and why it must stop. In a documentary I watched, a village was able to change their practice and instead of the clitorectomy meaning their coming of age, they had some kind of new ceremony with bracelets instead.

So yeah, I view education and slow improvement with more regard than a "take no prisoners" attitude.

Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on September 18, 2009, 03:19:42 am
Zaichik: I think you're mixing up Zephira with ZeaLitY. Admittedly, this happens often given their uncanny physical similarities:

(http://photos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs082.snc1/5010_509070018844_140300719_30396272_4387110_n.jpg)(http://photos-h.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs020.snc1/2642_1126140755621_1290236945_30343103_4392273_n.jpg)

The trick to telling them apart is to remember that, while ZeaLitY is tall, Zephira is about as big as a European cathedral. ^_^
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on September 18, 2009, 03:20:34 am
Aw, nuts. Those are supposed to be side by side. *shakes fist at shoddy forum software*
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Zephira on September 18, 2009, 03:22:01 am
Also, I'm a gay robot. I doubt Z can boast that!
They show up side by side on my screen, but I'm using a seventeen inch (about the size of a small church).
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Radical_Dreamer on September 18, 2009, 03:42:25 am
There's one comment I'll make to you, Z, and that is this: Most people don't think they are wrong, or wicked. Very few people are of the mustache twirling, Dick Cheney type. They believe that what they are doing is good, and that is why they do it. Josh touched on this; people won't think that their behavior is sexist, or they will think that the world is somehow a better place for sexism. This is ignorance, and while the results of ignorance are almost evil, very rarely is the intention of the ignorant individual to do evil. Berating someone for their wickedness isn't going to be terribly productive if they sincerely don't believe they are wicked. I think you already know this, but sometimes it helps to be reminded of it. I know I need to remind myself of this from time to time.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on September 18, 2009, 03:45:55 am
Berating someone for their wickedness isn't going to be terribly productive if they sincerely don't believe they are wicked. I think you already know this, but sometimes it helps to be reminded of it. I know I need to remind myself of this from time to time.

You? You're like the Great Bearded Fluffy Kindness Guy. When have you ever berated the wicked? Do you have a sordid past we should know about? Did you kill a man? Are you Osama bin Laden?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on September 18, 2009, 03:46:18 am
No, I wasn't confusing anyone. Actually, I was agreeing with Zephira's post which I thought was a response to Zeality.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on September 18, 2009, 03:47:15 am
My mistake. But at least I got an opportunity to trot out that ridiculous picture of ZeaLitY. I love that picture.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Uboa on September 18, 2009, 03:47:43 am
I am very familiar with female genital mutilation as this was one of my professor's special focus of study when I was doing anthro (and she was one of the best profs in the program). It is a sick practice and so many young girls die from it, and those who do survive remain affected for basically the rest of their lives. The worst kind of female genital mutilation is called infibulation, where the clitoris is hacked off as well as some parts of the labia, I believe, and then the labia is sewn shut.

Another terrible thing about infibulation is the fact that the wound must be re-cut and subsequently sewn every time a woman who has had the "procedure" gives birth.  Otherwise the skin can't stretch enough, and this can obstruct the baby and put the mother's life in jeopardy.  
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Zephira on September 18, 2009, 03:49:32 am
It was a response to his invitation, but it's directed more towards everyone. Z is not the only one brash in his words. diplomacy and patience are tools that everyone forgets, at one point or another.

I'm curious, what does QTF stand for? Urbandictionary says it's "quoted for truth", but that's a bit out of order...
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on September 18, 2009, 03:57:06 am
Yes, "quoted for truth" is correct.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Radical_Dreamer on September 18, 2009, 04:16:51 am
You? You're like the Great Bearded Fluffy Kindness Guy. When have you ever berated the wicked? Do you have a sordid past we should know about? Did you kill a man? Are you Osama bin Laden?

It's not something I enjoy doing, but when people are rude or disrespectful to people I care about, I have no qualms about humiliating them for their disgracefulness. I much prefer, however, to be fluffy and kind. It means my friends are being treated well.

To offer an analogy (tangentially related to a comment I made in the libertarianism thread) I'm glad that there are police officers, but I'd be happier still if there were no need for them.

And bin Laden's malnourished facial droopings can not match the justice of my beard. Huh. No bearded icons, huh? Very well then, such is the price of beardlessness: http://www.drmcninja.com/page.php?pageNum=21&issue=1
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on September 18, 2009, 11:48:26 am
Very few people are of the mustache twirling, Dick Cheney type.

And yet, oddly enough, O' Dicky supports same-sex marriage. Even the mustache twirling, Dick Cheney types aren't totally without a shred of humanity.

The problem with that is that many people see Christianity as an inherently sexist religion..

Not the Romans, though. One of the main complaints about Christianity back in the day (the first few centuries C.E.) was that they treated women and slaves like equals. This did, admittedly, change over time, particularly as Christianity began to be turned into an ossified religious structure.

But as much as I would like to, I won’t go into a long defense of religion (and trust me, I can be very long; Lord J can attest to this). There is a little known, 8th deadly sin: the sin of sidetracking a very important topic with a non-sequiter discussion on religion as a whole.

Let me propose that in this case, religion is a red herring. If Josh is right and religion is naught but bunk, then all the sins of religion are the sins of humanity, all the faults of religion are the faults of humanity. Addressing sexism in religion, under such an assumption, just addresses as single symptom of the sexism that is part of humanity itself; it ignores the underlying cause(s). Faust asked the question of what motivates men to support the sex-slavery industry. The answer to that question does not lie within religion.

One of the really disturbing things about that article that you linked to, Sajainta, is how under-the-radar the sex-trafficking industry is (certainly not the only really disturbing thing; that article had a lot). It is quite possible that I've seen a young girl being transported to another hellful experience on the New Jersey Turnpike, or that a "father" I passed at Disneyland is really going to commit a crime against humanity.

Then there are the stories about sexual abuse in general, like the father in Australia who sired four children with his daughter (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090917/wl_asia_afp/australiaincestcrime). Even if the sex-trade industry evaporates overnight, people like this would remain.

I would like to bring your attention to the neighbor of the man:

Quote
One neighbour told the paper that she had suspicions about the man for at least four years but took no action because she did not want to interfere.

"I didn't go to anybody because it wasn't anybody's business," she said, accusing the woman who encouraged the victim to report the crime of being a "busybody".

Until humanity can figure out what is causing individuals to engage in sexually abusive activities, this highlights a good way we can all help the situation: Get to know your neighbors.

America has largely turned into an isolated society. How many of us can say we know our neighbors well? What about the other people on your street? The clerk at the grocery store? Etc. A house on your street might really be infested with the scum of humanity, but how would you know? Our isolation allows activities like this to continue. Ignorance doesn't wash us of blame, it only makes our fault worse.

Now I'm not saying we should all turn into sex-spies; rather, just take an interest in your fellow humans, those that are right outside your door. And, of course, if something’s f'ed up, take action. But if every person who didn't engage in the sex-trade made an effort to get to know their neighbors, that would make America a much harder place to conduct "business" of this sort.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on September 18, 2009, 01:54:35 pm
Quote

America has largely turned into an isolated society. How many of us can say we know our neighbors well? What about the other people on your street? The clerk at the grocery store? Etc. A house on your street might really be infested with the scum of humanity, but how would you know? Our isolation allows activities like this to continue. Ignorance doesn't wash us of blame, it only makes our fault worse.

I kind of disagree with this.  In terms of world affairs, I think America is the least isolated country out there and I think this is wrong. I think America needs to be more isolated because I think that we have become the "World Police" since WWII and this sometimes really bothers me. I generally think America has no business going into other countries and fighting off evil..

As for friendliness with our neighbors, I think Americans are some of the friendliest people in the world. It varies by area, but Southerners are known for their hospitality(some people I know who live in the south disagree about the premises of 'Southern Hospitality' but that's another story), and West Coasters are just really friendly in general. Actually, I think Americans are friendly in general except in certain parts of the East Coast. Like, Americans like to go out of their way and say hi to people they don't know. When I walk my dog, or walk in the neighborhood, a neighbor passes and a lot of the time, even if I don't know them, they say hi. This is very uncommon in many parts of the world.

I think that generally you know if you live in a bad neighborhood or not. You know by the number of police there. I always know where the town ghettos are in the places I've lived. I know to stay away from there because I have problems talking to strangers all the time, especially homeless ones. I also know about sex offenders in my due to the online registry.

Americans are considered to be stupid and ignorant from the standpoint of many European countries, but I get pretty pissed off about that because while there are a lot of stupid people, there are a lot of educated people as well. Just because it's hard and very, very expensive to get an education in America, doesn't mean less people get educated. Numbers keep going up and up. There are ignoramuses in all countries of the world. In this country, I think the most dangerous are the right wing nut jobs. Left Wing nut jobs are generally harmless IMO. Organizations like PETA and Greenpeace are examples of "left wing terrorist groups", so I don't exclude them, but I think that people like that "Boston Tea Party" are far more dangerous in this country. I like to think that Americans are educated about what goes on in other parts of the world, but I sometimes doubt this because we're huge pop culture whores and sometimes tend to ignore news of bloodshed abroad.

I guess that I don't always think it's worthwhile to take an investment in my fellow humans. In my own country, I support reform overall, but I don't really support American money spent on going abroad and trying to fix things up for the most part.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Zephira on September 18, 2009, 02:25:50 pm
When he said "America is isolated", it didn't mean from the rest of the world, it meant from other Americans. The only times I talk to my neighbours are when I return that dog who keeps getting out, or when the family with the kids come back from a walk and I pet their cat, and even then it's only for about five seconds. I know nothing about their jobs or their relations or families, and they don't bother to get to know us or eachother. I know more about Z than I know about the family I live right next to.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on September 18, 2009, 02:30:31 pm
We'd be able to talk to our neighbors just fine if they'd get online, hahaha! I've heard stories about husbands and wives who communicate solely through their blogs, even though they live in the same house.

Americans now interact with one another through binary code, essentially.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on September 18, 2009, 02:37:14 pm
I don't necessarily think there is anything wrong from being isolated from your neighbors. With my neighbors from my apt, I don't really talk to any of them, and they don't talk to me or my dad. The important thing is to be aware if something bad is happening in your neighbors house, but that is what the police is for. Like that girl who got abducted, Jaycee, it was tragic, but no one really thought anything was wrong until many years later. I think peoples' snoopy natures enable them to call the police if they think something fishy is going on. That's what I like to think, anyway.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on September 18, 2009, 02:40:44 pm
Being a Southerner, I feel I need to point out that the Southern Hospitality exists mainly in small communities. For instance, in my hometown, a suburb of Charleston, SC's biggest city, if you move into a neighborhood you'll get a few neighbors stopping by and offering to help you move in, throw a casserole at you, etc. It's not hard to make friends with your neighbors unless you're a complete douchebag. Apartment complexes are a bit different though.

Charleston itself, though...well, you might get some good neighbors if you're a South-of-Broad(SOB, mainly very well-to-do families) but I wouldn't hold my breath for the other parts.

I let my southern pride carry me off a bit too far, so let me get back to the matter at hand.

Religion is an extremely powerful driving force in our culture. Think of how much Christian groups have helped Africans with AIDS over the past decade when a religious leader like George Bush started shedding light on the problem. While there were dipspits using the Bible to justify Katrina, there were religious people lining up to help rebuild N'ahlens. I know I'm centering on American sexism here, but that's mainly because as an American Exceptionalist, I believe we should be the ones leading the crusade here. Feminism needs a powerful social force behind it, and the religious community is such a thing.

Maybe its just me, since I come from a church that emphasizes community service, but I think that a lot more can be done this way. I, myself, plan on suggesting a feminist cause for our Winter work; probably building a women's shelter, as that's the only idea I can come up with.

Zaichi, I believe that we should keep to ourselves most of the time anyway. But if you start smelling or seeing or hearing signs of abuse or something along that line, snitch. Speaking from personal experience, its fine to snitch on drug users or people building meth labs, as drugs have a tendency to bring in violence, and meth labs have a tendency to blow up.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Mr Bekkler on September 18, 2009, 02:44:21 pm
Very few people are of the mustache twirling, Dick Cheney type.

And yet, oddly enough, O' Dicky supports same-sex marriage. Even the mustache twirling, Dick Cheney types aren't totally without a shred of humanity.


Remember, though, that was a recent decision, after he got out of office. His daughter (who happens to be a homosexual) convinced him, post-second-term.

Back when he had "power", however, he was demonstrably more corrupt.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on September 18, 2009, 03:24:37 pm
Quote
Maybe its just me, since I come from a church that emphasizes community service, but I think that a lot more can be done this way. I, myself, plan on suggesting a feminist cause for our Winter work; probably building a women's shelter, as that's the only idea I can come up with.
Regardless of any arguments that spring up about religion from your post Truth, 'effing go for it.

Ultimately in our great campaign against sexism, we need to examine what worked for each of us and build that into our methodology. At a women's shelter, young men will come into contact with some of sexism's very worst manifestations, and that will plant a seed of reason in them if they have any heart at all. If you feel that a religion-oriented activity can carry the message of anti-sexism effectively to a certain audience, then all the more power to you.

Do your best to make sure that the shelter is truly about service to anyone of any creed who seeks help, without heavy proselytizing overtones. Proselytism in these environments may make the victims who seek shelter feel that strings are attached, and therefore they may avoid the help, which is obviously counterproductive.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Sajainta on September 18, 2009, 03:47:36 pm
As for friendliness with our neighbors, I think Americans are some of the friendliest people in the world. It varies by area, but Southerners are known for their hospitality(some people I know who live in the south disagree about the premises of 'Southern Hospitality' but that's another story), and West Coasters are just really friendly in general. Actually, I think Americans are friendly in general except in certain parts of the East Coast. Like, Americans like to go out of their way and say hi to people they don't know. When I walk my dog, or walk in the neighborhood, a neighbor passes and a lot of the time, even if I don't know them, they say hi. This is very uncommon in many parts of the world.

I would have to disagree.  I spent my entire life overseas, and unfortunately the term "ugly American" exists for a reason.  Just think about American tourists...  "This makes no sense, why don't they do it the American way??"  I try to shy away from generalizations and stereotypes, but out of 10 American tourists I have ever met, about 9 of them are rude and condescending toward the country they are visiting.  Just the fact that we DO "stick our noses into other people's business" gives off the impression that of an American tourist--the way WE do it is RIGHT and is the ONLY right way.

For all of the faults of the country I grew up in, it has some of the most generous, friendliest people in the world.  These are people who will serve you food that they have spent weeks saving up for, and give you about the same portion in one meal that they probably eat in a week.  In many (I'd probably argue, most) parts of the world, saying "hi" to people in your neighbourhood is more than commonplace.  At least, it is what I have noticed living in Europe and Asia.  I'm really happy that you live in such a friendly neighbourhood, but from what I know and have experienced neighbourhood friendliness in the United States does not happen all that often.  And if it does, it certainly does not happen to the same degree as in the other countries I lived in.

I'm not trying to sound anti-American.  Every country I have lived in has its faults and its strengths, and America is no different.  And of course there are humble, generous, friendly Americans.  But having lived overseas and experiencing three cultures (as well as traveling to many other countries), I would argue that Americans are definitely not the most friendly people in the world.  Not by a long shot.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Zephira on September 18, 2009, 04:04:41 pm
Probably not the most reliable way to learn, but try watching the Travel or Discovery channel every so often. Shows like No Reservations or Bizarre World, while mostly staged, do try to highlight culture. Sometimes watching that and seeing how much friendlier and livelier other cultures are, I wish I lived elsewhere, then I remember the padded and pampered lifestyle here and prefer to stay. I might know jack squat about my neighbours, but at least it's a comfortable enough lifestyle that I can spend more time learning or painting.

One of the more interesting bits of culture, I think from somewhere in the middle east, is the way fast food joints are run. The tables and booths at Wendy's are all private, with a swinging door sort of like a public restroom stall. The tables are also separated into two groups; single men eat on one side, and families on the other.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on September 18, 2009, 04:07:39 pm
But Zephira...where do the single women eat at these Middle Eastern Wendy's'ez? Are they even allowed in? Are there any "Girls Night Out"'s at least?

I'll say this: a shawl would be mighty handy while eating a Frosty. Brrrr.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Radical_Dreamer on September 18, 2009, 04:12:07 pm
Religion is an extremely powerful driving force in our culture. Think of how much Christian groups have helped Africans with AIDS over the past decade when a religious leader like George Bush started shedding light on the problem.

The Pope is deliberately spreading misinformation in Africa that if followed will lead to an increase in the spread of HIV, assuming it hasn't already. And Bush is no saint either; his plan pushes abstinence-only education, which has been shown to not decrease sexual activity, but simply decrease the use of birth control, including condoms. Bush's Christian faith led him to undermine the good he was doing by delivering antiretrovirals to Africa.

I live in an apartment community. Lots of small buildings. I don't know the other people in my building, and of the people living in the complex, I really only talk to one person, and it's when I happen to see her. She's very nice though. Perhaps if I wind up buying a house at some point, I'll make the effort to get to know my neighbors, but apartment life strikes me as so fleeting. Who knows how long they will be here for? Or my roommate and I, for that matter?

When I was in Paris, I had an interesting experience that I can't imagine happening at most places in America. The friend I was staying with and I went to a restaurant, a middle class seeming affair, and were seated at a four person table along with another party of two. Now, at that point, I didn't talk to the other gentlemen but I imagine that if I'd spent more time at such restaurants (and spoke French better) that could have led to some very interesting encounters. My friend told me that this was pretty common in France. I can't imagine that sort of thing ever becoming common in America.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on September 18, 2009, 04:13:19 pm
As for friendliness with our neighbors, I think Americans are some of the friendliest people in the world. It varies by area, but Southerners are known for their hospitality(some people I know who live in the south disagree about the premises of 'Southern Hospitality' but that's another story), and West Coasters are just really friendly in general. Actually, I think Americans are friendly in general except in certain parts of the East Coast. Like, Americans like to go out of their way and say hi to people they don't know. When I walk my dog, or walk in the neighborhood, a neighbor passes and a lot of the time, even if I don't know them, they say hi. This is very uncommon in many parts of the world.

I would have to disagree.  I spent my entire life overseas, and unfortunately the term "ugly American" exists for a reason.  Just think about American tourists...  "This makes no sense, why don't they do it the American way??"  I try to shy away from generalizations and stereotypes, but out of 10 American tourists I have ever met, about 9 of them are rude and condescending toward the country they are visiting.  Just the fact that we DO "stick our noses into other people's business" gives off the impression that of an American tourist--the way WE do it is RIGHT and is the ONLY right way.

For all of the faults of the country I grew up in, it has some of the most generous, friendliest people in the world.  These are people who will serve you food that they have spent weeks saving up for, and give you about the same portion in one meal that they probably eat in a week.  In many (I'd probably argue, most) parts of the world, saying "hi" to people in your neighbourhood is more than commonplace.  At least, it is what I have noticed living in Europe and Asia.  I'm really happy that you live in such a friendly neighbourhood, but from what I know and have experienced neighbourhood friendliness in the United States does not happen all that often.  And if it does, it certainly does not happen to the same degree as in the other countries I lived in.

I'm not trying to sound anti-American.  Every country I have lived in has its faults and its strengths, and America is no different.  And of course there are humble, generous, friendly Americans.  But having lived overseas and experiencing three cultures (as well as traveling to many other countries), I would argue that Americans are definitely not the most friendly people in the world.  Not by a long shot.

Your experiences have been very different than mine. I do agree about the rude tourists, though. In anthro we call this "ethnocentrism", meaning that some Americans think that they are the best culture and can be rude and condescending to others. However, I have not met many American tourists like this. I think most tourists are alike when they travel. Annoying! I don't think it's necessarily an American trait. Maybe I've been an annoying tourist too, but it can be hard when you're in a foreign country and don't know the language.

In all the foreign countries I have visited, people rarely say hi to strangers and generally keep to themselves. I lived in Japan for a year and a half, and I stuck out like a sore thumb there due to my height and that I was a white female. People generally assumed I could speak no Japanese(most Japanese are like that with foreign-looking people) , but I'm kind of weird in that I like talking to strangers and if I saw that a stranger was interested in me, we would chat as best as I could manage. I was often asked 1. Where I was from 2. How tall I was. I had to quickly figure out how many centimeters I was because I was constantly asked this.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Zephira on September 18, 2009, 04:15:32 pm
But Zephira...where do the single women eat at these Middle Eastern Wendy's'ez? Are they even allowed in? Are there any "Girls Night Out"'s at least?

I'll say this: a shawl would be mighty handy while eating a Frosty. Brrrr.
I think they eat in the family section, but I don't quite remember. It was the episode where a fan won a contest and they went to Saudi Arabia.
There was also something about shops where women could buy high heel shoes and skimpy dresses, but they still had to wear them under those full-body suits, and they could only wear those clothes at home or at all-female parties.
I'd recommend watching it, as I suck at explaining things :lol:

In all the foreign countries I have visited, people rarely say hi to strangers and generally keep to themselves. I lived in Japan for a year and a half, and I stuck out like a sore thumb there due to my height and that I was a white female. People generally assumed I could speak no Japanese(most Japanese are like that with foreign-looking people) , but I'm kind of weird in that I like talking to strangers and if I saw that a stranger was interested in me, we would chat as best as I could manage. I was often asked 1. Where I was from 2. How tall I was. I had to quickly figure out how many centimeters I was because I was constantly asked this.

I have a story.
On PAX Saturday, I got off the bus too early. I don't really know my way around Seattle at all, so after a bit of walking I stopped and asked an older looking couple if they knew the way to Pike street. They pulled out a map and, after a bit of searching, found out they were walking in the wrong direction too. We both had to go the same way, so we started walking together. Turns out they were a couple from Britain, visiting on a cruise. They asked a lot of questions; about what I studied, when schools here start and end, what holidays were going on, and they gave answers to their own questions as well. They weren't in any way condescending, and didn't try to put their culture above mine, merely laughed at the similarities and differences, and imagined living it. When passed their hotel, they gave me their map and went in to get another.
I passed a lot of Japanese people visiting as well (I usually see a lot of them whenever I'm in Seattle). They were always taking a lot of pictures and were very excited, but they never acted rude from what I saw.
Really, not what I'd come to expect of tourists. Maybe Seattle's lucky and only attracts nice people.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Sajainta on September 18, 2009, 04:54:35 pm
It is safe for you to talk about this, correct?  I am really curious to know whether anything has been done in terms of investigating or breaking up this ring...

It is safe, as far as I am aware.  So long as I don't name names, places, and don't give out a lot of personal information about myself etc. I'm fine.  Plus, I doubt any of those men would be cool enough to play any of the Chrono games, so I don't think they could find me here.

About investigation / prosecution...  I'm not really at liberty to say at the moment.

I hope the experience hasn't left you with too much psychological trauma. Did you get any help after the experience happened and your parents found out about it?

I've been to a lot of therapy since then, because I'm lucky enough to have not only access to therapy and hospitals for the physical repercussions of what happened, but money to pay for it.  I'm still in therapy now.

The therapy has helped (some therapists more than others), and I'm able to live a pretty "normal" life.  That being said, everything has left its mark.  I have a severe form of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and I have to take anti-anxiety (almost sedative, really) pills to prevent me from having bad flashbacks.  I have depression and I've struggled a lot with suicidal thoughts / suicide, self-injury, and eating issues.  I was diagnosed with anorexia nervosa in early 2006 after I had a heart attack brought on by the eating disorder.  I have major trust issues, a complete lack of sexual appetite (which sucks for my boyfriend...but he's probably the most patient and kind-hearted person I've ever met), and very, very low self-esteem.  I still have problems thinking of myself as human or as undeserving of what happened.  I still feel very controlled by 'him'.  I still think and feel that a lot of what 'he' said about me or to me was right.

But taking everything into consideration, I could be dealing with a lot worse.  I won't lie--living is very difficult.  It is hard for me to keep pressing on.  To be absolutely blunt, I think about killing myself very often.  But I haven't attempted suicide in over a year and a half.  As of now, I have many things going for me and I feel happy and fortunate to be alive.

Thank you for sharing your story and your perspective, Sajainta. Even though you said you were fine with it, I wasn't sure whether it's painful on your end to share this, so I actually felt kind of guilty about asking -- I hope that doesn't actually keep anyone from asking questions, should they ever come across someone who's been through something like this. It's important to know what's actually going on in the world, and while documentaries are good, there's no substitute for getting a first-hand account.

It is painful to address things, but no more painful than keeping them inside my head.  In some way, it's better to talk about these things.  There's a saying that says "A pain shared is a pain halved" and there is some truth to that.  At the very least, it helps to get it out.  I don't verbally talk about what happened because I can't bring myself to, but I am fine writing about it.

The reason I share is because you're absolutely right--there is no substitute for a first-hand account.  People tend to think of these things happening "over there" or to "the other".  And even if they know that it happens in the U.S., it's just statistics.  But if someone can step in and say "Look, I went through that" it completely changes the way you think.  It gives a name, a face, a story to the otherwise cold, faceless statistics.  It moves many people to action.  So I share, if it's relevant.

EDIT: Oh, do you have any advice for spotting the kind of, uh, "slave houses" and other staging grounds enslaved people are kept in in the US? I'm sure everyone who lives near an impoverished city is cognizant of those broken down "message parlors" you see from time to time. Also, is there any way to spot a woman who's going through this in public? The articles indicated that they'll make quick runs to low-end convenience stores; while they seemed to be trained to fear asking for help, I wonder if there's any solid telltale clues. Or something.

Here is a really good article I found::  http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=106606349345 (http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=106606349345)

For individuals, a really big telltale sign is evidence of physical abuse.

Not the Romans, though. One of the main complaints about Christianity back in the day (the first few centuries C.E.) was that they treated women and slaves like equals. This did, admittedly, change over time, particularly as Christianity began to be turned into an ossified religious structure.

The Romans also thought that Christians were cannibals!  Oh, the Eucharist...  XD

One of the really disturbing things about that article that you linked to, Sajainta, is how under-the-radar the sex-trafficking industry is (certainly not the only really disturbing thing; that article had a lot). It is quite possible that I've seen a young girl being transported to another hellful experience on the New Jersey Turnpike, or that a "father" I passed at Disneyland is really going to commit a crime against humanity.

You probably have seen trafficking transactions.  I'd say most of us have been witness to trafficking, even if we had no idea.  It's so underground and so closely-knit and ridiculously well-organized.  And even if you do suspect someone is being trafficked, the fear of what the traffickers will do to them or their family is so overwhelming that they will deny everything.  Even when someone gets out, there is still so much fear involved that most of them never go to the police (if they didn't get rescued).  Not to mention the same, specifically if it was sexual slavery.  Many, many people (even in the courts of America) don't really see a difference between "prostitute" and "slave".  So most of it is very hush-hush.

But if every person who didn't engage in the sex-trade made an effort to get to know their neighbors, that would make America a much harder place to conduct "business" of this sort.

Evil does thrive when good people do nothing.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Uboa on September 18, 2009, 09:35:31 pm
But Zephira...where do the single women eat at these Middle Eastern Wendy's'ez? Are they even allowed in? Are there any "Girls Night Out"'s at least?

Reading Lolita in Tehran actually addresses this point specifically... I think.  I believe the point at hand was about going to fast food restaurants, and Nafisi's account indicates that single women are not tolerated there or at any restaurant.  They must be escorted by their husbands or other male family members.

I need to read the first third of that book again.  I forget all of the challenges of day-to-day living she addresses there.  They're quite numerous.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Uboa on September 18, 2009, 10:36:09 pm
As of now, I have many things going for me and I feel happy and fortunate to be alive.

Good!
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on September 19, 2009, 12:47:08 am
Quote from: Sajainta


I've been to a lot of therapy since then, because I'm lucky enough to have not only access to therapy and hospitals for the physical repercussions of what happened, but money to pay for it.  I'm still in therapy now.

The therapy has helped (some therapists more than others), and I'm able to live a pretty "normal" life.  That being said, everything has left its mark.  I have a severe form of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and I have to take anti-anxiety (almost sedative, really) pills to prevent me from having bad flashbacks.  I have depression and I've struggled a lot with suicidal thoughts / suicide, self-injury, and eating issues.  I was diagnosed with anorexia nervosa in early 2006 after I had a heart attack brought on by the eating disorder.  I have major trust issues, a complete lack of sexual appetite (which sucks for my boyfriend...but he's probably the most patient and kind-hearted person I've ever met), and very, very low self-esteem.  I still have problems thinking of myself as human or as undeserving of what happened.  I still feel very controlled by 'him'.  I still think and feel that a lot of what 'he' said about me or to me was right.

But taking everything into consideration, I could be dealing with a lot worse.  I won't lie--living is very difficult.  It is hard for me to keep pressing on.  To be absolutely blunt, I think about killing myself very often.  But I haven't attempted suicide in over a year and a half.  As of now, I have many things going for me and I feel happy and fortunate to be alive.



Jeez. It really is terrible what you experienced, but it is good that you got away from it all. How long were you involved with it? It's good that you're involved with a caring relationship. Despite how often I want to break up with my bf (it's issues due to a 5 year long distance relationship that seems to be headed into being long distance forever), he is a very nice person and he makes me want to feel better about myself too. The important thing is that you are overall happy with how things are going in your life and to try to be as positive as possible about your future : ).

I'm glad that you share your story too. I have a lot of problems sharing my problems with anyone. I am generally one of those people who hates whining to others about personal issues (none as serious as yours) and my bf always insists on pestering me about when I feel down about something. I do whine a lot, it seems, especially online, but it's usually something like "I'm so fat and I feel depressed about that!" or "My dad is being patronizing to me again D:!!" Yeah, I seem to be going off on some weird tangent again (which I also have trouble with). So anyway, thank you again for sharing your experience. It is something I can hardly even imagine. You are very strong for surviving it.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Temporal Knight on September 19, 2009, 12:52:13 am
That story...I almost cried. No joke. I am a man of tears.

*sobs*

Such heart-wrenching.....such.....

*salutes*

Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on September 19, 2009, 01:19:15 am
According to a Huffington Post columnist, women the world over are less happy nowadays than at the start of the Second Wave feminist movement in the US (note that Second Wave feminism probably still hasn't touched a good portion of the countries surveyed):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcus-buckingham/whats-happening-to-womens_b_289511.html

I find it suspect that the blog author is using this opportunity to plug his book, but just look at how sexism is twisting the report to reassert itself in the comments following the article.

Ladies, do you think he has a point, or is he completely off base? If times seem unhappier for women on average, why is this so?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on September 19, 2009, 02:47:10 am
^ That is a very interesting article. I kind of like how the author gives all the statistics and pretty much refrains from conjuring why women are less happy. The part about girls being happy when they're younger and less happy when they're older makes me sad because the last thing I want to do is to go back to suffering depression. It is not fun >_>;.

I have a theory as to why women are less happy as they're older. It's been said before, but I really think that having a family is very stressful for the woman. Even though there have been some changes, it is very difficult for a woman to establish a career and raise a family. My mom did both, and my mom is a workaholic, but she only had me. For the longest time, and still, establishing a career for myself is more important than raising a family. I think I may have mentioned this before, but my mom had me at my exact age right now, and I'm kind of sad because I don't think I'll have a kid for quite a while and I really, really don't want to wait till at least my mid 30s like a lot of women do in America : (. I've always wanted to be a younger parent like my mom honestly because I want to get child rearing out of the way so I can relax more later on in life rather than being in my 60s and still paying for my kid. I pretty much want to have a child as soon as I have a year or so of career-based work experience. Life doesn't always go according to plan, though!

Yeah anyway, so what I was saying, and what I believe the author of the "Feminine Mystique" was saying is that women become depressed because they are basically forced to chose their children over their careers(at least that was one thing she was saying). This has been improving, with many mothers being in the work place these days. However, if you look at the statistics of "pink collar" jobs to career women, there is still a major discrepancy. I get stressed out very easily about my work and I have no idea how I can manage raising a kid and working full time, but that is something that I will do in one way or another. I hear these statistics that kids end up developing better if the mother raises them, but I hope it won't be the same in my case. I don't think that I have psychological problems due to having a working mom. She had a very difficult childhood and she was the best mother she could be to me and I do appreciate everything she has done, and continues to do. She far exceeded her mom, from what I hear. Still, I sometimes wonder if I will turn out differently. Whether I will end up raising my kids for several years and not work, or whether I'll try to do a part time job.. I dunno.

 Ever since I entered uni, my one goal has been to make a career for myself in one way or another, and making a career for myself that I enjoy. My dad says that this is of utmost importance, and he has stressed this for me, despite disapproving of the pay that archivists make and not understanding what archivists, or librarians for that matter, really do.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on September 19, 2009, 03:01:31 am
According to a Huffington Post columnist, women the world over are less happy nowadays than at the start of the Second Wave feminist movement in the US (note that Second Wave feminism probably still hasn't touched a good portion of the countries surveyed):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcus-buckingham/whats-happening-to-womens_b_289511.html

One of the sobering things we're learning in that class is that for all the gains of feminism, there have been many more losses. Whether the losses have outweighed the gains, and whether we're in a worse position than the one we started in is hard to define (I think we're better, even if it's just a tiny bit). One of the main arguments for the preponderance of losses is structural adjustment—that women in third world countries were already bearing a sexist yoke with several duties according to their traditions, but now have to add a lot of work to the mix thanks to economic development, which, when coupled with the "austerity" provisions of structural adjustments, places much of the burden of change on women. Men's lives don't change as much; they work, come home, and so on.

The Indian wife to a UN Ambassador who spoke to us a few days ago also noted how she witnessed a change in India in her own life (she's middle-aged): women are now as ambitious as men when it comes to work. This doesn't translate to career ambition or equality; rather, it's "ambition" in that they want to go out and work to get as much money as possible. This has exacerbated some of the feminine burdens in India.

"What? But ZeaLitY, it's good that women are working to empower themselves!" Well, it's important to note that according to her and a few other Indian feminist authors, this working is accompanied by zero changes in gender roles. Women still expect the man in a household to be the main breadwinner. The wife to the ambassador told the story of a women whose husband lost his job. Unable to deal with the gender role reversal of being the main breadwinner, she quit her job, plunging the entire family into worse conditions. Now, this woman isn't THE "Indian Woman" (her anecdotes aren't necessarily total reality), and likewise, India is so massive that generalizations just won't do. But this anecdote can give an idea of some of the problem. Women already do work an awful lot to rear children and maintain the home, and to add conventional work and survival burdens on top of this makes being female even harder. In the United States, this concept is called "second shift" (as far as I'm aware; we haven't studied it too much). Done with your first shift at work? Time to start your second at home! You need to manage groceries, personal finances, parenting, child appointments and schedules, utilities, laundry, cleaning, etc. all in addition to your own personal appointments and upkeep requirements.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on September 19, 2009, 03:07:07 am
So a lot of this may have to do with the work/family stress women are under, and that in turn crops up from women still doing most of the "family" part? What happens when the man in the relationship takes equal responsibility for the family side? Perhaps next time this survey is completed, there should be a control group and an experimental group to test the factor of male household participation.

Also, this reminds me that it would be interesting to compare the happiness level of lesbian women to the happiness level of straight women. Likewise, the happiness level of straight men compared to the happiness level of gay men.


The author seemed to indicate that the data trends extended to single women as well as married ones. If that's true, I'm wondering what other factors may be at play. I suspect the explosion of the mass media and resulting body image issues.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on September 19, 2009, 03:54:58 am
According to a Huffington Post columnist, women the world over are less happy nowadays than at the start of the Second Wave feminist movement in the US...

Ladies, do you think he has a point, or is he completely off base? If times seem unhappier for women on average, why is this so?

Well, I'm not a "lady," but I've been itching to reply to your post, and since ZeaLitY stepped in, I'm not not gonna! =P

Of course it remains to be seen whether the columnist's claims are actually true, but, if they are--and I would not be surprised if they are--I think we can actually call it a good thing. Why? Because as females gain rights, education, and social standing, they also gain a wider perspective, opening their eyes both to new problems and to the realization of how very far we have yet to go. This is a problem that also affects people with high intelligence and people with liberal convictions. In the process of learning about how the world really is, you're apt to find it most depressing--even if you're highly privileged and have everything going for you, and all the more so if you're not--unless your psychological temperament or specific knowledge of the world is such that you can digest the injustice as a challenge, or else see the big picture arc of our civilization and identify a positive long-term outcome (but not too long-term; victory must remain within sight). Many people can't do that; they get caught up in the misery and the woe, and woe is them.

Sajainta mentioned recently that intelligence and reason can be curses to a slave; I think that's what we're seeing here. The fact of the matter is that sexism is still hugely entrenched even in our relatively advanced society. Sexism is and remains the deepest, most intractable form of bigotry. There is so much disparity, so much injustice, that, as females are gaining in power and thus are awakening age old ambitions long dormant, they are running into all kinds of problems. Free people have the luxury of opening their mind, and caring, and desiring. This is a tough world for that, if you're female, because you're still obstructed at every turn. You're hit on, objectified, denigrated, and told that you shouldn't do whatever it is you want to do--either because it's male stuff, or because the males are so much better at it. If society and most of those in it keep telling you the same thing, you're likely to accept it.

There's still a great deal of sexual segregation, even within the wider context of integration. Some of it is momentum from the female rights groups: females banding together because that's what's worked for them in the past. But most of it is socially pressured based on our mores and folkways, and the remainder is pure exclusionary practice by males.

The reason I see all of this as a good thing is that, in order to have achieved this new level of suffering, it suggests just how much progress we have actually made. In my mind there is no doubt whatsoever. I am close to certainty as I ever come on social issues that sexual equality and female rights in particular have made incredible steps forward, at least in America and Western Europe, from whatever beginning time interval you want to specify. We're ahead of where we were in the early 1990s. We're way ahead of where we were in the 1970s. We're practically galaxies ahead of where we were in the 1950s.

It may not always seem so, when you look at what passes for literature or art or video games or films or television programs. It may not always seem so, when you listen to the hatred and activism coming out of the conservative side of the nation. It may not always seem so, when you look at the status of female issues in government, both in many states and at the federal level. Nevertheless, all of these things are counterstrokes, backlashes, to the progress that has been occurring and continues to occur at a level underneath everything: the level of the social fabric itself. If females are being denigrated in grotesque new ways on television, and if their rights to medical self-determination and a comparable wage are under political attack, and if people on the street are saying that feminism is over and anything the feminists have left to accomplish is part of some radical anti-male agenda, it's only because females are moving closer and closer to males in everyday life in their exercise of everyday roles.

The backlash is inevitable, and it itself is a bad thing, but the very existence of it is an unambiguously good sign. This is victory, I am sure of it. The only problem is that "victory" will continue to consume decades if not centuries, because, like I said at the beginning, we have so very far yet to go, and all of our gains are relative to that massive chasm of enduring inequality.

Many feminists will not talk very much about these huge victories, because it's vulnerable to being counterproductive when there is such work left to do. Some people don't even see the progress as progress, because the problems which remain are so significant. These people are, no doubt, among the ranks of those who are less happy than their 1970s-era counterparts. I for one think it's crucial to recognize and acknowledge the progress we've made, because this whole enterprise would seem hopeless otherwise. The final victory is outside any of our lifetimes, and that's just here in America. In much of the world, females are living in their own special dark ages, and many countries are backtracking as the result of Islamic, Christian, and Hindu religious extremism. There is plenty to legitimately be depressed about, and those who have the character for it are in their rights.


Women already do work an awful lot to rear children and maintain the home, and to add conventional work and survival burdens on top of this makes being female even harder. In the United States, this concept is called "second shift" (as far as I'm aware; we haven't studied it too much). Done with your first shift at work? Time to start your second at home! You need to manage groceries, personal finances, parenting, child appointments and schedules, utilities, laundry, cleaning, etc. all in addition to your own personal appointments and upkeep requirements.

Ah, so true. Those surveys of how male and female free time changes upon marriage are quite telling! In this society, and most others, males are given every opportunity to transfer menial work to females, and females are given every opportunity to take on this work. Marriage, as it is often practiced, is just one more instrument of inequality.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on September 19, 2009, 04:07:08 am

Well, I'm not a "lady," but I've been itching to reply to your post, and since ZeaLitY stepped in, I'm not not gonna! =P

Of course it remains to be seen whether the columnist's claims are actually true, but, if they are--and I would not be surprised if they are--I think we can actually call it a good thing. Why? Because as females gain rights, education, and social standing, they also gain a wider perspective, opening their eyes both to new problems and to the realization of how very far we have yet to go. This is a problem that also affects people with high intelligence and people with liberal convictions. In the process of learning about how the world really is, you're apt to find it most depressing--even if you're highly privileged and have everything going for you, and all the more so if you're not--unless your psychological temperament or specific knowledge of the world is such that you can digest the injustice as a challenge, or else see the big picture arc of our civilization and identify a positive long-term outcome (but not too long-term; victory must remain within sight). Many people can't do that; they get caught up in the misery and the woe, and woe is them.

Sajainta mentioned recently that intelligence and reason can be curses to a slave; I think that's what we're seeing here. The fact of the matter is that sexism is still hugely entrenched even in our relatively advanced society. Sexism is and remains the deepest, most intractable form of bigotry. There is so much disparity, so much injustice, that, as females are gaining in power and thus are awakening age old ambitions long dormant, they are running into all kinds of problems. Free people have the luxury of opening their mind, and caring, and desiring. This is a tough world for that, if you're female, because you're still obstructed at every turn. You're hit on, objectified, denigrated, and told that you shouldn't do whatever it is you want to do--either because it's male stuff, or because the males are so much better at it. If society and most of those in it keep telling you the same thing, you're likely to accept it.

There's still a great deal of sexual segregation, even within the wider context of integration. Some of it is momentum from the female rights groups: females banding together because that's what's worked for them in the past. But most of it is socially pressured based on our mores and folkways, and the remainder is pure exclusionary practice by males.

The reason I see all of this as a good thing is that, in order to have achieved this new level of suffering, it suggests just how much progress we have actually made. In my mind there is no doubt whatsoever. I am close to certainty as I ever come on social issues that sexual equality and female rights in particular have made incredible steps forward, at least in America and Western Europe, from whatever beginning time interval you want to specify. We're ahead of where we were in the early 1990s. We're way ahead of where we were in the 1970s. We're practically galaxies ahead of where we were in the 1950s.

It may not always seem so, when you look at what passes for literature or art or video games or films or television programs. It may not always seem so, when you listen to the hatred and activism coming out of the conservative side of the nation. It may not always seem so, when you look at the status of female issues in government, both in many states and at the federal level. Nevertheless, all of these things are counterstrokes, backlashes, to the progress that has been occurring and continues to occur at a level underneath everything: the level of the social fabric itself. If females are being denigrated in grotesque new ways on television, and if their rights to medical self-determination and a comparable wage are under political attack, and if people on the street are saying that feminism is over and anything the feminists have left to accomplish is part of some radical anti-male agenda, it's only because females are moving closer and closer to males in everyday life in their exercise of everyday roles.

The backlash is inevitable, and it itself is a bad thing, but the very existence of it is an unambiguously good sign. This is victory, I am sure of it. The only problem is that "victory" will continue to consume decades if not centuries, because, like I said at the beginning, we have so very far yet to go, and all of our gains are relative to that massive chasm of enduring inequality.

Many feminists will not talk very much about these huge victories, because it's vulnerable to being counterproductive when there is such work left to do. Some people don't even see the progress as progress, because the problems which remain are so significant. These people are, no doubt, among the ranks of those who are less happy than their 1970s-era counterparts. I for one think it's crucial to recognize and acknowledge the progress we've made, because this whole enterprise would seem hopeless otherwise. The final victory is outside any of our lifetimes, and that's just here in America. In much of the world, females are living in their own special dark ages, and many countries are backtracking as the result of Islamic, Christian, and Hindu religious extremism. There is plenty to legitimately be depressed about, and those who have the character for it are in their rights.


Can you articulate your point again? I don't really understand. Are you essentially saying that because there is so much sexism in the world, it shows the progress for women?

BTW, I still completely disagree with the mentality that women are so held back and endure so many roadblocks to success. It is true in very certain situations, but as a woman with many female friends, I don't agree that the glass ceiling is as extreme as many make it out to be.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Uboa on September 19, 2009, 04:07:27 am
According to that article, the decline in happiness is not a result of "second shift" or to any of the other things Z mentioned, which confused me because I wondered, well, what the hell else could it be?  Curious, I looked at the website for the book the guy was peddling, which he insinuated dealt with the real reasons, and yet I'm still confused as to what this guy could possibly be getting at.  Here's the link to the website:
http://tmbc.com/drupal/?q=node/28

Can anybody else glean anything from that?  

At any rate, back to the stats on women's happiness.  If accurate, they are troubling, especially the stats on happiness as women age.  I think Zaichik's account of the stresses women face balancing their career and their family is pivotal in this problem, as well as the situations which Z has familiarized himself.  (I'm not addressing Buckingham's theories until he offers more insight as to what his theories actually are.)  The thing is, there are almost countless other possibilities for the decline in happiness which could pertain to single or married women.  Single?  You have to put up with lingering sexism at your job, and this wears on you over the years.  Married and working?  You could have to deal with second shift and sexism at work.  The responsibility you're expected to shoulder at home could bleed into your work life, and cause you to overwork yourself.  Married and not working?  Perhaps you are staying at home against your will.  Perhaps you want to make a life for yourself like you see other women doing, but cannot due to the expectations of X Y and Z family members.  

I also doubt that women were and/or are properly prepared as girls to manage emotionally at their future career, or in this crazy world in general.  Perhaps it could be that "good girl" mentality impeding them or their educators.  Perhaps girls' parents were/are unaware of the challenges they have to face, and so were/are unable to really prepare them.  How many girls are educated about the prospect of second shift? or about standing up for their rights and dignity at work?  As ugly as it may be to have to warn girls about these challenges, I think it's necessary.  Girls need to understand the nature of the lingering sexism in our society, not to be scared, but to be prepared so that they're able to plan to do what is necessary to find their own happiness.

(I didn't get to address J's post because I didn't read it yet.  J the ninja strikes again.)
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on September 19, 2009, 05:06:57 am
Can you articulate your point again?

If this were Tetris, you might say we've made it to Level 7. Level 7 is a lot harder than, say, Level 2. The blocks comes faster and they're stacked higher up. This makes life more frustrating than it was at Level 2. But it's still a good thing, because we're farther along than we were, and the goal is to either beat the game or at least get the points up to 999,999,999.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on September 19, 2009, 05:21:30 am
Yeah, I completely disagree with you, but that's ok. I don't view progress as something that gets worse and worse as it's getting better and better. I guess your logic is kind of irrational to me. It is difficult for me to even accept your viewpoint. We have come so far since the Feminine Mystique that I completely disagree that things are getting worse. I just don't really understand your logic, but I think we should agree to disagree.

What Zeality has pointed out, and I think you and others too, is that feminism is not on the agenda these days when it comes to "important social movements". It really has taken the back burner. I'm sure I'm going to be bitched out about this, but I don't really mind in that I think there are so many more things I care about than the state of women's rights in 1st World Countries. I am very disinterested in the "glass ceiling" for white women in the US, however I am more interested about how women of color and other minorities are treated in the work place and the various challenged they encounter. I have read some things which I find rather unbelievable, but I'd like to know more about it.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Uboa on September 19, 2009, 05:47:10 am
I don't think that J meant to imply that things are actually getting worse as they are getting better.  The situation isn't that paradoxical.  

The good news about feminism is that the state of women's rights has changed dramatically over just a few decades for the better.  But, as the landscape has changed with regard the freedoms of women, new problems have also been revealed.  These new problems are mostly just vestiges of old standards playing out in new settings, the most obvious being the workplace, but also in the progressed home and in our progressed society in general.  What is insidious about these problems is that they are not readily apparent, so unless one is versed in their nature and knows where to find them they can fly under the radar.  But, as stealthy as they are, they are not without their symptoms, and I think the decline in women's happiness is a pretty glaring symptom of these underlying problems.

Edit:  To follow his Tetris metaphor, it seems we're uncovering these new problems at a faster and faster rate.  This is also a good thing, but it makes dealing with all of them seem more daunting.  Especially considering the difficulty inherently involved in convincing the majority of people that these problems are, in fact, problems, and that they should be resolved to better the quality of life for women.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: KebreI on September 19, 2009, 05:49:30 am
Can you articulate your point again?

If this were Tetris, you might say we've made it to Level 7. Level 7 is a lot harder than, say, Level 2. The blocks comes faster and they're stacked higher up. This makes life more frustrating than it was at Level 2. But it's still a good thing, because we're farther along than we were, and the goal is to either beat the game or at least get the points up to 999,999,999.
In reality it like Pac-man though, the whole thing dies at the end.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on September 19, 2009, 06:41:47 am
Yeah, I completely disagree with you, but that's ok. I don't view progress as something that gets worse and worse as it's getting better and better.

I think you misunderstood me. I think things are getting better, not worse. However, as recognition and empowerment go up, people realize there are problems that they never previously knew were there. These problems, for the most part, were there all along, so there's no "getting worse" aspect.

Well...

There is a special class of problems that are unique to the progression of sexual equality, and in that regard, from one point of view, you might say that things "get worse" whenever totally new problems arise; however, I still see it as a sign of forward momentum, because such problems wouldn't have been able to arise in the first place in a more sexist culture.

What Zeality has pointed out, and I think you and others too, is that feminism is not on the agenda these days when it comes to "important social movements". It really has taken the back burner. I'm sure I'm going to be bitched out about this, but I don't really mind in that I think there are so many more things I care about than the state of women's rights in 1st World Countries. I am very disinterested in the "glass ceiling" for white women in the US...

If you care about other things more, then good for you. But since this is the Fuck Sexism thread and all, I think you may find the audience unreceptive. =)
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on September 19, 2009, 02:33:09 pm
Quote from: Uboa
I also doubt that women were and/or are properly prepared as girls to manage emotionally at their future career, or in this crazy world in general.  Perhaps it could be that "good girl" mentality impeding them or their educators.  Perhaps girls' parents were/are unaware of the challenges they have to face, and so were/are unable to really prepare them.  How many girls are educated about the prospect of second shift? or about standing up for their rights and dignity at work?  As ugly as it may be to have to warn girls about these challenges, I think it's necessary.  Girls need to understand the nature of the lingering sexism in our society, not to be scared, but to be prepared so that they're able to plan to do what is necessary to find their own happiness.

And on the other side of the aisle, it seems that men are also inadequately being trained in the arts of housekeeping, familial care, and the deeper nuances of social relations and intimacy. There are obviously families out there that have properly trained children of both genders; I'd really like to see the survey conducted via experimental method, because it really could isolate the causes.

The author of the article and book denies that the "second shift" has anything to do with the data, and yet, when you take the "Strong Life Test" (it's fun and thought provoking) that's on his website, it seems to me that he is testing exactly for "second shift" factors in one's life and psyche.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Sajainta on September 19, 2009, 03:03:01 pm
I agree with Lord J--the more you know about the world (or, in this case, sexism), the more horrified you become.  Ignorance may be bliss, but I for one would rather be awakened to cold, hard truth then live in a happy little bubble.

And to be completely random--Tetris is one of the best games ever made.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Sajainta on September 19, 2009, 03:28:10 pm
I'm not trying to steer the topic away, but I just need to rant for a wee bit.

Why do some (read:: many) people think it's funny or cool or whatthefuckever to use the word "rape" to mean "pwned" or "failed" or "I completely won this argument" ?  And since when has it become funny or cool to make fun of rape or molestation or pedophilia?  I'm sorry, I fail to see how such a horrifying, life-altering event could ever possibly be thought of as funny.  And I'm sorry, but I fail to see how using the word "rape" in such an inaccurate and childish manner isn't incredibly degrading.

When people use such heavy words like that, and when they make fun about assault or even talk about it in a joking manner, what they're basically doing is making light of abuse.  They're turning it into something trivial, something that's okay to make fun of.  I don't care what George Carlin said (and do know that I really liked him), there are some things that are simply not amusing.

And yeah, people can call me a raging feminazi or whatever (not like I give a shit...and I know that's pretty unlikely to happen on this thread) or say I'm "too sensitive" (of course I'm sensitive to this, you ignorant fool), but it makes me so angry.

How are we supposed to fight sexism if we are trivializing words that are the direct result of sexism at some of its worst??
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on September 19, 2009, 04:00:24 pm
Don't worry, I'm probably the closest thing to a raging feminazi here, at least when it comes to sexual matters. If I can survive comments questioning the penetrative model of human sexuality altogether, then anything goes indeed.

You're right. Maybe our culture's making light of rape is a factor in why men are still doing it. The phenomenon you describe seems like it would build a sense of playful familiarity with rape, and that's horrific once you look at it in that light.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Temporal Knight on September 19, 2009, 04:21:43 pm
Yesterday, I was speaking with an acquaintance of mine that is in one of my classes (twas a she). And I, upon the conversation (we were joking around and being funny with each other), found myself rather amused at the stereotypical association with women being a tad more unintelligent or unable than men. I had stated something (jokingly), and she (in a joking fashion) proclaimed, "Why? Because I'm a girl?"

This association struck me as amusing is that factor that the sexism within the world is often taken as a joking factor. Being that the very stereotypical response of "Why? Because I'm a girl/gal/woman?" must, and obviously, is derived from sexist ways, even in a joking manner.

And that, also said, leads to the fact that there is never, "Why? Because I'm a boy/guy/man?.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on September 19, 2009, 04:49:41 pm
Quote from: Temporal Knight
And that, also said, leads to the fact that there is never, "Why? Because I'm a boy/guy/man?.

TK, there are also male stereotypes. "Men don't cry;" "all men think about are sex, food, and sleep -- in that order"; etc. I fear these assumptions and feel that they devalue me as a human being. In the first case, the assumption of non-emotion implicitly takes men's humanity away entirely; the second trope reduces men to a very small aspect of their humanity, let alone an aspect of humanity that they do share with women. Feminism needs to deconstruct all these things.

After reflecting on my campaign experiences, I'm wondering: how often do we hear the term "vag" versus the term "dick" to describe someone who's an asshole nowadays? Either way, this language is implicitly devaluing a part of the human body, and if "vag" or "pussy" is being used more often, then it represents a disproportionate devaluing of women's bodies as opposed to men's.

How can we reconstruct our very language to eliminate this kind of implied sexism?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Temporal Knight on September 19, 2009, 05:04:13 pm
Well, I understand those assumptions, being the stereotypical role that we as men are expected to play in this world today.

It's just funny how it's become more of a joke in this case.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Uboa on September 19, 2009, 06:29:36 pm
I'm not trying to steer the topic away, but I just need to rant for a wee bit.

Why do some (read:: many) people think it's funny or cool or whatthefuckever to use the word "rape" to mean "pwned" or "failed" or "I completely won this argument" ?  And since when has it become funny or cool to make fun of rape or molestation or pedophilia?  I'm sorry, I fail to see how such a horrifying, life-altering event could ever possibly be thought of as funny.  And I'm sorry, but I fail to see how using the word "rape" in such an inaccurate and childish manner isn't incredibly degrading.

When people use such heavy words like that, and when they make fun about assault or even talk about it in a joking manner, what they're basically doing is making light of abuse.  They're turning it into something trivial, something that's okay to make fun of.  I don't care what George Carlin said (and do know that I really liked him), there are some things that are simply not amusing.

And yeah, people can call me a raging feminazi or whatever (not like I give a shit...and I know that's pretty unlikely to happen on this thread) or say I'm "too sensitive" (of course I'm sensitive to this, you ignorant fool), but it makes me so angry.

How are we supposed to fight sexism if we are trivializing words that are the direct result of sexism at some of its worst??

I used to not think twice about these kinds of jokes.  I also used to not think twice when I would hear men, some of my friends, "jokingly" put down or negatively stereotype women.  They made it seem so innocent, you know?  Like, "Oh, you know we love you, but you're still a woman, so we have to give you shit."  I figured it was just the way things were.  There was no getting away from it, so I didn't say anything to my friends at the time, especially since I'd seen worse from other men.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on September 19, 2009, 06:50:01 pm
Yeah, as a UT player even I grew accustomed to using the word rape. As of 2008, I don't.

It's a real problem. I expect the main counter-argument to be, "it's just a word; sticks and stones etc." and that's bunk, because words do hurt.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on September 20, 2009, 07:50:48 pm
Good point. I find the word "rape" used as pretty offensive too. It's like back in HS when so many people were homophobic, especially guys, and people would constantly use "gay" as a pejorative. I found this incredibly offensive. Thinking of how "out of the closet" homosexuals were treated at my school still angers me. One friend of mine came out after HS (I was sure he was going that way), but I was glad he did it later because I didn't want him to be harassed. Maybe I should make a homosexuality thread. It is something I feel pretty strongly about...
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on September 20, 2009, 09:57:36 pm
When domestic violence is brought up, some people may say, "why doesn't the woman just leave the abusive boyfriend?" That may have validity in a tiny number of cases (and I do mean tiny), but there are three points:


Those statistics were from that Atlas of Women book I mentioned earlier; it's a fantastic book for this kind of thing. Who can argue with scientific information? Creationists can try, maybe, but anyone with grounding in reality cannot. The problem will be acknowledged.

Something else I found interesting is that the US averages about ~1200 women killed from domestic violence each year since 2003, and the population is about 300,000,000 IIRC. In Russia, which has closer to half that population, ~9000 women have been killed from domestic violence each year since 2003 on average. I intend to bring this up next class period and ask why Russia is so massively skewed.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on September 20, 2009, 10:07:02 pm
ZeaLitY, why do you think men get so angry when their girlfriends, wives, and domestic partners leave them? Could it be because men are so pressured to be in a sexual relationship that they worry about homosexuality accusations otherwise? Is it something else, like sheer jealousy, combined with a lack of empathy, at play? Violent sexual urges lingering from evolution? We need to identify the source and extricate it!

I didn't realize just how widespread domestic violence (what do we call it in the case of dumped boyfriends? Sepera-domestic violence? Ex-domestic violence?) was until I began seeing this Broadview Security (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wkr0-nVwmQY) commercial regularly. I mean, any commercial is ultimately playing on some societal trope. It's getting pretty bad when the market is playing on women's fears of their exes.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on September 20, 2009, 10:14:53 pm
Point 1: Valid. I don't think its impossible to become financially independent, but if this is a housewife scenario, then I can see the truth there too. Also, independence doesn't simply mean finances, but emotionally too.

Point 2: At the same time its comical, sad and true. I suppose we just put more trust into the judgment of the victim than the assailant.

Point 3: This makes me angry with rage! Why aren't these people thrown in jail?! Are we so far down the beaten path that we can't see this evil for what it is? Although, now that I think about it, it probably has to do with my added point:

Point 4(I'm adding this one): Battered Persons Syndrome is where a person feels emotionally obligated to stay with a person despite abuse, similar to Stockholm Syndrome. Psychological disorders like this can't be overcome by sheer will. These women need help, which we're not providing.

Points 3 & 4 are tied in together because women in these conditions can't cross them because of their emotional attachment. Without a complaintant, you can't charge someone. So, we need some law reform in that aspect.

EDIT: FW, as a very law and order mentality person, I'd have to agree with the one commenter who said something to the effect of "Brinks isn't going to save your ass from a psycho ex. Only a .38 special will do that. "
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on September 20, 2009, 10:17:34 pm
Truth, I feel that you've stumbled upon something important with all this talk of Battered Woman Syndrome and Stockholme Syndrome.

Could mainstream western society still be teaching women to please men? And meanwhile, men taught to please themselves? Ha, I'm borderline getting into the penetrative sexual model again as I'm always tempted, but I'll stop short of it until I can find some kind of work-safe quote from Betty Dodson or something.

EDIT:
Quote from: Truthordeal
FW, as a very law and order mentality person, I'd have to agree with the one commenter who said something to the effect of "Brinks isn't going to save your ass from a psycho ex. Only a .38 special will do that. "
Yeah. This is why I've been entertaining an expansion of gun rights, or at least a newfound appreciation of tasers, lately.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on September 20, 2009, 10:25:24 pm
ZeaLitY, why do you think men get so angry when their girlfriends, wives, and domestic partners leave them?

Well, hell! How would you react if a) your masculinity-validating, pleasure-giving, socally-expected b) property just got up and walked out of the door? We can probably go up a higher level to male/female attraction, and just add an element of violence to it. Every kid on the playground wants to kick the soccer ball, but there was always that jerk, over-grown redneck kid who shoved others out of the way to get a chance to kick it. Likewise, many men want a female partner for a multitude of reasons, but there's always those aggressive jerks who incorporate corporal punishment into their desire for control.

Edit: Oh, and of course, heartbreak. Jealousy, envy, and emotional pain have a side effect of making their experiencers feel helpless about situations, and getting up and punishing the woman for leaving might feel like a way to mitigate that emotional disruption. It's tough to humanize people who commit domestic violence, but they do still feel human emotions and pain, even from their warped relationships.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on September 20, 2009, 10:43:02 pm

Something else I found interesting is that the US averages about ~1200 women killed from domestic violence each year since 2003, and the population is about 300,000,000 IIRC. In Russia, which has closer to half that population, ~9000 women have been killed from domestic violence each year since 2003 on average. I intend to bring this up next class period and ask why Russia is so massively skewed.

Very interesting. I did some quick research about it and came up with this article:

Here is something I'd like to highlight

Quote
Divorce is not stigmatized in Russia, but being alone is. There is a general pressure to get married as soon as possible, and as a result many women marry men they hardly know. If these women change their minds about their marriage or if they face domestic violence, they often don't have an opportunity to divorce because of financial dependence on their husbands.

In a 2003 Ministry of the Interior report that polled victims of domestic violence, 76 percent of the women said they had suffered from abuse for a long time before reporting it to the police or making it public in some other way. The report lists some of the common reasons given by the women: "Didn't believe that the law enforcement would help," "Was afraid of revenge," "Was afraid of losing housing, had nowhere to go," "Was afraid of public scorn," "Didn't want to leave the kids without a father."

Another 2003 study found that most Russian women blame themselves for being beaten or abused by their husbands. In cases of domestic conflict that ends with violence, women are not likely to seek outside help. Rather, they will keep the problem inside the family and consider themselves at fault.

This is very true. Russians like to get married young and then not work through the problems of their marriages. The divorce rate in Russia is somewhere around 60 percent, which is one of the highest in the world. The very highest divorce rate is in neighboring Belarus, which was under the USSR. A factor that the article didn't highlight is alcohol abuse. Many Russian men, in particular, are alcoholics and my mom's side of the family has alcoholics. My mom's dad was an abusive alcoholic and then my grandma married another alcoholic (although he wasn't abusive, just adulterous). The average Russian drinks 11 gallons of vodka a year. So much vodka causes a lot of problems in Russia....

The product of my Russian culture still resonates in the "get fucking married, already" from my dad's side of the family. My grandmother like to call me and set up Jews for me to date. It really annoys the shit out of me. If she wasn't so elderly, I would really tell her off for it. My dad is like that too. They value a career as upmost importance, but getting married is second and I should be more serious about getting married and starting a family.

I refuse to get married, however, until I'm pretty damn certain the marriage will last. I don't know how old I will be, but according to several different palmists, I will be in my 30s, and I know I'm dumb, but I believe that crap. >_>. What my mom predicted long ago when I a kid seems to really be playing out.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on October 08, 2009, 09:00:08 pm
http://www.seattlepi.com/national/1110ap_us_military_gays.html

Ah, it never ends, does it? For females to be expelled from the military at more than twice the rate of males under the homophobia law, it seems inescapable that what we're seeing is the result of the male-driven hyper-sexualization of females in the military. When you're forced to indicate your sexual status--"bitch, dyke, or slut"--it would seem inevitable that many more female servicemembers, per capita, would be exposed as homosexual.

Double exploitation.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on October 08, 2009, 09:16:22 pm
Wow, I'm actually extremely surprised -- it undermines the notion I had earlier that women's homosexuality is treated more lightly than men's homosexuality.

The article seemed to treat lesbian baiting as the main culprit, but I wonder if there's another factor at play: are male soldiers more likely to see combat duty than female soldiers? Attitudes among military brass toward Don't Ask, Don't Tell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask,_don%27t_tell#Criticism_from_military_personnel) are swiftly changing out of what I suspect is a dire need for more combat troops. Thus, I wonder if straight male servicemembers and officers may be less likely to report homosexuality among male cohorts than female cohorts. Male soldiers, being more likely to see combat duty (if this is the case -- I don't have figures), could be more highly valued than female soldiers, and thus some "offenses" on the part of male soldiers could be forgiven.

Either way, it's becoming clear that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" needs to end. It may have been the "right policy for the right time" as Colin Powell described it back in the early 1990s, because it represented an advancement over not allowing homosexual soldiers at all, but even one slip-up by a gay or lesbian soldier invites investigation and discharge. It's ridiculous: straight soldiers probably talk about their husbands and wives all the time. What, if homosexual soldiers talk about their husbands and wives too, that's grounds for removal from service?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on October 08, 2009, 09:26:49 pm
Wow, I'm actually extremely surprised -- it undermines the notion I had earlier that women's homosexuality is treated more lightly than men's homosexuality.

I think in general it is treated more lightly, in that right-wing males hold male and female sexuality to two different standards. The military is a special case, as it brings out some of the worst in still-accepted sexist behaviors. Also, in the military, the "shortage" of females places much more pressure for the existing ones to put out, and so the premise of lesbianism, which many males claim to enjoy so long as they get to participate (ugh...), becomes much more of an inconvenience than it would be in a fantasy or even in interactions with the general population.

Some of this is speculation, of course.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on October 08, 2009, 09:33:48 pm
Yeah. President Obama has done surprisingly little on the LGBT front. IIRC, there's some legislation proposed right now to help eliminate Don't Ask, Don't Tell, but it's been a few weeks since I've heard about it. Perhaps it's stalled in committee.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Sajainta on October 08, 2009, 09:47:20 pm
I think in general it is treated more lightly, in that right-wing males hold male and female sexuality to two different standards.

I've always been under the impression that lesbianism is treated more lightly because it's thought as "sexy" to most men--even conservatives.  It's so hypocritical.  I've known people to condemn homosexuality between men, but feel differently about homosexuality between women.  Two men having sex?  Ugh, that's vile.  Two women having sex?  Super hawt, yo.

I also have a question that I'm very curious about, having followed this thread since I joined.  Apologies if this has already been addressed; I could not find it in this thread.

How do you guys feel about porn and the porn industry?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Zephira on October 08, 2009, 09:59:03 pm
I'm all for the porn industry, so long as it's done legally and with full consent of everyone involved. It can be considered an art, just like and other form of film.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on October 08, 2009, 10:10:47 pm
I haven't studied the issue enough to know, but it seems very possible and extremely likely that pornography reinforces degrading attitudes towards women.

Yes, there are women who like facials in the world. But fundamentally, it seems so, so demeaning. And in some places, the pornography trade is hand-in-hand with the sex trafficking industry.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on October 08, 2009, 10:13:51 pm
My thoughts about the porn industry are based on my thoughts about the prostitution industry. I see modeling, pornography, and prostitution as three degrees of the same thing. I have big problems with the abuses and exploitations committed by the people who control these industries. At the same time, I recognize the economic opportunity that exists in the human body's sexual appeal, sensual appeal, and, as Zephira mentioned, artistic appeal.

As a matter of principle, while my attitudes toward the prostitution industry are mixed, I am supportive of the pornography and modeling industries. That's in principle, mind you. In practice my support is tepid, as I would want to see the worker abuses corrected by government oversight and law enforcement before I could say that I more strongly support these industries.

That's the gist of what I think, although there's a lot more about human psychology that I almost added.

How about you?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Sajainta on October 08, 2009, 11:02:47 pm
My opinion is probably closer to Z's.  I have no issue with pornography in general or people who want to perform in pornography and I do think in some cases it could be seen as artistic.  But there's that huge, shadowy half of the industry.  Could someone ever be fully sure that what they were watching is completely divorced from that shadowy side?  It's because of that that I'm hesitant to view the industry as something beneficial.  Not on any holier-than-thou ground, but simply because there is so much abuse that goes on behind so many cameras.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on October 09, 2009, 12:20:35 am
FW's X-RATED EXTRAVAGANZA!

ENTER - or LEAVE (http://www.chronocompendium.com/). We're warning you!
(Poster was over 18 at the time of writing this in accordance with USC yadda yadda yadda).


I think pornography was the 800 lb gorilla in this thread for some time, so thanks to Sajainta for breaking the ice on this. Everyone brings up excellent and valid points so far.

Zephira's observation that porn can be artistic hints at a common fallacy of traditional conservatism -- the attitude that the human body is somehow inherently evil, and that we'll all be scarred if we see nude animals of the human variety. I think this is primarily where sex-positive feminism is coming from: by embracing pornography, women might feel that they're regaining some respect for the female body and its daring beauty. The catch is, a sex-positive feminist like Betty Dodson would have to produce for this to be true, and I suspect most pornographers are not sex-positive feminists named Betty Dodson.

But in this effed up world, any art involving the human body is going to be a double-edged sword; hence the importance of Zeph's concern that pornography indeed be filmed under fully consensual circumstances. I'd be interested to know how much of the activities of full-fledged sex trafficking are in fact filmed and distributed as "porn." You always see things like the following in pornography: "Hey dudes! We found this sexy Russian babe on the streets of, uh, So-Cal, and filmed her doing x-y-z! She doesn't say anything, because she doesn't really know English or anything, but what a nasty slut! Just $49.99!" How does the porn consumer know that he (or she) is getting what's in the advertisement? Are porn consumers taught to look for telltale signs of abuse? Probably not, and therein lies a huge danger. When rape is being simulated for the viewer's (sick) pleasure, how is the viewer to know what the heck's really going on? And when the latest "Girls Gone Wild" whatever is released, are these women really 18, or are 15, 16, and 17 year-olds being exploited?

That is only the most egregious concern we can come up with regarding pornography, and probably what most government resources need to be devoted to investigating and destroying. What's sad is that our society's very tendency to label porn "icky" is preventing those who are on the front lines of this battle -- the end porn consumers -- from receiving the kind of training that might clue a law enforcement official in to the possibility that something is seriously, seriously wrong in whatever they're observing.


Now, for some other issues that we need to dissect seriously:

To ZeaLitY's observation on the demeaning of women I'll add something that, quite frankly I'm not 100% sure about since I'm not a woman, but which I highly suspect: women and men do not experience sex in the same way, and often do not receive pleasure from the same act. Male orgasm and female orgasm do not go hand-in-hand in some magical way, contrary to what movie love scenes would have us believe.

Why should we honestly care whether the female actress in a porn scene is actually experiencing pleasure (the "cum shot" Bob and Tom like to bring up every five minutes ensures us that, oh yes, the man is to some degree)? Because pornography reaches our children before sex ed does, and quite frankly, sex ed doesn't teach us about sexual politics -- it teaches us that sex is about male orgasm, reinforcing the message of pornography. Sex ed is slightly more noble in that it tacks on: "By the way, she can get pregnant! Wear a condom if you don't want your orgasm to result in a fetus, doofus!"

Yeah, I don't think we need to beat around the bush here. When I was in fifth grade in a fairly rural school district, both boys and girls were already referencing what they'd seen in pornographic pictures and perhaps videos they found online. The specific example I remember was a conversation about coprophagia. I'm dead serious about that; I didn't realize it at the time, but I'm pretty sure that's what the kids were seeing online and talking about. Kids were literally talking about this in class; it wasn't anything special. When I began tutoring special needs kids in high school, I caught seventh graders looking up sexual terms online and having to admonish them on the existence of cookies, and that any school administrator who happened to jump on that library computer would know exactly what the kid was looking up.

So, with that example in mind, back to the question: Why should we honestly care whether the female actress in a porn scene is actually experiencing pleasure? Because pornography is the primary sexual teacher in Western, wired society. It's simple as that; pornography, a male-dominated industry that produces goods meant to stroke men's egos as well as their libidos, is reinforcing models of sexual behavior that place men's pleasure over women's in importance, and also gives men the impression that their wonderful, magnanimous phalli are somehow the keys that open gateways to all pleasurable human experience. If a man's sex partner isn't sultrily moaning like the women in the pornography he's seen, it must be because he isn't "performing" well.

I wish I could stop there, observing that the porn industry is merely ignorant of its huge de facto responsibility in our society. But it becomes downright evil when porn producers know men are going to replicate the sex acts they see in pornography under the false impression that these acts somehow constitute a full episode of lovemaking. I forget which Wikipedia page it was now, but I swear I saw a reference about a company producing deep-throat films so hard-core the actresses sometimes vomit and the company won one of those Adult Entertainment Awards, and advertised with a slogan like: "More couples are demanding rough sex thanks to us (insert insidious wink)!"

I don't mean to make a moral judgment here; if "couples" are really into what some of these companies are putting out and women want to have their gag reflexes triggered during sex in the privacy of their bedrooms, it's not my business. But it becomes my business as an upstanding member of society to help stamp out this company's activities if it's something women feel pressured into doing just because societal messages imply that this is normal behavior, and not because they're turned on by the idea of spilling their stomach contents.

Phew. Man, sorry if anyone had to stop reading there, it's just that this stuff is really out there, and we cannot ignore what it could be doing to our society. I just get extremely pissed thinking about sexual politics for some reason, and my sneaking suspicion that women are being victimized regularly in sexual relationships, especially in ones in which they're afraid to communicate for whatever reason.

Obviously we should also worry about the porn industry's capacity to produce HIV-infected people (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17317-sexual-diseases-rampant-in-californian-porn-industry.html) (link probably NSFW). The one thing the Catholic Church and some porn producers share in common is their discouragement of condom use, as can be seen in the linked example. Pornography, being probably a good through which the viewer experiences some kind of vicarious pleasure, is going to show condom-less men engaged in various fluid exchanging activities with condom-less partners, due to the popular, effed up notion in a lot of men's heads that condoms decrease sexual pleasure.

Next thing to excoriate: use of language in pornography, and especially its sexist expression. Men in pornography, though they aren't nearly highly paid as women probably are, are nevertheless "studs." Women, on the other hand, are "sluts." They're "hos." They're "nasty."


And that's just addressing ZeaLitY's post. Now to add to J's:

I would place pornography far closer to prostitution than modeling. While it's true that "pornography" is a blanket term that encompasses nearly harmless erotic photography as well as the more unscrupulous things I've been describing, a large portion of pornography is still subject to the linguistic sexism aspect. Whether the "slut" fucks or the "slut" strips, we're still talking about a "slut." Let's not give pornography as it currently exists any more credit than it's due: this isn't a celebration of women's sexuality, otherwise they'd be called "goddesses" and "beautiful." How often do we hear terms like that used in any pornography produced by someone who isn't Betty Dodson?

Also of concern should be the reasons why both men and women get involved in the porn industry willingly; J said before in the prostitution thread that undereducated women getting into that industry should give us some pause, and I think the same very much applies here. We may glamorize pornography in our minds, thinking that beautiful men and women are happily jumping into opportunities to be pleasured by hot members of their preferred sex. But come on, take a look at some of the people who are actually in the industry: does anyone here think it would be cool to spend time naked with Ron Jeremy? Furthermore, both heterosexual and homosexual scenes are built solely for the viewer's pleasure, and may require straight men to engage in gay porn, straight women to engage in lesbian porn, etc.

This tells us, intuitively, that money is probably the main motivation for people to go into the porn industry. I'm interested to know how many down-and-out actors and actresses, dancers, etc., get pulled into it. I think economic desperation driving people into this industry, with all its hazards, represents a kind of victimization, even if it's a soft kind of victmization.

Furthermore, I tend to view pornography as a type of de facto prostitution. Both involve people getting paid to engage in non-intimate, unemotional sexual acts for the customer's enjoyment. Whether the customer is interacting directly with the object of physical desire or is content to remain a voyeur, or perhaps experiences vicarious enjoyment through the actor of his or her own gender, money is being traded for sexual pleasure. It's probably fair to say that modeling and swimsuit competitions are similar to some degree, but porn and prostitution are far more similar to one another in this regard than modeling is...though I could very well be missing some of the less savory aspects of the modeling industry.

I admit I haven't done any research whatsoever on the modeling industry, nor read that many feminist critiques of it, so given Lord J's and ZeaLitY's concern over abuses rampant in that industry, perhaps it will be a good topic to move into once we've chewed on this one for awhile.


Now, I'm not saying pornography is necessarily a bad thing. Rather, I think the industry should be reformed after all instances of blatant abuse of unwilling participants are rooted out. I'd like to see a porn industry that does the following:

*Acknowledges its role as the primary sexual educator in western society; or if it is not, that it is still extremely significant in that regard.

*Reflecting on the above, illustrates episodes of balanced sexual behavior scientifically proven to be titillating for the average man, woman, and transgendered person.

*Employs language that emphasizes the fundamental goodness and worth of the bodies of all genders.

*Fosters the impression that sex is best performed within an emotionally intimate, communicative relationship. Okay, on one level that might nix the whole "actor" and "actress" thing -- but when you really think about it, don't mainstream movie actors and actresses also simulate close relationships? Why should there not be emotional chemistry between porn actors and actresses as well? Any sexual episode that involves no real communication  between the sex partners has something wrong with it, as any sex psychologist worth his or her snuff would probably tell us. "Real" communication must include something more than in-out-in-out.


If anyone's interested in examining the porn industry, you don't have to "get dirty" and go buy a bunch of hard core porn. Wikipedia has its own sex industry and human sexuality portal filled with all this info if you can stomach some nudity and diagrams of naked people doing various things with each other. I think every American citizen owes it to him-or-herself to investigate this industry in depth. As we've derived elsewhere time and time again, "out of sight, out of mind" does not equal "out of existence." There are major, major issues in this industry that need to be solved. And with its increasing mainstream appeal, I feel it is swift becoming the main purveyor of sexist attitudes in our society.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on October 09, 2009, 03:49:50 am
Damn, sorry to add even more to this, but reflecting on the movie Perfect Blue got me thinking about potential sexual exploitation in the mainstream movie industry. I think it was Sharon Stone who once quipped something about being unable to keep her pants on in any movie she was in. I wonder how many times film writers and producers use their power over the movie's content to serve their own, or their male audience's, voyeuristic desires. Oh, wait, we got Sharon Stone!? Duuude, let's lengthen that sex scene and do some close-up shots!

It might sound kind of silly, but this is a dead serious issue. Take a peek at Last Tango in Paris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Schneider_(actor)), for example. Again, the link might not be safe for work. No screenshots of the movie or anything, but it does involve descriptions of...Marlon Brando, butter, and an actress caught off guard.

So it's not just the porn industry that's at fault, and maybe there's some application to the modeling industry and beauty pageants as well. Something about mixing people, cameras, and money together...it's a powder keg. Add power imbalance, it explodes into something that is often truly horrific.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on October 09, 2009, 04:09:44 am
Quite true. Hollywood and all of the other avenues of the entertainment industry make a routine of exploiting females. When one is exposed to something enough, one gets to recognize it. These days I can tell a misogynistic book or film or game or television show with minimal effort. They're written by and for jejune males, with little awareness of--and sometimes active enjoyment of--their exploitations.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Schala Zeal on October 09, 2009, 04:20:04 am
I don't know about you, but if I wound up pregnant before I was able to actually give my child the good life it deserves, there is no way I would go through all nine months of a useless pregnancy.

You can't change the minds of those who don't have a mind. This country is so bad that:

- The current surgeon general is an obese woman who used to serve as the nutrition consultant for Burger King.
- Those in Congress debating an issue, let's say global warming, have no degrees or PhDs whatsoever, and yet are telling those who actually have that... that they're wrong.

It just goes to show, if you use the Bible as a reference for issues, make opinion into solid fact, believe in talking snakes and that the sun revolves around the earth... you're incompetent... and likely a hypocrite. My father :kz said that 90% of humanity refuses to accept responsibility of any wrongdoing. They'll justify their actions anyway they can.

What today boils down to is not politics, but sentient beings vs. the apes. Well, I guess you can consider that politics, but if so, politics have been completely redefined over the past twenty years.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on October 09, 2009, 05:47:14 am
I don't think you meant "surgeon general." There is no surgeon general at present, and the acting surgeon general is an admiral and neither female nor obese.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on October 09, 2009, 12:44:37 pm
Zephira's observation that porn can be artistic hints at a common fallacy of traditional conservatism...

I think you mean Puritanism, not conservatism. While the two are largely interchangeable, traditional conservatism doesn't necessary equate the human body (and sex in particular) as "sinful."

However, I think we are first making a fallacious claim. Conceptually I can acknowledge that it is possible for both sex and nudity to be represented in an artistic manner, but I must claim fault in the practice known as pornography. Going back to the etymology of the word, art might be defined as skill, but of course that is a little anachronistic. We might further define the word as an expression of skill designed to invoke an emotional or intellectual response through the use of particular intentional aesthetic concepts. Thus, we can call a landscape beautiful, but we cannot call it artistic without invoking imagery of an entity that created that landscape (which is why a photograph or painting of that same landscape might more readily be called artistic). Pornography does not meet such criteria.

Perhaps the act of sex depicted in such media is the result of skill, but experience rather than observation would really be necessary to judge that. While the imagery might be stimulating, it is seldom intellectually stimulating and it does not appear to invoke specific emotions. Rather, it stimulates an appetite. We do not call our appetite for air an "emotion," nor do we call thirst or hunger "emotions." While having an appetite is not a sin, it is improper to identify art as stimulating an appetite.

Again, this isn't to say that sexual representations could not be artistic, but rather that the manifestation generally known as pornography is not. It is designed to unskillfully stimulate an appetite. It would be prudent of us to distinguish non-artistic pornography from the conceptual possibility of artistic representations of sex and the body.

Why do I address this issue of the artistic possibility of pornography? Because it is under the shield of "art" and "free speech" that pornography attempts to remain free of control. Any ill of pornography thus may hide because other "forms" of pornography are considered art. If we remove the potential from art from pornography and place it into its own, unique category, we may better then attack the problems of the rest without damaging the value of the best.

I believe it was in another thread (or maybe just much earlier in this thread) that a link was provided to an article on the sex-trade. In that it was noted that perpetrator-consumers are demanding more dangerous "products" than they used to. Can we avoid the ad hoc propter hoc connection between this and what Faust noted:

I forget which Wikipedia page it was now, but I swear I saw a reference about a company producing deep-throat films so hard-core the actresses sometimes vomit and the company won one of those Adult Entertainment Awards, and advertised with a slogan like: "More couples are demanding rough sex thanks to us (insert insidious wink)!"

Consider also the problem of self image in the west; porn stars are rarely anything but the product of the surgical arts. Individuals, male and female, are altered literally from head to toe. That is not a celebration of the human form, that is a deviation of it, akin to the use of skin whitening cream or blepharoplastic surgery intending to add western-esq eye folds by non-European ethnicities.

To strive for an ideal can be good; indeed, such behavior is human. But let us be damn sure that the ideal is humane.

I don't mean to make a moral judgment here; if "couples" are really into what some of these companies are putting out and women want to have their gag reflexes triggered during sex in the privacy of their bedrooms, it's not my business.

I would disagree. If the couple was comprised of an 80 year old man and a 10 year old girl, you would make a moral judgment, yes? The mere location of sex doesn't remove it from the oversight of society at large; rather, society may choose to allow acts and then define where they are allowable. Pedophilia is considered by society to be harmful to children, even if the children willingly engage, and so bedroom be damned, we judge, and rightly so. If pornography (or particular forms of pornography) are deemed by society to be similarly harmful to a people group, then even if that people-group willingly engaged, bedroom be damned!

As a society we can determine what we will and will not allow. It is naive to think that this has no power over the individual; if society says that deep-throating aint okay, it will decrease in occurrence. Of course, as a society we have the responsibility to make sure that we do not infringe upon personal freedom without undo cause, but if there is cause, infringe away.


But as this is quite close to condemning all representations of sex, let me be clear that I am not advocating a puritan society. Rather, I desire an intentional society. If we desire to portray sex artistically, then let us do so, but let us also put away such illusions as that porno is artistic. If we desire sexual liberty, then let us have sexual liberty, but not sexual anarchy. Pornography may not be art, but neither is coca-cola and I'm not advocating we get rid of that... but, you know, we don't let them put cocaine into it either. If a legitimate value can be found in it, let us keep it, but the arguments I have seen are ones of potentiality, not reality.

Yeah, I don't think we need to beat around the bush here.

Oh that was a bad pun.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on October 09, 2009, 03:02:27 pm
Yeah, it was unfair of me to use the word "conservatism" there; you're right, puritanism is what I had in mind. Both conservatives and liberals should be capable of fostering healthy, non-damaging models of sexuality, though each side would probably pose serious questions to the other on how to best do this.

I guess art has always been in the eye of the beholder; according to Wikipedia's definition of art:
Quote
Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music, literature, film, sculpture, and paintings. The meaning of art is explored in a branch of philosophy known as aesthetics.

It seems that "appealing to the senses" might allow what we typically call pornography to pass as art, according to that bare definition at least. But I definitely agree with Thought's notion that we should not let the "shield of art" prevent us from criticizing and eliminating offenses we might find in the industry. There is a point all of us reach, I think, where an offense in the name of art can be so grave that the question of whether it's art becomes immaterial. Snuff videos come to mind as an easy example; although the snuff video is somewhat legendary in its apparent non-existence, this is probably because law enforcement officers keep a very tight lid on videos serial killers may have made for their own pleasure. In Asia, there's a subset of what I would call "pseudo-pornography" in which beautiful women in high heels stamp on little kittens until the kittens are nothing but lumps of dead, bleeding meat with crushed eyeballs. I haven't researched this issue since around 2005, so I'm not sure if anything's been done about it. I've seen still photos though; they probably would have been material for Ogrish.com back in the day.

It's probably possible to argue that images of dead human bodies hanging in a serial killer's basement and images of heel-crushed kittens do fit the raw definition of art; they produce horror and revulsion in us, which could be called "senses" and "emotions." But none of us could sanely argue that these activities should be protected under the "shield of art." It's important to use some non-subjective distinguishing standard when judging what should and should not receive the shield legally and perhaps morally; I would say "physical, psychological, and/or emotional harm being inflicted, or inciting others to inflict such harm" but then again the sado-masochists would be after me...with their whips and chains. So how do we handle this rationally?

But if such a standard could be termed reasonable, it is the standard on which I oppose most of what's produced in the porn industry. If you can get past the hours of enemas porn actors and actresses have to undergo to do a "clean" anal scene without calling that undue physical stress or outright physical harm to the actors and actresses, the industry is certainly producing some level of psychological harm; mainly by spreading disinformation about human sexuality, and what gives people of both genders pleasure. A porn actress is not paid to experience pleasure; she's paid to appeal to the male psyche. Girls and boys watching all this at a young age are going to default to these behaviors, thinking they're seeing the real thing. If no communication between partners happens in a relationship in which pornographic behaviors are being reproduced, and the woman doesn't speak up if she feels uncomfortable or just "meh" about the sex, the relationship has been damaged.

Given the ubiquity of pornography in our society and its easy accessibility, it seems that one of the goals of good sex ed should be to dissect and deconstruct what's often shown in pornography; and counter it with a thorough study of sexual politics and sexual psychology. Both "puritan" sex ed that focuses on abstinence and "liberal" sex ed that focuses on contraception do nothing in this regard currently, other than the occasional tacky quip about love. Citizens aren't taught how to express their love, and nor are they taught how to communicate (or that they should communicate) with their partners to find out the best way of expressing their love. This isn't a problem for good communicative relationships, but our society is just fraught with relationships in which far too little communication occurs.


Yeah, my post up there was filled with bad puns; I blame it on occasional exposure to the Bob and Tom Show.


EDIT: Oh, the sexist language porn consumers are exposed to regularly would probably also count as psychological harm, as well as body image issues Thought raised.

Also, I earlier missed Thought's connection between sex trafficking and what's seen in the edgier pornography nowadays. I didn't put two and two together on this before, but it is very much worth our consideration: remember how Thought wrote that pornography is partially about "stimulating an appetite" or something to that effect?

We might give pornography a pass on this, thinking that it's meant to satiate the desire instead and thus deflect the pursuit of "rough" or "dangerous" practices. But have you guys ever seen a college couple watching MTV, and when a music video featuring scantily clad ladies shaking their thang pops on, the guy starts making the moves on his girlfriend? It's a horrific thought on some level, because now the "art" is being transformed into real human actions. If anal porn, bondage porn, vomit porn, coprophagiac porn, and other extreme images stimulate violent sexual desires instead of satiate them, we as a society are moving in the wrong direction indeed.

I imagine there's probably some kind of complex process involved wherein extreme images satiate violent desires in some, and cause others to act on such desires. It's said that Japanese men commit far fewer rapes since they're exposed to all kinds of lolli and rape hentai floating around in their society, but it would be interesting to see stats on that first (I've only really heard the anecdotes), and it's not to say that the Western man and the Eastern man are going to process the same images in the same way.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on October 09, 2009, 05:25:26 pm
Quote from: FaustWolf
I forget which Wikipedia page it was now, but I swear I saw a reference about a company producing deep-throat films so hard-core the actresses sometimes vomit and the company won one of those Adult Entertainment Awards, and advertised with a slogan like: "More couples are demanding rough sex thanks to us (insert insidious wink)!"
For those who dare...the NSFW factor is obvious here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JM_Productions

Though I haven't found the "More couples are demanding rough sex" quote, I bet I could turn it up with some digging. Thankfully this studio has been raided from time to time, but interestingly, it's still producing. Meaning that while it's fashionable to raid these outfits every once in a while, nobody really cares from a law enforcement perspective. Reflect on the fact that these guys are still operating, while reading this quote from one of the actresses who participated, lifted from the article:

Quote
In 2005 JM released Donkey Punch, which features actresses receiving a Donkey Punch. Actress Alex Devine reportedly posted on ExtremeGirlForum.com that "Donkey Punch was the most brutal, depressing, scary scene that I have ever done." Although she initially agreed to be hit on the head during the scene, she claimed to have misunderstood exactly how physical the scene would be.

And we wonder why there are militant feminists out there who want to castrate all men with knives. Perhaps these militant feminists just want to produce "art."

EDIT: More food for thought. Found this on Xbiz.com, apparently a porn industry news source or something. The article was linked from Wikipedia.
Quote
[On one hard core website] the tag line reads: “Feast your eye on the nastiest whores who love to be treated like worthless pieces of meat.”

The attention should be on love to be treated like worthless pieces of meat. 10-year old children, possibly of both sexes, are watching whatever series the article was referring to, I guarantee it. What message does this send to them? Even in the case of grown men who watch this filth, if they do it on a regular basis their psyches could be broken down by the notion that women somehow enjoy being abused.

And this type of porn isn't somehow hidden to all but society's most horrible individuals; this is mainstream. These people get awards, as shown in the linked wiki article. People sitting in plush chairs ooh and ahh, and clap and give standing ovations to this type of material.

Again, we wonder why there are militant feminists out there who want to castrate all men with knives. Perhaps these militant feminists just want to produce "art."
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on October 09, 2009, 08:31:23 pm
Great article here to drive the point home; couldn't have said it any better myself.
http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/freelance/pornography&cruelty.htm

EDIT: Once again I'm putting the "FW" in NSFW. No pics though -- but reader discretion advised, the descriptions in this academic paper are pretty graphic.

EDIT: And I want to quote this. For the sake of taste...oh what the hell, can any word be worse than "fuck" to begin with?
Quote from: Pornography Article
We live in a culture in which rape and battery continue at epidemic levels. And in this culture, men are masturbating to orgasm in front of television and computer screens that present them sex with increasing levels of callousness and cruelty toward women. And no one seems to be terribly concerned about this. Right-wing opponents of pornography offer a moralistic critique that cannot help us find solutions, because typically they endorse male dominance, albeit not these manifestations of it. Some segments of the feminist movement, particularly the high-theory crowd in academic life, want us to believe that the growing acceptance of pornography is a sign of expanding sexual equality and freedom. Meanwhile, feminist critics of pornography have been marginalized in political and intellectual arenas. And all the while, the pornographers are trudging off to the bank with bags of money.

I think this helps explain why even the toughest women -- women who at rape crisis centers routinely deal with sexual violence -- find the reality of pornography so difficult to cope with. No matter how hard it may be to face the reality of a rape culture, at least the culture still brands rape as a crime. Pornography, however, is not only widely accepted but sold to us as liberation.

...

In a society in which so many men are watching so much pornography that is rooted in the pain and humiliation of women, it is not difficult to understand why so many can’t bear to confront it: Pornography forces men to face up to how we have learned to be sexual. And pornography forces women to face up to how men see them.

...

When we criticize pornography, we typically are told we are either sexually dysfunctional prudes who are scared of sex, or people who hate freedom, or both. That works to keep many people quiet. The pornographers desperately want to keep people from asking the simple question: What kind of society would turn the injury and degradation of some into sexual pleasure for others? What kind of people does that make us -- the men who learn to find pleasure this way, and the women who learn to accept it?

...

But there should be nothing controversial about this: To criticize pornography is not repressive. To speak about what one knows and feels and dreams is, in fact, liberating. We are not free if we aren’t free to talk about our desire for an egalitarian intimacy and sexuality that would reject pain and humiliation.

That is not prudishness or censorship. It is at attempt to claim the best parts of our common humanity -- love, caring, empathy, solidarity. To do that is not to limit anyone. It is to say that people matter more than the profits of pornographers and the pleasure of pornography consumers. It is to say, simply, that women count as much as men.


If you've never read an article linked by a Compendiumite before, make this your first. Provided, of course, that you're not at work, no parent in the room, etc.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on October 10, 2009, 03:53:31 am
Feminists who defend the existence of all pornography on the basis of anti-censorship grounds probably have qualms with a lot of what I've written and quoted. Accusations might range from "FW is a false paternalist who's really promoting patriarchy in disguise," to "FW wants to constrain others to his subjective standards." However, I don't think it can really be argued that the images invoked in the extreme mainstream cases I've delved into in the last few posts are anything other than misogynistic; perhaps the answer isn't straight censorship -- this is something we could quibble over -- but rather destroying demand for this large and overbearing subset of pornography by eliminating misogynistic attitudes in our society.

However, can we uproot misogyny when we say it's okay to eroticize it at the same time? A lot of non-radical liberals have no hesitation whatsoever to question a priest when he justifies some old Biblical teaching that implies women are worth less than men; but when did it become acceptable for the priest to descend upon a female parishioner, offer her $10,000, toss her onto the altar and initiate rough deep throating, all while pelting her with objectively sexist and hateful terminology, as long as it's taped for the enjoyment of all the other parishioners? When the female parishioner took the money and said "okay"? When a nun came by and said, "Here, I'll direct!"? When the priest revealed his name is Peter North?

To be clear, I'm not questioning a woman's right to welcome harsh physical blows, to be punched and smacked while derogatory insults and bodily fluids are thrown at her if that somehow piques her libido; but only to the extent that I'm not questioning her right to seek comfort within the confines of an Afghan burqa or proclaim herself a Pro Life activist. On an individual level these choices go hand in hand, if you believe that there are often misogynistic undertones in religion (and I have a strong suspicion that we can identify some).

That example probably doesn't work for everyone. Perhaps a better analogy is allowing a young girl to cut herself with blades out of some fascination with her own blood. She's making a decision about her body all right, but I think more often than not we'd try to get help for that person -- doubly so if she enjoys it when other people might be doing the cutting of her body. This is probably directly applicable to some of the more extreme BDSM porn that could be lurking out there, but also consider that the human pharynx was not terribly designed for deep throating, or that the other end of the human digestive tract was not terribly designed for intercourse, let alone intercourse with two or more phalli simultaneously. Also consider that like blades, the penis has often been employed as a weapon of war.

But perhaps most important is this: when captured on film for the consumption of others, her love -- yeah, let's give JM Productions the benefit of the doubt and assume that these actresses really enjoy this stuff, and are happy to return for more and more and more  :roll: -- of being physically assaulted while being verbally slandered filters into the wider society, and becomes a cultural artifact that shapes men's perception of women, and sometimes women's perception of themselves.

That, I cannot abide as long as I identify as a feminist or pro-feminist.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Sajainta on October 10, 2009, 04:14:54 am
Faust, thank you so much for providing that link.  I'm a bit too tired and muddled to write a coherent post at the moment, but I will later once I get the chance.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on October 10, 2009, 04:20:21 am
To be fair, I've read some of that professor's previous work and public speaking transcripts, and some would be quick to point out perhaps overprotectionist overtones and appeal to emotion in his previous writings and speeches. But that specific article is pretty much telling it straight; it's not like he's cherrypicking extreme examples. All this stuff's available online, often for free because it's been leaked (even porn industry executives are pulling hair out over digital piracy (http://freetail.tumblr.com/post/160156593/is-free-killing-the-porn-industry)). The author's probably improved in form over time in order to clarify the message. And that message: as long as pornography is an industry dominated by men who cater mostly to men who enjoy images of misogyny in practice, things will be seriously effed up.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: MsBlack on October 10, 2009, 12:08:00 pm
Wasn't sure whether to put this in the link megathread, but decided upon here.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8300463.stm

:picardno
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on October 10, 2009, 02:07:26 pm
Yeah, I saw that on the news yesterday. I think it brings up a question of how virtual porn differs from physical porn. There's probably hentai out there featuring Marge Simpson being subjected to the same things the actresses in the article were. While I'd be quick to criticise that on the exact same grounds I've criticized physical pornography, in some respects I know I have to bite my tongue -- we're subjected to images of simulated violence and death all the time in our PG-13 entertainment.

However, the violence differs in that at least it's portrayed in a wider context: the heroes and anti-heroes who resort to weapons in mainstream entertainment are typically engaged in some kind of great struggle against what seem to be insurmountable odds. It would be heroic for all of us, like Ellen Ripley, to take up a pulse rifle in defense of a child victimized by brutal space aliens. The Red Shoe Diaries (has that even been on since the 1990s?) and other story-based porn notwithstanding -- and that example doesn't represent mainstream porn any longer, or at least not the most accessible porn -- a significant amount of hard core pornography frames the activities in no context, with no message other than that women are meat for men, and that men are themselves insensitive lumps of flesh.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on October 10, 2009, 08:25:55 pm
Since the pro-sex side of feminism, or at least the brand that defends all pornography, hasn't been adequately represented here aside from Zephira's brief defense of consensual pornography, I thought I'd provide this article and engage in a sort of schizoid dialogue with the author, Wendy McElroy. Hopefully this will give others a fairly good idea of where each side is coming from in the debate.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/mcelroy_17_4.html

In one section of her blanket defense of all pornography McElroy responds to the charge that pornography is degrading to women.

Quote from: McElroy

Degrading is a subjective term. I find commercials in which women become orgasmic over soapsuds to be tremendously degrading. The bottom line is that every woman has the right to define what is degrading and liberating for herself.

The assumed degradation is often linked to the "objectification" of women: that is, porn converts them into sexual objects. What does this mean? If taken literally, it means nothing because objects don't have sexuality; only beings do. But to say that porn portrays women as "sexual beings" makes for poor rhetoric. Usually, the term sex objects means showing women as body parts, reducing them to physical objects. What is wrong with this? Women are as much their bodies as they are their minds or souls. No one gets upset if you present women as "brains" or as spiritual beings. If I concentrated on a woman's sense of humor to the exclusion of her other characteristics, is this degrading? Why is it degrading to focus on her sexuality?

True, "degrading" is a subjective term. But nevertheless, there's got to be a few things most or all feminists can agree are indeed "degrading." Can we agree, for example, that the Book of Genesis, with its claim that the first woman was fashioned out of a spare rib, degrades the value of the first woman in that story? Why should this be so? I believe it to be so because it reduces the first woman's humanity by presenting her as a thing to be molded by and for third parties. I feel comfortable enough with this bare bones definition of "degradation" to use it as a basis for interpreting what I see in pop culture.

Eschewing sex and all its complications for a moment, let's see what happens when we do concentrate on a woman's sense of humor to the exclusion of her other characteristics. We'll probably end up with mental visions of Ellen Degeneres, Joan Rivers, Roseanne Barr, or another randomly selected comedienne. Is a comedienne going to tell a joke she herself doesn't believe to be funny? Ah, yes -- we're focusing on her -- her what? Sense of humor. We are not focusing on the audience's sense of humor, but her own. When she tells a joke, regardless of whether we think it too baudy and distasteful to our own sensibilities or if we laugh right along, we expect that the joke reflects her unique, perhaps quirky brand of humor. And that furthermore, she takes internal pleasure in telling the joke and making others laugh. Even though she gets paid to do this, she is still sharing something that is hers and no other's.

Let's step back and qualify this observation with a definition of "humor." I think most of us would agree without too much quibbling: it's that certain unidentifiable something that makes us laugh.

Now let's turn to sexuality. Let's work backward and ask ourselves first what sexuality is. Again, we could probably produce varying definitions, but we could probably agree that sexuality is at least that certain unidentifiable something that gives us sensual pleasure.

So to reduce a woman to her sexuality is to focus on her -- her what? Sexuality. For a pornographic actress to take immense pleasure in confidently showing off her amazing, goddess-like curves for the enjoyment of both men and women is possibly no bad thing. For a pornographic actress to take immense pleasure in any number of sex acts for the enjoyment of both third party men and women is possibly no bad thing. Since the pleasure is internal to herself, it is her sexuality being shown off. Hundreds of thousands of people, feminists and non-feminists, conservatives and liberals, may think she's weird or unscrupulous for doing this, but maybe it doesn't matter because she really enjoys all this. And viewers can take heart that what they're seeing is this woman's sexuality.

But if we may examine critically what's actually happening in this industry for a moment: not all women enjoy the same things; female sexuality is incredibly complicated and varied, probably moreso than male sexuality. We have conflicting reports about whether women enjoy specific sex acts. For example, some women may very well enjoy ingesting various bodily fluids; and yet, at the same time, there is a curious report according to which "...few women praise the taste..." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seminophagia#Taste_and_quantity) of a certain bodily fluid consumed in the great majority of today's hard core pornography (take a wild guess, again, NSFW factor just for written content -- no pics).

We don't have to go into all this grodiness; in many cases we can use our own senses to evaluate what the actors and actresses are participating in, inasmuch as we share basic aspects of humanity with them. For example, JM Productions' "Donkey Punch" featurette -- referenced earlier on the previous page -- involves the penetrating actor striking the back of the actress' head during intercourse. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't particularly like being hit. We usually call that "abuse," or even if it's consensual, "harm." It's not sensual, unless the person receiving the injury happens to associate injury with arousal.

So, we might give JM Productions the benefit of the doubt and think that they have a fantastic research team capable of locating masochists for their "Donkey Punch" featurette. But would a masochist reflect on her participation in that production with the following quip?

"Donkey Punch" was the most brutal, depressing, scary scene that I have ever done.

I don't think any of us who are generally willing to support the existence of pornography in principle expect a pornographic actress to undergo a brutal, depressing, scary experience. Those things were not in the basic definition of sexuality I offered earlier. Even a masochist at least wouldn't be depressed, seeing as he or she should be aroused and exhilerated by the pain and frightening shocks by very definition of being a masochist.

I think we can reasonably conclude that the woman involved in that specific porn shoot wasn't living her own sexuality -- she was being shaped to the sexual preferences of her viewers. True, as Wendy says, in a humanistic sense it is impossible to have a "sexual object." Yet a nonsexual physical object can be used to foment the pleasure of another without experiencing any of its own. Thus, I believe it fair to say that many of the men and women who participate in pornographic sex acts are reduced -- "degraded" -- to nonsexual objects inasmuch as these scenes aren't accurate representation of what really pleases them.

We shouldn't need to deconstruct every single scene like this; we know intuitively that, because most of these men and women are being paid for what they do, sensual pleasure -- and therefore sexuality -- is often times immaterial to their decision to carry on with the work. There are a number of motives that could be at play behind any pornographic depiction: money, real physical or psychological coercion, etc. It's sad. It's sad not because women are being reduced to their own sexuality, but because in many cases women are being reduced to the sexuality of people who are not them. And in that way, yes, a widely agreed upon definition of degradation is possible within the context of pornography, and probably happens far more often than a pro-sex feminist should be comfortable with.


I'm probably outstaying my welcome at this point and I'd just be repeating myself in most cases by highlighting McElroy's paper point-by-point like this, so just a few more brief observations:

Quote from: McElroy
Pornography benefits women...
*It gives a panoramic view of the world's sexual possibilities....

*It allows women to "safely" experience sexual alternatives and satisfy a healthy sexual curiosity. The world is a dangerous place. By contrast, pornography can be a source of solitary enlightenment.

*It offers the emotional information that comes only from experiencing something either directly or vicariously. It provides us with a sense how it would "feel" to do something.

...Perhaps it is flattering to imagine a particular man being so overwhelmed by her that he must have her. Perhaps she is curious. Perhaps she has some masochistic feelings that are vented through the fantasy. Is it better to bottle them up?
How can these observations about women's empowerment possibly justify the defense of JM Productions (the producer I've personally been haranguing on most as an example of mainstream porn)? Can I really sit back and say, "Hmm...I wonder what it would be like to be hit in the head. I wonder if I'd feel aroused by it. Hey, you! Yeah, you! Stand there and let that guy hit you! You're being paid for it of course...ouch, oh, that did look painful. I guess I wouldn't like that after all."

This thought experiment is nothing short of sheer victimization for my curiosity, especially when the person I'm addressing lives in a society in which economic and social pressures constrain their choices. Compared to a life of poverty, getting hit in the head for money might not be so bad. The person being struck might find the prospect of being left out in the cold so horrible that he or she even signs a legal contract tossing away his or her right to sue the production company for harm. I might very well have some lurking curiosity about masochistic possibilities, but I'm not willing to make someone act those out just to satisfy those curiosities. There are certain minimal things it is okay to bottle up. For those that need to be bottled up, it is better to spend money seeing a psychologist than spending money on vicarious fulfillment of violent curiosities.

The sheer fact of the matter is, as the industry currently exists, much of the material does little to promote the empowerment goals McElroy is claiming in order to shield the entire body of the world's legally produced pornographic library. A woman having two men on top of her doing who-knows-what, shouting sexist obscenities at her, flinging things at her we wouldn't normally want flung at ourselves, does nothing to teach women what their sexual possibilities are. The only information we're getting is often what the audience is looking for, or often what the producers think the audience wants.

Pro-sex feminists shouldn't feel forced to offer blanket protection to productions that may or may not be degrading to women depending on the actresses' own subjective experience; to offer blanket protection to pornography isn't Pro-Sex as much as "Pro-what-may-or-may-not-be-Sex-depending-on-the-specific-circumstances." Given the amount of abuse we know to happen within the porn industry, we should feel no compunction with excising those aspects of it most feminists can agree upon.
 
I feel the major failing of the "anti-Porn" movement within feminism was its decision to band together with the political Right instead of having a constructive dialogue with self-identified Pro-Sex feminists. From that point forward, Pro-Sex feminists have probably suspected "anti-Porn" feminists of trying to subvert women's freedom under a new guise, and "anti-Porn" feminists have probably refused to admit the valid considerations Pro-Sex feminists offer.


Where this all becomes so truly heartrending is that I think both McElroy and I, though we identify more with opposite sides of the divide this post attempts to highlight, would quickly reach an agreement that JM Productions' "Donkey Punch" featurette was blatantly abusive. We would also probably, eventually, maybe agree that a lot of pornographic actors and actresses go through things that aren't really sex even by the actors' and actresses' own subjective standards of pleasure, and that other factors are producing real coercion.

Because, even though we give full credit that women in this society are responsible for themselves and their own bodies, and exercise sole decisionmaking responsibility over their lives, we know this not to be yet the perfect world we're going for. Hundreds, maybe thousands of women are pressured every day into having abortions against their will, or prevented from having abortions against their will. Hundreds, maybe thousands of women are successfully coerced into unwanted physical contact with men. Why is the pornography industry any different from other male controlled aspects of society? Why treat it with kid gloves? Just because we want women to exercise control over their own lives, we ignore the damage that results from women daily having things thrust into them, and thrusting things into themselves that they don't really enjoy? What kind of screwed up feminism is this?

What's even more heartwrenching is, as things stand, if I or even a more authoritative figure like Prof. Robert Jensen (who wrote the commentary I linked toward the bottom of the previous page expressing his concerns) were to stand up and call for a raid on JM Productions, JM Productions would invoke the First Amendment and Wendy McElroy would come to their aid. How many more "donkey punches" must be delivered to (probably underpriveleged) women on film before we wake up and start taking our collective humanity back?

And that's the major problem with the current feminist movement. Because we're not willing to compromise and reach agreements on basic standards, we spend more time fighting one another than fighting sexism.

How exhausting.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on October 11, 2009, 01:08:43 am
Sorry sorry sorry sorry -- just one more and I'll let it rest, but I wanted to provide a link to a female voice on the "anti-Pornography feminism" side just so everyone can get a taste from a woman's perspective, lest I give the impression of somehow trying to paternalistically claim anti-pornographic attitudes solely for "teh enlightened dude" or something. As always, NSFW. Very NSFW this time. I honestly hope that isn't stopping a whole lot of people, but it is what it is and there's often rules we can't cross for our own safety. Without further ado -- Dr. Gail Dines.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5003155114018800220&hl=en#

It starts off pretty dry, but gets more and more interesting as it goes on -- I'm still watching/listening. I'm not sure I'd go to a British person to learn about how the porn industry began in the US, but hey -- it's not like I was alive in the US in 1952 either. It's about an hour long.

I don't necessarily agree with all the points she's making; she may understate the role of women in actively running the porn industry, for example, at least that's what we might find if we did a big line-up of all the producers and solo do-it-herself artists out there. Also, I think she unfairly undermines the value of and insight of Third Wave Feminism. But as with a Michael Moore documentary, she gets at some pretty deep, very pertinent, and on some level very true issues.

EDIT: At least fast forward to the Jenna Jameson section starting at 31 minutes in and start there. This is where it gets really good. When she gets to a discussion of modern-day porn, her facts are absolutely straight. Dines isn't cherrypicking; this stuff is out there, it's mainstream, awards are won for it, and 11 year olds are watching it.

My only criticism of Dr. Dines is that she leaves out statements we could say about the degradation of men in mainstream pornography, and the consumption of mainstream porn by women. I know some women watch this stuff too, possibly as often as men. Couples probably watch this stuff. Little schoolgirls watch this -- remember my mentioning of the coprophagiac porn my fellow fifth graders were discussing? That was a discussion carried out within mixed company. Fifth grade boys and girls.


EDIT: Here's a panel speaking on the social science aspect of studying popular pornography as it exists today. When Penn & Teller called bullshit on Dr. Dines in their "Bullshit" show and then showed soft porn as an example of how harmless porn is, they were guilty of deflecting what should be a crucial issue for a movement that means to stamp out manifestations of misogyny. NSFW for language; no pics. It's an hour long, and adds some statistical basis for what Dr. Dines was talking about. I should have provided this earlier, and I apologize for failing to do so.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4489853897776743667#


We could probably argue about whether a positive, healthy, and/or feminist pornography is possible (I think most of us would agree that it is), but nevertheless the issue of men jerking off to misogynistic images should give us serious, serious pause if we mean to call ourselves feminists.

Maybe it doesn't spill over into outright rape; but it nevertheless has some impact on how men view women in our society. It's been my experience that the language being used in mainstream porn leaks into wider society, and causes men exposed to this kind of thing to typically start segregating the women they interact with on a daily basis into categories with various levels of humanity: wives are wives, friends are friends, but strangers are just screwable. See an attractive woman? She's no longer "cute" but "a ho." This is a problem.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on October 12, 2009, 03:05:44 pm
It will take ages for me to fully process all that info, FW. But until that future date...

We might give pornography a pass on this, thinking that it's meant to satiate the desire instead and thus deflect the pursuit of "rough" or "dangerous" practices.

It may indeed satiate in the short term, but a problem arises from how the human body works over the long term. Why do some people drink 5 cups of coffee a day? Did they wake up one day and just start having that many? Or rather did they drink one cup a day for a good long while. Then, things were a little rough one day, so they upped it to two. They were more willing to up it to two again after that, and in time two became the standard. Then three, then four, and so on.

Porn might satiate in the short term (though as you pointed out, it can merely lead an individual to seek out the reality rather than go for release), but with each satiation there is the possibility that the appetite for it will grow. Let us compare this to food; if you watch an hour of the Food Network every day, chances are you'll increase your calorie intake. It makes you hungry and you eat. Appetite stimulated, appetite satisfied, but keep doing that and you'll gain weight. One might claim that worst comes to worst, under such an example you are just hurting yourself. But a curious precursor to diabetes is insulin levels. A pre-diabetic might be driving along, their blood sugar starts to crash, and they become a more dangerous driver. The brain doesn’t do well with wild fluctuations.

Humans are very malleable creatures. What we see, what we think, what we do now directly influences how we will see, think, and do in the future, and thus we must closely guard the present. While it is possible to undo a bad habit once formed, it is far easier to never have developed a bad habit in the first place.

While I'd be quick to criticise that on the exact same grounds I've criticized physical pornography, in some respects I know I have to bite my tongue -- we're subjected to images of simulated violence and death all the time in our PG-13 entertainment.

To be fair, there is also a matter of focus. I'm currently playing Marvel Ultimate Alliance II with my wife (it was a post-doctoral-defense gift). That involves a lot of harming human-like beings and killing them. But that isn't the goal of the game, rather an obstacle to achieving a different goal (leveling up, getting through the level, seeing more of the story, etc). Other games include violence as the goal, rather than the form, of play. Manhunt, for example. Violent, degrading sex is the goal of some porn, and because it is the goal it affects us more. It is the end game, the positive-reinforcement.

Can we agree, for example, that the Book of Genesis, with its claim that the first woman was fashioned out of a spare rib, degrades the value of the first woman in that story?

Not at all! That particular story of creation follows creation up a ladder, from least impressive to most impressive. If "man" is the crown of creation, this story places a woman as the crown-jewel. A gem is beautiful and complete by itself, but a crown without its jewel is just tacky. In a different society, the genesis story could have very well been taken as an exaltation of women.

I do not make the claim that the story was ever interpreted this way for any significant number of individuals, but just that the degradation isn't inherent in the story but in ourselves.

Anywho, being a bit more on-track, regarding your comparison of a comedian to a sex-actor, one should point out that certain forms of comedy are indeed looked down upon, discouraged, and even prohibited. Racist jokes are the quintessential example of this. Thus, while it might be arguable to say that some pornography could be valid, it is equally valid to then say that bad taste is still bad taste, no matter the form.

What's even more heartwrenching is, as things stand, if I or even a more authoritative figure like Prof. Robert Jensen (who wrote the commentary I linked toward the bottom of the previous page expressing his concerns) were to stand up and call for a raid on JM Productions, JM Productions would invoke the First Amendment and Wendy McElroy would come to their aid.

Ah! Such abuses of the First Amendment pain me. I still maintain that pornography cannot be called art, but much less so can it be called speech! Where are the ideas that it conveys, the concepts? Even if we assume that it could legitimately be called speech, the freedom of speech brings with it the responsibility to speak well; if we ignore the responsibility, we abuse the freedom and deserve to lose it. To restrict cruel pornography restricts a person's freedom of speech about as much as putting safety railing on the Golden Gate Bridge. It prevents a particularly undesirable act, but the thoughts and meanings are still free. We cannot and should not prevent people from thinking about and talking about jumping off the Golden Gate, but we can very well prevent them from doing so, all without infringing on their rights.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on October 12, 2009, 08:09:08 pm
On the matter of racist jokes, one of the better tactics the small anti-Porn feminist movement has adopted is highlighting racist overtones in pornography, and linking that to the possibility of overt sexism. Right after Don Imus' infamous comment a porno came out bearing the exact same name, but you didn't hear a peep out of the media over that one. Double standards much?

BTW, found an academic paper on the analysis of porn content, authored by the panel in the last video I posted.
http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/7/2/3/8/pages172388/p172388-1.php
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on October 14, 2009, 04:55:02 am
Quote from: Thought
Not at all! That particular story of creation follows creation up a ladder, from least impressive to most impressive. If "man" is the crown of creation, this story places a woman as the crown-jewel. A gem is beautiful and complete by itself, but a crown without its jewel is just tacky. In a different society, the genesis story could have very well been taken as an exaltation of women.

I do not make the claim that the story was ever interpreted this way for any significant number of individuals, but just that the degradation isn't inherent in the story but in ourselves.
This is an incredible point I missed at first in my search for a basic definition of what makes something degrading versus non-degrading, and I only just realized it after studying Dr. Jensen's writings in further depth. I still feel a compulsion to cling to my definition that degradation occurs when something is done for a third party and not for oneself, but my definition can easily become problematic (what does it say about various forms of altruism, for example?).

Let's examine "degradation in the mind of the observer," then. Interviews with the observers of hard core porn have revealed a lot of quips like, "[Insert common porn act here] is like a dog marking its territory." And "[Insert common very harsh porn act here] fulfills a guy's desire to get back at bitchy women in real life." We can always make the reverse assumptions about the smaller market for "femdom" porn, where men could be degraded through whipping and being urinated upon, etc.

What makes the degradation sexist, then, could be the extreme imbalance of female degradation vs. male degradation in mainstream pornography. If every act of a woman gagging on who-knows-what were followed by the leading lady lunging onto the erstwhile aggressor and viciously yanking at his uvula until he tossed his lunch, perhaps it would be less sexist, and at least depict reciprocal sexuality and thus a full sexual cycle. She'd really have to choke him with a crowbar for complete reciprocation though; you can't really feel what a hard core porn actress is feeling until your epiglottis is blocked during the act. But such images would be far healthier for the 10-year-olds watching it, I think, than what's in circulation currently.

As an aside, doesn't the whole..."sex must involve a crowbar-jammed-in-the-guy's-glottis" maneuver seem just a little...misandrystic and cruel? Ex-frickin'-actly. Oh no, the porn industry couldn't possibly abide showing that as part of their gonzo videos. It would unsettle male viewers, and give boys the impression that they'll have to be on the receiving end of this in their relationships later in life! The horror!

But there's also something else telling in the fact that the great majority of our stomachs churned a bit at the thought of crowbars down our gullets: if the porn consumers wouldn't be willing to go through what the sex kitten on screen is going through, she is in a sense degraded in the minds of those consumers; they have a human regard for their own safety and well-being, but no such regard for hers. Even if I happen to have a fantasy about a woman shoving a crowbar down my throat and this makes me aroused, it would be kind of sick for me to pay a dude to go through that extreme practice in my stead, just to satisfy my curiosity. Jensen applies this empathy-related concept to a number of acts seen in porn that carry severe health risks (ATM comes to mind...I'm not going to provide a link -- those who don't know what it is already can just continue thinking of it as "Automated Teller Machine").


But as an analogy to wrap this up and complete what Thought was getting at: whether the Book of Genesis is degrading to women could be construed as a function of how those who aren't women interpret it, regardless of how women themselves interpret it. This is treading thin ice because it suggests that power over degradation and empowerment is being removed from the one who stands to be degraded or empowered. As a further analogy, a feminist thinks it's most important that women feel beautiful on the inside regardless of how others judge them; and yet, should we not still be concerned with the very real phenomenon in which women are judged completely on the basis of their perceived attractiveness? Should we not continue to try to root out these sexist attitudes toward beauty from our society?

I also realize now that the issues of degradation and sexism could potentially be separated. If the Book of Genesis reported that Eve were created from a spare rib God found lying around, and God simultaneously created Adam from a spare boob that just happened to be lying around, we could potentially have egalitarian degradation without sexism, inasmuch as sexism can manifest as the unequal allocation of degradation.

In summation, we could hypothetically eliminate sexism in pornography while still allowing women to degrade themselves if they want, if there are enough crowbars lying around California that can be jammed down men's throats and elsewhere. It would be called "the crowbar shot."
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: GenesisOne on October 14, 2009, 01:35:18 pm

Well put, Mister Wolf.

However, there are those women out there who don't agree with you.

Quote
"Pornography benefits women, both personally and politically." This sentence opens my book XXX: A Woman's Right to Pornography, and it constitutes a more extreme defense of pornography than most feminists are comfortable with. I arrive at this position after years of interviewing hundreds of sex workers.

This is the opening statement to this link:

http://www.wendymcelroy.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.31 (http://www.wendymcelroy.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.31)

Call it a feminist's view of pornography, call it whatever you want.  It just goes to show that not all women think that pornography is degrading, both to the porn actress and the viewer.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on October 14, 2009, 02:23:46 pm
Third Wave feminism has articulated pretty clearly and uniformly that women need a public space in which they can be sexual and free of patriarchal sexual norms; I have no issue with that, and the sense that Second Wave feminists want to deny this is part of what's killing Second Wave feminism.

But what's happened in the porn industry is that women are flowing from one end of a patriarchal spectrum right into the other. Patriarchy isn't just men saying women can't have sex; patriarchy is also those same men keeping "flesh on the side" throughout history. Patriarchy is about male control of women's sexuality, one way or the other -- and what could possibly be more patriarchal than a male director or a production company headed by men telling women how to behave sexually in front of a camera, for the enjoyment of other men?

When the porn industry pulls out people like Nina Hartley as an example of why gonzo porn should be defended, it's such a joke: Nina Hartley's kinky "how to..."s are way, way far away from being what the industry is putting most women through, and at least Hartley presents sexuality in terms of some kind of minimal sensitivity and emotion. Even if Hartley's been awarded directorship as a result of previous participation in the industry's mainstream, she doesn't treat the women in her productions the same way she herself was likely treated. Betty Dodson's another example of a sex-positive feminist who defends all pornography, but even she feels some compulsion to create a "new porn" meant to educate within a feminist context.

The fact that hardcore gonzo pornography is as formulaic as it is punishing is telling; these aren't a variety of sex acts freely decided upon, but rather people being paid to perform and pretend that they enjoy things that not 100% of women would enjoy in real life -- and these things are physically punishing to boot. Sex isn't supposed to be physically punishing in most people's minds; the porn industry is becoming something right out of a Marquis de Sade book. I mean, there's a significant portion of men who would not enjoy a crowbar being shoved down his throat by his lusty partner; we would take some issue with this practice being shown in every single scene of the porn most commonly consumed by the greater public.

There are also effects external to the sex industry and these bother me most. Imagine how many relationships will be damaged as more men demand their significant others allow replication of these same acts upon them. Men who consume this stuff in boyhood are liable to think that, because these things happen nearly 100% of the time in what they're watching, and because all the women involved pretend to enjoy it, that this is part of normal sexuality, and women who don't enjoy it or even refuse it are deviant.

And what's worse -- sex ed does absolutely nothing to counter all this. With its focus on pregnancy and contraception it in fact reinforces the patriarchal notion that the main purpose of sex is to produce male orgasm, thus subverting the importance of women's pleasure in relation to men's.

For all the criticism that Andrea Dworkin receives, her genius lay in the fact that her anti-porn agenda was pursued not as something against free speech, but as a women's civil rights movement. If some women's decision to experience punishing sex on screen inhibits the right of other women to enjoy sexual relations that aren't so punishing, then there could be a real legal question at hand.


There's also the fact that porn has become so much more brutal, so much more ubiquitous, so much more readily accepted, and so much more easily accessible since McElroy published that book in 1995. A "Donkey Punch" had not been delivered onscreen until 2005; the fact that it's been done at least twice, and that female porn actresses have had their brains jarred by these punches, is a direct result of the anarchy our society has allowed the porn industry to exist in.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on October 14, 2009, 10:01:44 pm
Speaking of abuses in the model industry:
http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/beauty/was-the-photoshopped-ralph-lauren-model-fired-for-being-overweight-525248/

Did you guys hear about this freakish model photoshopping incident gone awry, and the fact that the model was let go for not following "industry guidelines"?

I think the culture of anorexia in the world of modeling could be a useful analogy to the culture of masochism in the porn industry.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Radical_Dreamer on November 04, 2009, 05:50:30 pm
http://gamecareerguide.com/features/795/reinforcing_the_wall_hegemonic_.php

Unfortunately, it seems that gender norms follow players into virtual worlds, and voice chat may be making it worse.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on November 04, 2009, 07:52:42 pm
Thanks for reminding me RD, I need to post this now:
(http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/2825/image1f.png)

A GameFAQs daily poll from a couple days back. The plurality answer is so surreal. My translation is: "Eh, we're not really concerned with progress or anything. As long as it's just as sexist as anything else, it's fine."

Surreal humor at its best -- and its worst.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on November 04, 2009, 08:55:20 pm
Holy moly. I don't even know where to begin with that one...
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Uboa on November 04, 2009, 11:17:02 pm
http://gamecareerguide.com/features/795/reinforcing_the_wall_hegemonic_.php

Unfortunately, it seems that gender norms follow players into virtual worlds, and voice chat may be making it worse.

Something that bugged me in this article is how they focused solely on the physical prowess of the classes to which they attributed "male" or "female" attributes.  They neglected to make note of the possibility that women wanted to play as "more intelligent" characters if they chose to play as a mage or priest.  

I can confirm that the in-game dynamic of MMO's can and does seem like a nightmare to women and homosexuals, and I feel safe in assuming that perception extends to transgendered individuals as well.  I wish that I could think of a decent way to remedy this.  It's a pity that games can be hotbeds of anti-female or anti-gay sentiment.  

Quote from: FW
Surreal humor at its best -- and its worst.

Surreal humor at its best and worse would be where somebody makes the case for the game Bayonetta being empowering to women because, you know, all women should have the ability to high-kick in stiletto boots which contain clandestine missile launchers.  Haaaaah.

Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on November 04, 2009, 11:33:24 pm
Quote from: Uboa
Surreal humor at its best and worse would be where somebody makes the case for the game Bayonetta being empowering to women because, you know, all women should have the ability to high-kick in stiletto boots which contain clandestine missile launchers.  Haaaaah.
Well, I think men should have the ability to high-kick in stiletto boots which contain clandestine missile launchers. Now, that might be an interesting game. I'm surprised nobody's come up with that one yet.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Uboa on November 05, 2009, 12:09:06 am
Quote from: Uboa
Surreal humor at its best and worse would be where somebody makes the case for the game Bayonetta being empowering to women because, you know, all women should have the ability to high-kick in stiletto boots which contain clandestine missile launchers.  Haaaaah.
Well, I think men should have the ability to high-kick in stiletto boots which contain clandestine missile launchers. Now, that might be an interesting game. I'm surprised nobody's come up with that one yet.

Speaking of uncommon but nifty male videogame characters, wasn't there a new member here a while back who was making a Chrono-style game where the main protagonist is a homosexual Arab who wears a pink t-sweater?  I believe he (or she?) even posted a link to in-game footage.  I should dig up that thread again, because I want to know how/if the game has progressed.

Also, I thought of an interesting point regarding the MMO class/gender issue.  I wonder what the class/gender ratios look like in a game which allows for multi-classing.  When given the choice in such games, I typically went for a mage-rogue character.  I bet that men and women would utilize classes more evenly in such games, and I bet that avatar gender would be less indicative of class as well.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on November 05, 2009, 12:27:05 am
I think you remember correctly Uboa. The person has since disappeared, though maybe he or she will pop up again. I think the aim was to use the Chrono game engine for a non-Chrono game, but I could be wrong. If the person decided on RPGMaker as the game engine instead, that would probably explain the disappearance.

These MMO studies should be aggregated into an academic paper for someone's women's studies class, or else a pop culture journal. Women's studies teachers love that sort of thing, and we can't leave it up to people who didn't grow up with videogames to study their impact on the feminist cause.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on November 09, 2009, 08:37:21 pm
http://www.seattlepi.com/health/1500ap_un_un_womens_health.html

This is all the worse when you realize that most of these people got AIDS by being raped.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Sajainta on November 10, 2009, 10:00:01 pm
This (http://www.smh.com.au/technology/elite-college-students-proud-of-prorape-facebook-page-20091108-i3js.html) is just sickening.

Make sure you watch the video as well.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on November 11, 2009, 03:50:52 am
It would be interesting to know what kind of porn these "elite" guys consume. It may be a chicken-and-egg question for sure (did porn cause the attitudes or did attitudes demand the porn?) but regardless, there's a problem if one part of society is telling them it's okay to eroticize mysogynistic practices, and another part of society is telling them they're the scum of the earth for it. Which is it going to be?

I've talked about the sexualization of women to a large extent, but have not said anything about the sexualization of men, so I'm going to shift gears a bit here. I think doing this and then returning to my original complaints with mainstream pornography will help sharpen my position and my arguments.

While doing research on Peta's "Furless" campaign I came across a news story according to which Levi Johnson (of Palin Family Saga fame) is going to do a full nude spread for Playgirl. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/29/levi-johnston-doing-full_n_338513.html)

I don't mind this, just as I don't mind the Peta "Furless" ads (other than that they seem to involve far more women than men, curiously -- do more men wear fur clothing than women, or are they trying to catch the eyes of the apparently numerous lesbians who wear fur clothing?). To examine why I don't mind, we can employ as a reference one of the male models (http://forladiesbyladies.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/peta.jpg) used in a previous Peta Campaign (ha, ironically this is safe for work).

Obviously we see some skin here (and as a male, I'm quite pleased that the model sports a fairly attainable body shape -- I was expecting Ahnold physique or something -- I do suspect some photoshopping though).

But let's look at what we don't see:

We don't see five women ganging up on this guy and urinating on him.

We don't see a woman shoving a dildo where the sun don't shine at several hundred repetitions per minute. Nor do we see Howard Stern asking him to shove a dildo down his throat to test his gag reflex.

We don't see a woman calling him a "stupid jock"; a "menstrual flow felcher"; a "douche inhaler"; uh, whatever other terms you could call a dude that would have typically negative connotations, all while spanking him until his skin is reddened, indicating observable physical injury.


I suspect Levi Johnson's experience with Playgirl will produce images very much like this Peta ad (albeit with fuller exposure). This is where one problem lies in the porn discussion; when we say "porn", we've typically got this cute vision of what Levi Johnson is doing. However, in the context I've been discussing porn, I'm referring to the "things we don't see" in the Peta ad above. If those things did happen to Levi Johnson, and the images were played ad infinitum for twelve year old girls to see for the next twenty years straight, you bet your arse I'd feel uncomfortable raising a son in such a world.

One might point out that men's sexual needs are different from women's, but, come on, if we're not going to accept derogatory terms being thrown at women in the office place (which still happens too much), why should we let this happen, let alone celebrated, in any industry?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: KebreI on November 11, 2009, 04:16:13 am
But let's look at what we don't see:

We don't see five women ganging up on this guy and urinating on him.

We don't see a woman shoving a dildo where the sun don't shine at several hundred repetitions per minute. Nor do we see Howard Stern asking him to shove a dildo down his throat to test his gag reflex.

We don't see a woman calling him a "stupid jock"; a "menstrual flow felcher"; a "douche inhaler"; uh, whatever other terms you could call a dude that would have typically negative connotations, all while spanking him until his skin is reddened, indicating observable physical injury.
Really FaustWolf? I guess I'll chalk it up to your inexperience with the industry but still most people should know this isn't entirely true. You see a lot of this attitude in say dominatrix or SBDM. Also of of the interesting thins that Playgirl mention brought to mind is the fact that, from personal experience, the porn that men watch is the exact same as the porn the women watch. There is very little "porn for men" and "porn for women".
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on November 11, 2009, 06:33:30 am
You see a lot of this attitude in say dominatrix or SBDM. Also of of the interesting thins that Playgirl mention brought to mind is the fact that, from personal experience, the porn that men watch is the exact same as the porn the women watch. There is very little "porn for men" and "porn for women".

This remark adds a certain dimension of hilarity to your userpic:     (http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/2971/kamina.gif)
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on November 11, 2009, 10:28:09 pm
I was debating whether to throw this into the Humanity thread or this one, and after some thought I realized that such a violent act of male on female violence was a large degree worse than: "Oh look at stupid humanity! loloolol!"

In any event: Professor Punches Woman in the Face After Heated Exchange. (http://www.columbiaspectator.com/2009/11/10/associate-professor-assaults-arts-school-employee-local-bar)

In particular, what stands out to me is that this guy is an educator, a college professor. I'd expect this from some country hick or drunkard, but what the hell? When it pervades to these heights, its sickening.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Sajainta on November 11, 2009, 10:35:45 pm
Oh, well at least it's an associate professor, not a real professor.

(Kidding.)

In particular, what stands out to me is that this guy is an educator, a college professor. I'd expect this from some country hick or drunkard, but what the hell? When it pervades to these heights, its sickening.

Eh, hicks and drunkards are no more prone to stupidity and cruelty and violence than professors.

Ow, my misanthropy..
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on November 12, 2009, 03:25:03 am
Quote
Really FaustWolf? I guess I'll chalk it up to your inexperience with the industry but still most people should know this isn't entirely true. You see a lot of this attitude in say dominatrix or SBDM. Also of of the interesting thins that Playgirl mention brought to mind is the fact that, from personal experience, the porn that men watch is the exact same as the porn the women watch. There is very little "porn for men" and "porn for women".
The point I was trying to make in my last post here ended up quite muddled in retrospect, though you've provided the final element necessary to drive it home: one of the things I have a major issue with is that to encounter overt misandristic themes in pornography, one has to seek out "fringe" content like femdom and BDSM. Overt misogyny, on the other hand, is all over the place in mainstream porn. There is a severe proportional imbalance in the presentation of men and women appearing "dominated" in pornography. Hell, the proponents of femdom use words like "gender role reversal" to describe it. Role reversal, as if the opposite balance of power were completely normal! When Gail Dines and Robert Jensen talk about this stuff being mainstream, I feel they are absolutely correct based on my own impression of what's available in the most copious quantities.

For a short period of my life I was a consumer of some of this industry's product, and waded through large amounts of what I forced myself to turn a blind eye to when trying to access what I was after; I'm sure I'm not unique in this regard. I believe I have a fair claim to an inkling of what this industry puts out and in what proportions, and what the trends in content and the culture surrounding it are. Anecdotally speaking, I've witnessed things in college that I later understood to be overt male-on-female sexual harassment employing pornographic terminology (like the following zinger: "Hey, your breath smells like you just finished a bukkake. How about a stick of gum?" Yeah, real smooth.) Conan O'Brien recently had a segment where he employed "out of work porn actors" to help around his office, and it had horrific undertones: when those guys made a threesome with a vending machine, the joke was that they were interacting with the vending machine in the exact same way they would interact with their female co-workers. The subtexts of domination and insensitivity in mainstream pornography are well understood in "polite" society, at least well enough to make light of it.

That in-depth content analysis research recently conducted by Ana Bridges and Robert Wosnitzer (http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/7/0/5/2/pages170523/p170523-1.php) has arrived at the very conclusion I've long suspected is true about mainstream porn suggests to me that I'm on to something, and that this could be one of the more important cultural issues of our time. I make no mistake in thinking that pornography will ever be eliminated, and I have few qualms with the general idea of displaying the human body. But I'm not prepared to concede that the domination of women in any context should be welcomed, especially in something as mainstream and ubiquitous as this type of pornography is swift becoming.

As for women's tastes in pornography, I don't have a clue. But I'll say this: I would be kind of freaked out if I were talking to a woman and knew she enjoyed images of men going through body-punishing sex and slander on top of that, and might have images of me going through that playing in the back of her mind -- especially if she was particularly privileged in the society in which she lived, and exercised power over my GPA, whether or not I get hired, etc.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on November 12, 2009, 04:53:52 am
As for women's tastes in pornography, I don't have a clue. But I'll say this: I would be kind of freaked out if I were talking to a woman and knew she enjoyed images of men going through body-punishing sex and slander on top of that, and might have images of me going through that playing in the back of her mind -- especially if she was particularly privileged in the society in which she lived, and exercised power over my GPA, whether or not I get hired, etc.

That's a good perspective.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on November 14, 2009, 02:34:41 am
Just found a great journalistic look into the porn industry (http://reversecowgirlblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/they-shoot-porn-stars-dont-they.html) by a freelance journalist. She's recommended by a critic of Robert Jensen ironically, so this has some promise of balance I suppose. If anyone's found Jensen's and Dines' writings boorish in their vehement anti-porn stance, here's someone who seems able to divorce the gut reaction and describe things matter-of-factly.

I'm reading her article "They Shoot Porn Stars, Don't They?" and it's an unabashed look into how things operate behind the scenes. If you dare, I'm lifting an excerpt from the article linked on Susannah Breslin's blog (I've removed several graphic descriptions from the original article since I've been majorly pushing the line in my recent posts here and feel the need to tone things down a bit):

Quote
...When it’s time for the final position, Hunter turns nervous. She squirms in the swing. Her face twists. “I will definitely, like, not be able to do this full-on ...,” she announces, staring at the machine.

...

“We can try a smaller one,” Powers suggests politely.

Judging by the expression on her face, Hunter looks to be doing the math on her predicament. If she doesn’t do what Jim is asking her to do, she may or may not get paid. If she doesn’t do this, it’s entirely possible no one else will hire her after today. So, she concedes.

...

“Just try to look happy,” Powers consoles, reaching up from below to gently pat the inside of her thigh. “Sell it to me, baby.”

...

In the dining room, I sit down with Hunter, who has put on a maroon velour tracksuit. After a two-year stint at the University of Nevada at Reno, where she studied secondary education with the intention of becoming a schoolteacher, and another stint working as a cocktail waitress in a casino, she came to Hollywood.

“I wanted to get out of Vegas, and I wanted to be an actress.” Things didn’t turn out quite the way she’d planned. At the time, she was using, “like, heroin, and Oxycontins, and cocaine—everything.” Instead of taking acting classes and going on auditions, “I jumped right into porn.” She did a few scenes—“I was totally high”—and then met her boyfriend, who helped her kick drugs, and left the business.

A month ago, though, they broke up. That’s when she realized he was her primary means of financial support. Now, she’s back.

In the Valley, porn is her reality. “People say, ‘You don’t really have to do that.’ Well, you really kind of do,” she explains, her voice plaintive, “if you don’t have an education, if you don’t have parents backing you, if you don’t have all those things.” She looks at her hands folded in her lap. “There isn’t another choice. There really isn’t a lot of other choices.”

Today is her second shoot since she returned to porn a week ago. “...that was really crappy for me. I was acting the whole time.” Jim, she offers, is “nice,” but she really needed the $500. She has student loans, credit card debt, and no car. This is what she’s doing to get by.

“It’s not the most respectable to do, but it’s a phone call, and I have $500,” she asserts. “It lets me know, ‘You’re going to be OK, even if you don’t make enough money at your job, you have this to fall back on.’ I can make my bills. I can get a car. I can do the things I need to do to move forward.”


There's some nudity in the article (but not the linked blog that serves as intermediary), so once again beware that I'm putting the "FW" into NSFW if anyone wants to read the full thing.

But I thought this quote very ably highlights the issue of choice in the production of pornography and how muddled it can become for the participants. I don't think most mainstream porn consumers take joy in degradation and humiliation of the films' subjects -- they're just looking for naked people, and any item featuring that will probably suffice as well as the next for most. (As an aside, I wonder if the supply-demand market for pornography even operates "correctly" based on product differentiation, or if people are really consuming it based on some bizarre and not well-understood, exotic, and possibly viral economic model).

Using the quote as a base to work from, let us first cut out the consumers who are really looking for pain and degradation and cast them by the wayside. Then, let us ask the remainder -- how do you know that actress or actor is a.) enjoying what's being displayed or at least b.) selected the choice to sign the contract for that scene without interference from outside forces such as economic desperation? Of course there are men and women out there who enjoy bizarre parlor tricks, and there are porn actors and actresses who have chosen this career over being doctors and lawyers even though they were equally qualified for those things. But there are absolutely no safeguards in this industry that ensure that, and that's what I'm most concerned with, if I had to rank my problems with the industry from greatest to least. These actors and actresses can apparently be blacklisted for backing out on scenes after they find out just what they're in for. Is that any kind of meaningful model of choice? Let's allow that most actors and actresses are actually in it for the fun and the thrill of what's going on, and only a few feel forced into it. How are these people going to get any kind of help unless this industry is ruthlessly questioned, its flaws examined, and its structure purged of the chaff? And more importantly, how does the viewer know whether there's any kind of suffering involved? Given the fetishization of 18 and 19 year olds as a wide-ranging theme in porn, it's difficult enough for the mainstream consumer to tell whether child pornography is actually on his or her screen.

Moreover, let's look at the nature of what the mainstream material is, exactly. It really is all acting for the most part, and therefore relies on "the suspension of disbelief." One of the things I worry about is that, in a schizophrenic culture where pornography is the most accepted discourse on human sexuality, all of us -- the actresses and actors, the viewers, the directors -- are allowing our sexuality to be constructed by what are essentially...inane market forces with no intelligence of their own. Nobody involved in the production of a great portion of this stuff is actually experiencing real human sexual interaction (after doing some more reading I think I've overlooked how the men, too, may not be enjoying what they're doing); and yet, it is packaged as "real sex" to the audience. It's easy to defend this industry by saying one supports free speech, but when I look at the totality of the circumstances surrounding it, I can't help but feel there's something extremely spooky and surreal about all this, and the fact that there's long been an "it's all nor nothing" attitude surrounding the industry.

There are no Socratic questioners in the porn debate as shaped by the industry and popular media -- there are only prudes and valiant free speech defenders. This attitude needs to change.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Radical_Dreamer on November 14, 2009, 06:40:36 pm
So this may seem a minor quibble next to the other issues with the porn industry, but I find it quite alarming that, based on your excerpt, the performers don't actually know what doing the scene will entail until the shoot is underway. It's impossible to make an informed decision when you don't have pertinent information.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on November 14, 2009, 08:09:05 pm
What happened in that excerpt is hopefully rare -- hopefully -- but the point is, there are no safeguards in this industry to keep things like this from happening, or to punish producers who pull stunts like this. In that actress' situation specifically, what I bet happened is that the producer did take her briefly through the script and said, "Hey, we're going to have you do A, B, C, and D." But the funny thing about sex is that it's something that has to be judged as it's felt in realtime. A line can be crossed in the middle of a fully agreed-upon act. And the moment a line is crossed on a porn set it is an act of rape, fair and square. Any person in polite society should be afforded at least the protection of personal judgment over where his or her "lines" are, which is probably the best we can do legally; the fact that we hear about porn actresses (and perhaps actors) going forward with shoots like this at the behest of directors shows they are, indeed, valued less than "normal" human beings by the directors. The moment she said "I don't think I'll be able to do this..." while she was in the middle of whatever act it was, the shoot should have stopped. No ifs, ands, or buts. Male and LGBT actors should be afforded the exact same protections. The fact that that one actress felt compelled to continue despite her own discomfort tells us, for certain, that something's wrong here. Sure, this guy's studio was raided a couple times. But he is still operating. The porn industry has the same implicit understandings with our government that other industries do, or at least that's my suspicion.

There's no reporting structure if the consumer suspects something's up (there are literally scenes out there where women actually seem to refuse very clearly, but the director quips something like, "Hey, you just need to loosen up, baby!" -- who you gonna call to find out if that was a real act of rape, or just staged?); and since pornographic actresses are basically treated as contract workers and not unionized ones to my understanding, they can probably just be tossed by the wayside in favor of more willing participants: this lends the cruel edge of severe economic competition to the decisions they make about their bodies. I know nothing about homosexual pornography (and lesbian porn produced for men hardly counts), but I'd have to take a wild guess that some of the same problems exist there as well.

The porn industry has a stake in reducing the conversation surrounding it to a binary "prude/not prude" level. Just as any capitalist corporation in its right, one-track-profit-motive mind, will more often than not resist unionization, so it is with porn, probably. The easiest way to avoid this is shape the nature of the debate itself. When Penn and Teller bring Gail Dines onto their Bullsh!t show and then drown her out with bombastic appeals to freedom, then proceed to play soft core porn clips and literally label her a "prude," they're egregiously skipping over issues that need to be discussed, and both sides would probably agree to discuss things like this constructively if they would just sit down and actually communicate. Imagine the actress in that article returning to her union after experiencing that and reporting being pressured on set, and suddenly all the porn workers in California go celibate until some serious action is taken by the industry. Now, maybe that's some sexual liberation.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Kodokami on November 17, 2009, 12:21:09 am
A little something which pissed me off today . . .

My mother is an elementary school teacher, and some time this morning a 5th grade girl came to talk to her. Apparently, a boy from her class had been harassing her, and this girl felt so violated that she had to speak with a teacher. Now, I don't know all the details, but for a young girl to feel like this within a school? That just makes me sick. Needless to say, the boy is being dealt with (by being sent to some alternative school).

I felt this deserved a place in this thread because, What kind of society do we live in where sexual harassment is seen within, of all places, an elementary school? What had that boy been taught to believe?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on November 17, 2009, 12:55:02 am
Yes, that's sad, isn't it? Even though I can recall hearing various anecdotes about and personally observing harassment in my environment in high school and college, I really can't think of any as early as elementary school.

On one hand, it could mean things are getting worse -- or even that I wasn't very observant about gender issues at that stage in my own life, and didn't take note of such things even though they may have existed. On the other hand, at least the girl was educated to know that what happened to her was wrong, and could report the incident without fear.

Regardless, a policing, reactionary response isn't necessarily the answer, or at most it is part of the answer. Something in the culture itself needs to change since this sort of thing still happens on a scale we might consider epidemic were sexism and sexual harassment a microorganism.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: GenesisOne on November 24, 2009, 01:51:01 am

Feminists out there must hate the following song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f_HsjpSVaI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f_HsjpSVaI)

Funny, I thought it was a great song.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on November 24, 2009, 02:00:10 pm
Ha, gotta love the '80s hairstyles though. And I have to give them credit for associating glowing neon whips with something other than tight leather.

The problem for me really isn't a single cultural artifact being sexist, but rather an environment in which said artifacts are so ubiquitous that, in their totality, they would tend to generate or reinforce widespread stereotypes as opposed to creating varied impressions of certain categories of people.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Boo the Gentleman Caller on November 27, 2009, 07:50:29 pm
That song just makes me think of Shrek.

No! Not my gumdrop buttons!
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: GenesisOne on November 27, 2009, 09:48:49 pm

I have to admit, though...

The cover version in Shrek 2 was pretty decent.

Back on topic now.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Sajainta on December 01, 2009, 12:18:17 am
What the fuck. (http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2009/11/17/hit-the-bitch/#)
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Kodokami on December 01, 2009, 01:03:43 am
Ugh. What assholes thought that was a good idea? The audacity. . . :picardno
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on December 01, 2009, 01:22:12 am
What's really weird is that it's supposed to be anti-domestic violence, am I understanding that right? Like, you're supposed to play the "game" and the player gets rewarded for it until the "game" suddenly turns around and labels the player an IDIOT upon completion.

That's a heck of a mixed message -- especially considering many players might not even stick around long enough for the IDIOT part. Interesting that one commenter noted racist overtones as well, since the reward phase of the "game" is the label GANGSTA before that label gets replaced with IDIOT. Racism and misogyny sometimes seem like partners in crime. Whatever harbors one is often capable of harboring the other quite well.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Sajainta on December 01, 2009, 01:40:52 am
What's really weird is that it's supposed to be anti-domestic violence, am I understanding that right? Like, you're supposed to play the "game" and the player gets rewarded for it until the "game" suddenly turns around and labels the player an IDIOT upon completion.

That's a heck of a mixed message -- especially considering many players might not even stick around long enough for the IDIOT part. Interesting that one commenter noted racist overtones as well, since the reward phase of the "game" is the label GANGSTA before that label gets replaced with IDIOT. Racism and misogyny sometimes seem like partners in crime. Whatever harbors one is often capable of harboring the other quite well.

You're right, it's supposed to be anti-domestic violence.  Hell of a screwed up way of getting the point across.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Crono666 on December 01, 2009, 04:18:40 am
What the fuck. (http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2009/11/17/hit-the-bitch/#)
Wow I don't know what's more disturbing, that someone created that, or the fact that there are people who would want to play it.
It's also kind of creepy that it's suppose to be anti-domestic violence.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Mr Bekkler on December 01, 2009, 06:55:49 pm

You're right, it's supposed to be anti-domestic violence.  Hell of a screwed up way of getting the point across.

It's like putting a drunk person in a car, and putting a bunch of people in the way, and telling him "20 points" each time he hits a person. Then when he gets to the end of the road the only person left standing is the cop, and the word "points" turns into "years". As a matter of fact, my one-shot idea sounds a little better than the actual game. And that's sad in and of itself.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: KebreI on December 01, 2009, 11:32:25 pm
What the fuck. (http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2009/11/17/hit-the-bitch/#)
interesting... (http://nigoro.jp/game/rosecamellia/rosecamellia.php)
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on December 02, 2009, 01:28:18 am
Kebrel brought up a fascinating counter-example -- what do you all make of it? It's exactly like the Tifa vs. Scarlet slapping duel from Final Fantasy VII, only it...doesn't take place atop a giant city-destroying cannon.

The Japanese game contributes to a "catfighting" stereotype that could be seen as misogynistic. It seems to be about two women fighting over a dude as far as I can tell, though that's really me just jumping to a conclusion based on an intro screen that offers some semblance of a scenario.


But on the other hand, the player and antagonist seem about evenly well equipped for combat in the game Kebrel found -- whereas in the game Sajainta found, the player is a GANGSTA striking out at someone who's clearly being victimized and lacks an ability to fight back. There's a "live by the sword, die by the sword" thematic subtext in the game Kebrel found, and it is in that way linked to most traditional games that employ some form of violence as a gameplay mechanic. That subtext is completely lacking in the game Sajainta found, excepting the paltry IDIOT label applied toward the victorious GANGSTA who just brutalized someone for no reason.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on December 02, 2009, 01:45:53 am
What the fuck. (http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2009/11/17/hit-the-bitch/#)

Do...I...wh...how...uh...yeah....wow...right...

This is a wallbanger if I've ever seen one.

I'll give the guys who made this a paltry amount of credit: their heart was in the right place...I think...I'll give them the BotD on that.

But, its just...wow, how do you even justify that? How the hell does that cut down on domestic violence any? What would've been better is if the person got maced, tackled and arrested by two cops right after the first punch. Maybe its just me, but the game seems to say "Hey, if you only hit a woman 14 times, you're ok, and you're still a real gangsta!" That's not cool.

Ugh...seriously people, THINK before you do stuff like this.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on December 03, 2009, 09:58:03 am
I saw that game in the news a couple of weeks ago, when it first came out. I checked it out for myself to see what it was really like. Thankfully I didn't need to finish the game to find that out: One slap was enough.

Then, as now, the reaction to this PSA was widespread and almost totally negative. Normally I would have been the first to agree with that conclusion, but one-sided populist reactions always trigger my anti-groupthink alarm, so I gave the whole premise a harder, second thought.

The first thing that occurred to me is that this announcement has gotten domestic violence some big publicity in the past few weeks. That's a good thing.

The second thing that occurred to me is that sexual equality is farther along in Denmark than it is here, and there is less puritanism in Denmark than there is here. Here, one of the major complaints about this PSA is that it laps itself, turning an anti-sexist game into a sexist one. There are too many variations and nuances to this complaint to summarize them all, but the most common logic (as best I can tell) is that the game is desensitizing, trivializing the severity of domestic abuse. To play the game at all, you're forced to commit the crime--in all its brutal, first-person detail. (That's not much different than Modern Warfare 2 or Vice City, except that people actually pay money for those games. Don't get me started...) I am skeptical that it is actually desensitizing (any more than those other games are), although my jury is still out. Of course, to the extent that this is true, it's proof that the PSA was only pointing out a problem that already exists: People are desensitized to domestic abuse.

The third thing that occurred to me is that the PSA has offended plenty of the wrong people. The sexists and the naive, for their part, are enjoying seeing who can hit the bitch the fastest, getting the high score. Only feminists seem to be bothered. That's a bad thing. But the fourth thing that occurred to me is that the PSA's successes, if there were any, would be invisible. If people apt to commit domestic abuse played this game and genuinely felt guilty, then the PSA has done its job. And we don't know if there are such people.

All in all, I have a hard time condemning this. Me...I found it an ugly game. But I don't need a public service announcement to pull me back from my female-assaulting ways. This game wasn't made for me. I would like to learn how it affects the people for whom it is made, before I make up my mind as to its value. It's kind of gross, the thought of appealing to people's consciences by putting the crime in daylight, but it also makes a lot of sense. Domestic abuse rarely occurs in public, in relative terms. It's something that, in the modern developed world, happens in secret. And we don't like to acknowledge its existence. I needn't name names of people at the Compendium who have doubted, or still doubt, the importance of the sexual equality movement, or the horrors of sexism in the world today. And we are but a microcosm. Maybe bringing this out into the daylight is not such a bad thing. The huge backlash against it is eminently understandable and probably desirable: Most people won't have thought it out like I'm doing, and would stick with their initial revulsion. That revulsion is a good thing. But, except for the people who are actually abuses, it's a sideshow.

The more I think about it, the more I think this PSA did more good than harm. There're five hundred ways to assault females in our entertainment media. People who want to do that, have no shortage of options. One public service announcement is not going to tip society over the edge. No one is going to play this game and commit domestic abuses, or otherwise degrade females, unless they already were on course toward perpetrating these crimes. On the other hand, maybe the light of day will provide some of them with a new perspective.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on December 06, 2009, 01:49:13 am
Here's one of those rare articles that will help bring out your inner feminist and force you to confront it, help you divine its true nature and clarify your values. Written by a college student from South Dakota:

http://media.www.dakotastudent.com/media/storage/paper970/news/2008/09/23/Life/Get-Busy.Anatomy.Of.The.OneNight.Stand-3449575.shtml


Many feminists (especially Third Wave feminists) would no doubt celebrate this advice, absolutely unabashedly. It does make very good points about contraception and dating safety, and since it's enveloped in trendy attitudes, it might just be more effective than abstinence sex ed.

However, my own inner feminist couldn't help but throw up vigorously as I read through this. While the egalitarianism is appreciated, the literal use and immediate shedding of any human being to fulfill one's own short-term urges is not what I signed up for as a feminist, nor as a humanist -- and perhaps this is where I need to make a distinction between feminism and humanism in my personal philosophy. I think up until now I had the two conflated, due in no small measure to my particular fascination with that obscure animal known as "care feminism" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_of_care#Ethics_of_care_and_feminist_ethics).

Third Wave Feminism, or what I've seen and studied of it, seems devoted solely to political, economic and social egalitarianism; in a word, Freedom*. This is no bad thing, but the article has driven me to the conclusion that I want to promote and be a part of something above and beyond bare sexual equality. I want to explore a world of deeper human connection, and for that reason I fear being targeted for the kind of activity the student's article promotes. It seems easy at first to brush this concern aside, to just "be careful," but I'm not so sure people of either gender who are literally out for a "one night stand" are that readily differentiable from people interested in forging some kind of emotional bond. We are all strangers to one another at first and these are extremely complex interactions; just because a person is persistent doesn't mean he or she doesn't also intend to throw you away after the feast.

Here we get to what I believe is the crux of the extremely vehement attitudes Second Wave and Third Wave Feminists sometimes harbor toward one another: each side views the other as trying to fashion the world in a certain image, and the other side fears living in that world. Third Wave Feminists have given me the impression that they don't really want to be hindered with communal concerns; everything is about the individual, her or his personal needs. Second Wave Feminists, on the other hand, gave (and still give, where they still exist) me the impression that they wanted to foster a deeper, richer human community -- yes, that's likely to require great self limitation and self control. It's sad, but these goals are in a way inimical to one another -- there is nothing communal about a "one night stand" other than the physical pleasure both parties might derive from it. As an analogy, a string of "one night stands" sounds like a perfectly good way to keep one's bed warm but still end up cold and lonely in the end. It's better than prostitution only because it's financially cheaper.

The attitudes espoused in this article were the greatest shock and surprise to me when I began seriously studying feminism; like Jessica Valenti's Full Frontal Feminism, this article seems representative of the movement's current vanguard. I attached feminism to myself as a way of escaping attitudes and practices rife within traditional masculinity that I felt were destroying me inside; what a shock to discover how eager other feminists are to enter that very world and exercise power within it. I'm sure some pride can be gleaned from the power trip, at least for a time, but that power trip is no longer for me.


*It should be noted that there is a strong cross-cultural component to Third Wave Feminism that Second Wave Feminism lacked -- or was often seen as lacking. This is why I still consider Third Wave Feminism a step forward. And Third Wave Feminism really can't be described in any succinct way, because it's an incredibly eclectic movement. I can't claim that I've even managed to scratch past the surface of it.

EDIT: I might seem like I'm joining a bandwagon of protest already levied at the author by her commentators, but I think those people are missing the concern I'm raising. Most of the already-levied criticism seems to revolve around shame associated with traditional morals. Make no mistake, the author feels precisely empowered by what she's suggesting, and she knows her peers engage in this regularly and see no shame in it. My concern is that the author and the culture she's celebrating are reducing human interaction to a pursuit of cheap thrills and therefore robbing it of some value. In a perfect world without STDs or unintended pregnancies I would have the exact same concern.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on December 06, 2009, 02:38:23 am
This article seems comically shallow. While sexual liberation is on the side of justice, I'm not sure advising everyone to go out and fuck as many random people as possible would accomplish it. Yes, you're getting boys and girls to have sex, but there's no advice on the attitudes and circumstances necessary to make this a positive event. If you take a random guy and a random girl and have a one-night stand, then all constants held, you're probably going to end up with the same problems—the guy is probably unempathetic about love-making, benefits from being seen as sexually active, reinforces gender attitudes by "scoring", etc.—and the girl gets all the negative baggage. People have been going out and fucking each other willy-nilly for the entire record of human civilization, and we still have sexism. What a vapid article (at least when viewed from a humanistic perspective).
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on December 06, 2009, 02:44:10 am
Just a couple of thoughts to share on Faust's article and commentary...

The complexity and supposed importance of sexual encounters is largely a construct--a matter of perception. Far from thinking that we stripped sex too bare, I think sex is still encumbered by layer upon layer of worthless social baggage. This whole idea that casual sex involves "using" the other person--with a decidedly negative connotation on this "using," insinuating exploitation--is dependent upon a bunch of double standards between sex and other forms of interaction. Do we "use" people when we seek their verbal company and emotional presence to cheer us up? Do we "use" them when we solicit their brainpower for practical advice and analysis?

Let people explore sex at their own pace and discretion. "Sex" is not some monolithic thing. It comes in many varieties, and we're foolish to regard every act of sex identically.

I won't disagree that most folks would screw it up in a small or big way if they sought casual sex. Most people are screw-ups anyway; they'd do just as poorly for themselves and their partners by eschewing casual sex for relationships. Indeed, "relationships" offer a whole new world for screwing up to take place. Should we ban all sex, then? No, and neither should we pin a scarlet letter on casual sex. I actually think people should have more casual sex. I think it would do our society a lot of good. But, to each their own. If some folks don't want that for themselves, I wouldn't force them. However, I expect the reverse to also hold true. This judgmentalism is puritanism, plain and simple, and I'm against it.

Notwithstanding the sexist undertones in the sex-specific advice, I think it's a good article.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on December 06, 2009, 04:10:54 am
The concerns I express above extend well beyond casual sex, though it's true that I singled it out as an example. I view the article as an allegory of the quality of all our interaction nowadays -- so focused on consumption, so wrapped around goods and services. A friendship with little substance seems just as tragic to me as a "one night stand"; same with a cash register operator seeing huge amounts of people and yet getting to know nothing about most of them. It's one of those new age hippie worries like the kind you'd see in Fahrenheit 451, I guess -- the worry that we might lose our ability to forge real, enriching human connections with one another.

Quote from: Lord J Esq
This whole idea that casual sex involves "using" the other person--with a decidedly negative connotation on this "using," insinuating exploitation--is dependent upon a bunch of double standards between sex and other forms of interaction. Do we "use" people when we seek their verbal company and emotional presence to cheer us up? Do we "use" them when we solicit their brainpower for practical advice and analysis?
I didn't mean to espouse any sort of double standard for my own part: Yes, I think it's perfectly possible that the offered analogies could lead to exploitative relationships -- it depends, of course, on whether the targeted party feels used. If not, then no easily identifiable harm has been done. But if so, there is a problem.

The "to each their own" question is precisely what I wanted to get at, because I'm interested in exploring some of the conflicts that exist within feminism. Looking at this from a Second Wave perspective, one might argue that "the hookup" has roots in patriarchal exploitation; looking at this from a Third Wave perspective, "the hookup" is something women should be able to pursue freely because men have done this for so long, and it's something all human beings should be able to do. It's fascinating. I think the Second Wave critique still has some value for the reason that ZeaLitY noted: what the article is promoting, in and of itself, may not go as far toward resolving sexism as some feminists might feel. Speaking for myself, I'll add that I fled patriarchal machismo precisely because I thought this attitude toward relationships was harmful (to myself at least, if not to all of society). That's why I can't help but personally view the article with some sense of unease, and why I identify more with the Second Wave camp on this one.

Other than my fascination with intra-feminist conflict I'm not rabidly concerned with this one issue other than a desire to shout out that it's okay to want deeper human connection -- that applies to all types of interaction we might find ourselves in from time to time. Sometimes I feel messages that should be obvious are drowned out by pop culture, i.e., the types of cultural artifacts we're exposed to may be skewed in one direction or another. For example, in normalizing "the hookup" this article suggests this is the normal and most accepted mode of sexual interaction between college students; there is no discussion of other possible relationships and why those, too, may be desirable. The author just tells her reader there's an "itch" that needs scratched, and this is the way to do it, because, apparently, the reader's already doing it anyway.

Granted, there's plenty of other media to the contrary -- but once again this is an issue people often view in binary fashion. Either you're a hookup promoter or you belong to a tacky abstinence club. There need to be voices representing other positions, even if those positions are more nuanced and complex.


EDIT:
Quote from: Lord J Esq
Indeed, "relationships" offer a whole new world for screwing up to take place.
Aha, I missed your meaning here before. So, a utilitarian approach to the subject, perhaps: if people who are just looking for sex feel forced into a relationship, then it'll be a sucky relationship. I can buy that. My concern was for precisely the opposite situation -- that there might be people who want a relationship but society dictated the only desirable thing was casual sex. Again, I admit it's a concern worthy of Fahrenheit 451, Brave New World and other dystopian fiction; only I actually felt that I was being trained to think this way earlier in life.


EDIT AGAIN: Looks like I might have binged a little too much on the judgmentalism in my previous post; I wanted to clarify that it's not my design to advocate forcing a certain mode of behavior on others but rather to highlight the nature of intra-feminist conflict I've read into recently. That required reflecting on the issue through one of the many lenses that exist in this movement.

When it comes down to choice over one's lifestyle, I'd probably advocate better mechanisms for segregating those who are after casual sex from those seeking deeper relationships. It's when people with such starkly differing goals unknowingly intermingle that we have problematic outcomes.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Uboa on December 07, 2009, 10:37:23 pm
Faust, you mentioned something in the "Stuff you Hate" thread that caught my attention and I was hoping that maybe you'd give some follow-up on it here.  On second thought, anybody can feel free to join in answering this question, which was originally intended for Faust, if they feel so inclined:

How has any pervasive aspect of our culture -- media, religion, art, academia/pop-science? (other?) -- had a resounding influence (positive or negative) on your view of the opposite sex, or your own sex for that matter?  What about relationships or sex itself, for better or worse?  The article that Faust posted is a good example of a potentially strong influence, as was the "friend zone" article which was posted several pages back.

I am going to have to do some reflection before I post my own answer to this question. 
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on December 08, 2009, 04:31:55 am
I had a difficult time finding any kind of official research or editorials that explore the subject I'm about to tackle in response to Uboa's question. Without making widespread generalities the only thing I can really offer is a fleeting glimpse into the life of an average male growing up in average conditions of (Mid)Western patriarchy in the United States.

Before I begin, a bit of a theoretical tangent. After reflecting on our conversations here, I'll posit up front that no single cultural artifact (ranging from the Bible to Beyonce's Single Ladies (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4m1EFMoRFvY) -- it was one of the best videos of all time!!! Look at the lighting! The skilled choreography! That video editing!) is necessarily sufficient in and of itself to generate sexism. Each individual could conceivably have his or her own varied interpretation of the Book of Genesis and Beyonce displaying her rather nice gams for all to see. Is Eve being made from Adam's rib implying that "women are the crowning jewel of creation" or is it implying "women are second rate beings"? Is Beyonce "putting out" for me on command like dancers in the old harems, or is she displaying a fierce sexuality that strikes out at patriarchy because it is all her own? Sexism occurs when these cultural articles are arranged together in such a way or framed in such a context that they carry a sexist message. The explicitness with which this message is communicated and disseminated, then, may determine how many fall under its sway.


Since I still feel a need to lend some credence to the possibility that the issue I'm about to address is of societal significance, let's first turn to three Youtube videos I found on short notice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWR1Z4AiyWM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VDvZYcrq0o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ua1g-eGn3V0

These videos tell stories about men in our society and their view of women, and specifically their views about how they relate to women. In each case the viewer will likely pick up strong vibes of anger toward women (and thus thinly veiled misogyny).

In the first case the literal message is, "Feminism screwed us up! Society was so much better when things were arranged more orderly!"

In the second case, it's "Hey, numbnuts! Start acting tough or you'll never get laid!"

In the third case, it's "Hey, you retard girls! If you'd stop dating assholes and start dating 'nice guys' like 'us' your lives will be a whole lot better!"

But in addition to each video's literal message, there is a subtext shared by all three: a false but unquestioned underlying assumption that these men are somehow entitled to something they've been deprived of unfairly, or else they might not be getting so worked up over the issues they're getting worked up about. If we were to have a conversation with them, we might arrive at the core issue here: they feel they are entitled to women.

This would only be a pet theory except for the fact that I myself was in these men's shoes for a time. For me it manifested in such a way that I had a really flippant attitude toward women who were dating or otherwise socially attached to men who were not me; I began categorizing, labeling, every conversation a reconnaissance mission; if she was dating I left for more fertile pastures. During lull periods I would feel alternately frustrated like the guy in video #3; charged with aggressive machismo like the speaker in video #2; and yearning for ye olde days where conservative values simplified these adolescent trials, like the guy in video #1. When I finally paused and actually examined myself and my motives, I realized I was trying to build my whole life around a sense of entitlement. I, a white male living the dream that is middle class patriarchy in the US, was no different than those slave masters of old who defined the worth of other human beings only in relation to themselves. I am, to this day, a recovering sexist. Feminism was my ticket out; I have positive cultural artifacts and feminist women in my life to thank for my interest in exploring this field, and it's been the most liberating experience for me on a personal level.


So I've said thus far that I believe there might be a societal issue here worth addressing: that our culture could be producing self-centered men so fixated on "the score" that they actually get cranky and feel deprived when women exercise free choice, and that free choice doesn't lead straight to them. More simply: male entitlement to women. Others here may report honestly never feeling such things; that's good, that represents progress to me. But on the other hand, between the three Youtube videos and myself, you've got four who fit the sexist mold, at least as captured in video and anecdote. How many more are out there? Does the attitude contribute to extreme behaviors in some cases? Like...acquaintance rape, sexual assault, child pornography, you name it?


And how does this attitude even arise? How could a male baby born with naught but a tabula rasa to call his own, get these ideas in his head? Again, all I can pretend to offer at this point are personal anecdotes. I'll paint a very brief impression of a (probably average) male adolescent life in a middle class midwestern US community:

Age 9: Grade school soccer match during recess. Boy sees a male peer calling another male peer a "faggot." Boy doesn't know quite what that means just yet; only knows it's something he doesn't want to be called himself, judging from the fact that the one peer was screaming that at the other peer. Later that year boy looks up the term; it's not a burning stick like in The Hobbit after all.

Age 12: Boy receives his regular monthly videogame magazine in the mail; approximately half way through is a full-spread Sega Saturn ad featuring a luxuriously reclining woman adorned only by strategically placed videogame screenshots. Boy's response: "Whoa."

Age 13: Boy is accused of being "gay" in an argument; boy vows to drop the games and start lifting weights. Although...the weight-lifting plan is postponed for a year to make more time for Final Fantasy VII.

Age 18: Boy receives his first Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition. The covergirl is Yamila Diaz Rahi; and the issue climaxes with an image of Ms. Diaz-Rahi that leaves very little to the imagination (and ironically, what little she is clad in would become the ultimate dress -- or lack thereof -- in Dead or Alive: XTreme Beach Volleyball).

Later that year: Boy is at a lunch table listening to a peer's report of having sex with a drunken freshman -- one of the school's most desirable hotties -- at a party. When someone asks why the peer did what he did, his response is: "Well, who the fuck wouldn't?" Everyone bows their heads because he apparently speaks solemn truth. The issue of whether the sex was or was not consensual does not enter discussion.

Later that year: Boy is inducted into an honor society, the only male. A mother of one of his peers quips of the boy: "He has a harem!"


What does this all amount to? Could be anything, reasonably; for me, the subtext that succinctly unites all these anecdotes thematically is something along the lines of: "Women's bodies are out there for the grabbing, better get busy and prove you're not gay!" That's the kind of attitude I found festering within me after being exposed to all this for so long. Once I saw it for what it was it seemed poisoning and destructive.

Now, there's no guarantee everyone would have reacted the same way to these things. Furthermore, I left out various countervailing cultural impressions that at least helped me realize women aren't somehow these, one-dimensional caricatures. But more important than what I chose to leave out are what I'm forced to leave out due to their nonexistence: there was no classroom discussion at age 10 about the fact that the nude woman I saw in a videogame mag at age 9 entered into a complex legal contract, and furthermore was probably photoshopped. There was no discussion at age 18 about female empowerment through sexuality; there was just...Yamila Diaz-Rahi's bare body there, meant to be consumed. There was nothing framing that act of consumption, nothing that helped me interpret the cultural implications of the image in one way or another. I didn't get any of that until I'd taken a women's studies course way later in college.

So that's my spiel about how the sum effect of cultural artifacts can contribute to patriarchy. It's also why I feel a bit of a pit in my stomach when I read what some Third Wave Feminists are up to, and why some remaining Second Wave Feminists share this trepidation. As a concluding analogy to sum up my current feelings about the state of the movement: While I think Beyonce should be completely free to shake her thang, I just hope that for every boy who sees it, there's a parent, friend, mentor, or teacher out there at the ready with a feminist interpretation of what he's seeing. If not, then the movement has much work left ahead of it indeed. We need to actively create discussion and pro-feminist context as an adjunct to promoting sexual freedom.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Radical_Dreamer on December 08, 2009, 05:50:39 pm
I saw this in another thread, but I felt it would be more appropriate here: The way you, Faust, describe being a recovering sexist, in the same sense as a recovering alcoholic, is an incredible descriptor. A person with sexist attitudes who is self aware enough to realize this, is ethical enough to realize that they are unacceptable, and has the strength of will to attempt to overcome them is very different from someone who wallows in their sexist views and acts on them, even though we may call both of them sexists. I may have to start using that in other conversations on the topic.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on December 08, 2009, 06:59:46 pm
Yeah, I'm glad you picked up on the alcoholism analogy, that's exactly how I wanted to portray it. Groups like Alcoholics Anonymous allow people who have shared a certain negative experience to know it's okay to explore and deconstruct what they went through publicly. Confessions can be incredibly therapeutic, and furthermore maybe the existence of AA testimonies provide some hope that people taking their first sip of alcohol in the future can do so knowing the difference between a properly consumed alcoholic beverage and an improperly consumed alcoholic beverage. Alcohol is alcohol; but the circumstances surrounding every drink are unique. Sometimes they're positive and wholesome, sometimes they're negative and destructive. My experience with sexism and the patriarchy as it exists where I grew up is that it takes sexuality and twists it into something potentially horrific if it's left to grow unchecked. Where I came from, men are entitled to women's bodies; and if they're unsatisfied with what they've had access to so far, they're welcome to take more, because -- hey, it's out there!

The feminist movement could do well to offer men more avenues for exploring and sharing the ways in which patriarchy and its various subcultures have affected each of them. I think this is an important step in dismantling some of the attitudes that are pervasive in at least some masculine-focused subcultures in the United States.


As for what I feel may be a more concrete recent example of men's sense of entitlement and how it may be more widespread than we give it credit for at first, consider the huge buzz surrounding Carrie Prejean's alleged sex tape. A pornography distributor apparently has the video in its possession somehow and is fighting tooth and nail to distribute it for profit (link is safe for work, except maybe for language). (http://gawker.com/5405401/carrie-prejean-porn-star-vivid-has-the-sex-tapes-and-wants-to-distribute-them)

Now, I dislike Ms. Prejean's attack on homosexuality just as much as the next liberal, but consider what happened here if we take this story at face value. Prejean created that footage (however naively) with the expectation that there were to be boundaries laid on its consumption, and that those boundaries were under her control -- it was supposedly for her boyfriend at the time. So what happens? Someone leaks it to this distributor. That leak, regardless of who committed it, was an act of rape. It constituted seizing control over a woman's own body away from her. Anyone who watches that footage other than her boyfriend without her express permission joins in that rape. Nobody has suggested this in the media. I find that lack of context a sign of the great work ahead of the feminist movement, and furthermore a direct outcropping of the kind of raunchy machismo subculture to which I'd been exposed during adolescence. Few men would probably think anything of it if this footage joined the stream of leaked celebrity pornography, despite the fact that it was hardly produced under the stringent legal and even pro-feminist conditions the porn industry is often credited for. I suspect this situation is due entirely to the lack of context in which raunch and machismo subcultures present female sexuality.


EDIT: Thought I'd toss this in here given the current subject matter.
The National Organization for Men Against Sexism. http://www.nomas.org/

Might seem like something to jump for joy about, but some feminists might say, "Not so fast!"
http://www.nomas.org/node/64
http://www.nomas.org/node/179

NOMAS is very Second Wave -- so much so that I'm surprised by its Second Wave-ness. Imagine how Wendy McElroy, linked a few pages back, might critique the first of those two links especially. So file this one under "potential for intra-feminist conflict," which of course I'm very fond of highlighting because I feel some consensus needs to be reached eventually so more concrete goals can take shape. But these guys probably take these positions for some of the reasons I describe above.

What should be a movement of crystal clear simplicity gets all so very muddled and contentious so quickly, because there are so many ways to interpret things. Perhaps a Fourth or Fifth Wave, or even a non-Wave paradigm can discover a way of reconciling all these different views without diluting the power of each perspective's ideas. I think Second Wave concerns might be well addressed through the creation of "context" without hindering the all-encompassing freedom Third Wavers seek.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on December 08, 2009, 11:15:25 pm
Unfortunately, Alcoholics Anonymous is a very religious program. They'd come out of one patriarchal fire and fall into another.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: GenesisOne on December 08, 2009, 11:19:26 pm
Unfortunately, Alcoholics Anonymous is a very religious program. They'd come out of one patriarchal fire and fall into another.

Yeah, I haven't been too favorable about those 12-step programs.

I mean, it worked for my dad since he was an alcoholic growing up.  It got him sobered up and off the bottle.  I guess it just falls to whoever's in there wants to make it work for them.

I'm just saying that there are better options out there than 12-step programs.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on December 08, 2009, 11:53:23 pm
Well, there's always SOS. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Organizations_for_Sobriety)

But being a recovering sexist isn't about getting rid of a physical addiction so much as staving off a psychological mindset that's been ingrained through years of implicit-but-pervasive reinforcement.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: GenesisOne on December 09, 2009, 12:23:30 am
Well, there's always SOS. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Organizations_for_Sobriety)

Yay for Secular Sobriety. :D
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on December 09, 2009, 01:57:08 am
How has any pervasive aspect of our culture -- media, religion, art, academia/pop-science? (other?) -- had a resounding influence (positive or negative) on your view of the opposite sex, or your own sex for that matter?

I come from a developmental background that just didn't fit in with the society to which we are all hooked up. To me, as a kid, I never saw any evident basis for sex-specific attitudes, or sexism. In the course of my later adolescence and political awakening, I was genuinely surprised to learn just how prevalent sexism actually is. In particular, I was greatly dismayed to learn, in the earliest years of my adulthood, just how much of our culture is created by and for young, aggressive males.

I'm a young, aggressive male. I never lacked an understanding of where that energy comes from. Male hormones. But to see aggressiveness so commonly expressed in the form of sexism was greatly disheartening to me. I'm not a misanthrope, but this was a strain on me. It helped inform the thinking in my philosophy which places heavy burdens on all individuals to live up to a minimum of thoughtfulness, intelligence, and respectfulness. And, what's more: It helped me to justify my "Off with their heads!" attitude toward people who willingly defy these obligations and indulge in the abuses of power.

Many of the problems in all societies both modern and historical are reducible to the young, aggressive male who expresses himself destructively or abusively, and who imposes vast burdens and judgments on femalekind as a whole. You can expect to see this issue get a lot of treatment in my philosophical dissertations yet to come...

But to return to your question, I also wondered how many young males are not aggressive, and how many young aggressive males are not, to put it frankly, evil. I don't have a definitive answer yet, but I strongly suspect that the percentage of scum in this group is in the middle of the range...perhaps 30 to 70 percent of all young males. I base my suspicions on my years of observation, as well as the study of history and current events. It's true that the worst people draw the most attention to themselves, overstating their proportions. But it's also true that too damn many people are "the worst."

I pondered similarly the young female half of the equation. Young females are often aggressive too, when it isn't beaten out of them. Aggressiveness is common in youth. That's not a bad thing. "Aggressiveness" does not simply mean "violence" and "intimidation." Such is but one form aggression takes. In the general sense, aggressiveness is the persistence of assertiveness. Aggressiveness built up the world, good and bad.

Most of all, I wonder: Why? Why do females as a group put up with this? Why does male-on-male abuse so often result in conflict, while male-on-female abuse so often results in subjugation? Actually I don't wonder so much; I just don't like the supposed answer, which is: I think it's a product of our animal nature. Wild human societies were male-dominated. Each sex had its own internal power structure, but between the sexes the males called the shots. We see this in several higher animal species: Over vast spans of time, enormous quantities of scarce energy are absorbed into the development of increasingly aggressive males...a sort of evolutionary arms race spurred on by social development and environmental pressures. That's where humanity comes from. And, obviously, it continued to be an evolutionarily advantageous arrangement.

Female humans, who have possessed the same cognitive powers as males, evolved to endure this. As males became more aggressive, the most successful females became those who could best avoid being culled from the gene pool. Females who were more competitive against males were more often killed.* Even today, a fair number of females actually like to submit to their prospective mates--just as a fair number of males like to dominate theirs. In an animalistic sense, it makes sense.

As I have stressed so many times, it is never justifiable to make even the most supportable sex-specific generalizations if you also make the implication that these generalizations apply to everyone, or that they are "truer" or "closer" to human nature than the exceptional cases. If anybody else had written the above paragraphs without making this point, I would have lectured them, and I myself must also make it explicitly clear that individual temperament may be influenced by, but is not determined from, biological sex, and that any discussion of sex-specific divisions in our species can never be used to determine an individual's character or to prescribe gender roles.

The reason that this declaration is so important is not that to leave it unsaid risks the appearance of sexism (thought it certainly does), but that sexism itself exists completely within this gap of ambiguity between actual anatomical differences and constructed social institutions. If everyone could understand that the overlap of personality temperaments among individuals completely nullifies any and all sex-specific predispositions that may exist, then sexism would die. Therefore, in a modern society, both sexes have to be taught the idea of sexual equality. Males have to understand that females possess identical faculties and powers, meriting equality. Females have to understand that they are free and are responsible for asserting themselves as equals. If society could get to the point where nobody judges their own value or anyone else's based upon biological sex, sexism would die. It's worth saying that, with civilization, comes responsibility. Humans are no longer animals who exist on instinct alone. Much of what we have come to value in life is expressed not in the human genome but in human civilization. It would be different if one of the sexes were truly incapable of intelligent thought or deliberate behavior. But, amazingly, for all our differences in musculature and hormones, the human brain between the sexes is, for all intents and purposes, identical. Some people will go on and on about what discrepancies do exist, even so far as to use these to prescribe gender roles. They're wrong. There is no concept that one sex can fathom but the other cannot. There is no question that one sex can ponder but the other cannot. Even if in some cases the brain works differently between the sexes, the level of overall functionality is identical. I have heard it said that boys should be educated outdoors, where they can play and be aggressive. The implication is that girls would apparently do better indoors sitting quietly, as public education is currently structured. That's offensive, not to mention incorrect, as any visit to any playground would evince.

~~~
* That might sound like a statement which would require some high evidence. In fact, however, it is a deduction based on modern observation: The types of specimens which are underrepresented (or absent) today must not have been as successful at reproduction in the past. Since the more competitive females (competitive against males, that is) presumably would have been no more susceptible to environmental dangers than their less competitive female counterparts, the most likely explanations for their lack of evolutionary success include that males were offended by this competitiveness and killed the females at a young age (a theory with a great deal of modern evidence to support it), or that these females and/or their male mates made less successful parents (a more ambiguous possibility).

~~~
What about relationships or sex itself, for better or worse?

I think our culture builds presentations and expectations of sex which are too narrow, restrict individual interpretation, discourage diversity, and create pressures to both have sex prematurely and avoid it overlong. Our culture presents sex as something at once sacred and wicked. To have sex is at once to prove yourself and to demean yourself. It's a contradictory, unsatisfying, stupid-headed philosophy...a mixture of secular progressivism blending with much older religious puritanism blending with truly ancient human biology.

To put it in so many words, our society treats sex like a child would.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: MagilsugaM on December 09, 2009, 06:18:07 am
Not much to say in here but sexism is one of the things I hate the most. Both my dad and my mum got separated because my dad was cheating on her. But the fact that my dad is not sexist is quite interesting. He had a bad relationship with his mum but he is for no matters sexist in any way. He is the nicest person I ever met nicer than my mum or anyone else from my family.

So I am for no reason sexist or feminist. I just like to stick in the side that benefits me the most. Even if people might think I am gay. Which I hate just because you like being friendly to everyone even girls and guys. I am a bit feminist but not to the extent that females will rule the world, I do believe in equality that's what this world needs.

However, woman should recive more respect from us. Why?

Because they are the ones who bring birth and suffer all the pain for both men and women to be born. And we men just lay around and do unproductive stuff... For them we are hopeless but the fact is that if all of us will be the same it would be better!
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on December 09, 2009, 02:23:04 pm
Quote from: MagilsugaM
Even if people might think I am gay. Which I hate just because you like being friendly to everyone even girls and guys. I am a bit feminist but not to the extent that females will rule the world, I do believe in equality that's what this world needs.
Thanks for sharing. Homophobia is destroying men in at least some subcultures, making them feel ashamed if they're single and thus lending an unnatural urgency to relationship pursuits. If you live in a truly conservative culture, the homophobic attitudes are probably way more than oppressive than what I remember dealing with here in the USA. This reminds me that pro-feminist media originating here and other English-speaking countries should probably be translated into numerous languages; but then I'm slightly concerned about American or Western cultural imperialism if it's entertainment media we're talking about. I think it's probably always better for each culture to take up its own progressive movements, but then again sometimes they might need a little nudge. I'll have to think on this a bit more.


Quote from: MagilsugaM
However, woman should recive more respect from us. Why?

Because they are the ones who bring birth and suffer all the pain for both men and women to be born. And we men just lay around and do unproductive stuff... For them we are hopeless but the fact is that if all of us will be the same it would be better!
Feminist women here in the USA often don't enjoy being placed on a pedestal, even for these reasons; but I slightly suspect more than one woman would probably appreciate your sentiment here -- they complete hugely important tasks that have held up human civilization for centuries, without one whit of thanks in too many cases.

You might be interested in care feminism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_of_care#Ethics_of_care_and_feminist_ethics) It's a largely archaic form but the gist of it is, men and women should share equally in all those care activities traditionally expected only of women.

Plenty of modern feminists would probably critique care feminism in some way or other, but it's really guided my life in a way. When I graduated high school my parents started having health issues, to such an extent that it came down to either myself or my older sister -- who'd just graduated from college with a Computer Science degree -- having to stay home and assist them. Since I was just starting to undergo my feminist awakening at that point, I realized that if I fully pursued my goal of getting into student government as a stepping stone for a stint in State or Federal government, my sister would have to take up a ton of duties commonly associated with women; it's often the daughter who's expected to care for aging parents in a patriarchal society, remember.

So I put my life's momentum on hold; commuting and being at home to do kitchenwork came at a cost of atrophying connections and my decision did rob me the government career I'd so coveted in my dreams. But at the same time, my sister now owns a successful small web design business and intends to be a published novelist in the foreseeable future. This experience might seem galling -- but this is what women have been putting up with for centuries, and unlike me, for far too long they didn't even have a choice in the matter. In developed countries this has substantially given way to a "double life" of greater opportunity but with the strings of care still attached, and in undeveloped countries it's still the same as it's always been I imagine.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: GenesisOne on December 09, 2009, 03:34:09 pm

Lately, I've been reading A Vindication of the Rights of Woman by Mary Wollstonecraft.

This feminist had it right from the get-go that women would no longer stand as subsidiary to men.  I had recently written an essay concering the historical context of her famous work.  She had, in fact, written it in response to , French diplomat Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord.

This man presented his Rapport sur l'instruction publique, or “Report on the public instruction,” to the National Assembly in France. Talleyrand listed recommendations for a national system of education, including this paragraph that turned off Wollstonecraft:

Quote
“Let us bring up women, not to aspire to advantages which the Constitution denies them, but to know and appreciate those which it guarantees them…Men are destined to live on the stage of the world. A public education suits them: it early places before their eyes all the scenes of life: only the proportions are different. The paternal home is better for the education of women; they have less need to learn to deal with the interests of others, than to accustom themselves to a calm and secluded life.”

In the introduction of Rights of Woman, Wollstonecraft dedicates her work to Talleyrand, knowing well of his intentions of male dominance in the educational system:  

Quote
“Having read with great pleasure a pamphlet which you have lately published. I dedicate this volume to you; to induce you to reconsider the subject, and maturely weigh what I have advanced respecting the rights of woman and national education: and I call with the firm tone of humanity; for my arguments, Sir, are dictated by a disinterested spirit–I plead for my sex–not for myself.” (p. 5).

With Wollstonecraft’s Rights of Woman, feminism slowly, but surely caught on to the women of the general public.  The words of her essay reached the ears French playwright and political activist Olympe de Gouges.  That same year, Gouges came out with a work of her own titled Declaration of the Rights of Woman and the Female Citizen. Her work is ironically based on Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, which was approved by the National Assembly of France two years earlier.   Her work combined with Wollstonecraft’s Rights of Woman soon made women’s rights central to political debate both in France and in Britain for generations to come.

The best about my essay was... I never cited a single internet resource.  I'm old school that way.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZombieBucky on December 09, 2009, 04:17:24 pm
homophobia is sick, i say. i am interested in both genders, though im finding that i lean more towards females. my previous manager at walmart was a jerk to me about my interest in men. (he found out from a survey that was supposed to be private or something) they decided that i couldnt work with the smaller children because apparently men with an interest in other men will rape children, regardless of their gender.
sickening.
just sickening.
... meanwhile i cant really think of anything to say regarding sexism in general, other than it sucks and all that.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on December 09, 2009, 08:04:48 pm
Genesis, did you ever come across any info that would suggest Mary Wallstonecraft's feminism had any impact on her daughter's literary works, including Frankenstein? I've never actually read the book but always wondered if it might somehow be a huge political statement.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: MagilsugaM on December 09, 2009, 08:57:28 pm
homophobia is sick, i say. i am interested in both genders, though im finding that i lean more towards females. my previous manager at walmart was a jerk to me about my interest in men. (he found out from a survey that was supposed to be private or something) they decided that i couldnt work with the smaller children because apparently men with an interest in other men will rape children, regardless of their gender.
sickening.
just sickening.
... meanwhile i cant really think of anything to say regarding sexism in general, other than it sucks and all that.

That's what I meant, I tend to for the females. And I have friends who are homosexual or bisexual and they seem to be nicer that the typical macho who likes to beat up even his own friends.
I am straight but because the way I behave or act sometimes people get ideas and the sexism comes into place. Just because you don't go out or date often doesn't mean anything.

Also thanks Faust I will check care feminism. It seems that it tends to go to far. I  all want is them to be treated with respect that's all. I suffered a lot last couple of year because of my step-dad who use to have verbal fights with my mum. And he ends up treating her like bad and not valuing all the stuff that she does for him. Also I spent most of my childhood with female friends lol. Hard to make friends with males so I kind that got that from there but in the end I got to talk to my dad and re conciliate before I moved away.

Well that is all. I would just wish this would be changing as our "civilization" really becomes civilized...

Last thought, I need to read all these stuff about it because I don't know that much.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on December 09, 2009, 09:36:01 pm
FUCK THIS STATE OF AFFAIRS

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/
http://www.reddit.com/r/feminisms/

Look which one is fucking bigger. And then, if you have the stomach, look at Mens' Rights to see the kind of incredible bullshit and self-pitying tripe being posted there by people ignorant of their privilege in the world.

I'm going to the feminisms subreddit to start submitting and posting things from:

http://www.hrw.org/en/category/topic/women
http://www.un.org/womenwatch/
http://www.unifem.org/
http://www.unfpa.org/public/
http://www.wfsnews.org/

As well as contributing to the discussions in the comments and downvoting the several misogynistic comments filtering through from detractors. We're going to fucking make this subreddit more active than the mens subreddit, and then active enough to achieve the prominence of the atheism subreddit. We're going to fucking organize this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhUX0RDEBY0).

(http://phantomstudio.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/kaze.jpg) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhUX0RDEBY0)

JOIN ME. ADD IT TO YOUR FUCKING BOOKMARKS, READ, SUBMIT, AND DISCUSS. THIS IS THE DAI-GURREN DAN, AND YOU'RE FUCKING IN IT.

DO THE IMPOSSIBLE
SEE THE INVISIBLE
RAW RAW, FIGHT THE POWER!!

TOUCH THE UNTOUCHABLE
BREAK THE UNBREAKABLE
RAW RAW, FIGHT THE POWER!!

OUR BURNING BLOOD WILL CUT THROUGH FATE!!!!


(http://chronofan.com/Zeality/642478.jpg) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhUX0RDEBY0)

COME THE FUCK ON; LET'S FUCKING DO THIS
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on December 09, 2009, 09:44:41 pm
And if you take the "s" off "feminisms" in the link ZeaLitY provided, the number of Readers falls to a mere 306. That's 4.6% the attendance the men's rights Reddit has, rounding up.

LET'S TEAR UP SOME SHEEEEEIT.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on December 09, 2009, 09:47:23 pm
Ugh, yeah. Well, feminisms is definitely drill to pierce the heavens, here; I think feminism is more a few 2nd wavers doing their thing.

This is a fucking easy fight to bring. Anyone reading this, just register and start upvoting and contributing. Subscribe to that reddit. Let's increase the numbers and fucking declare war on sexism.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on December 09, 2009, 10:18:26 pm
For the gentlemen readers, here's a great one to start out with and start thinking about (Alternet link at the very beginning). (http://www.reddit.com/r/feminisms/comments/a59l9/what_should_a_feminist_man_look_like/) Although this might be a trial by fire for men just becoming interested in feminism to go gung-ho on; no shame in hanging back and getting a sense of this movement's extremely varied culture, and upvoting feminist articles you find interesting in the meantime, I suppose.  

I might just post one of Robert Jensen's articles or the statistics study on aggression in porn there, once I get a feel for how well it'll go over in /feminisms/ versus /feminism/. Thanks for the links ZeaLitY!
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on December 10, 2009, 06:53:06 am
If anyone wants a little help on learning to contribute...

Sign up as a redditor, first. You'll then notice you can submit, vote (up or down arrow), and comment on things.

You may feel overwhelmed by the existing submissions. What you can do to get started is bookmark this:

http://www.reddit.com/r/feminisms/new/

These show the newest submissions to the subreddit. This is where you can catch fresh contributions, read them, comment on them, and vote on them. You can also vote on comments. So, if you see that some idiot's come along saying "lol what a bitch" or something like that, downvote their comment; with enough downvotes, their idiotic comment will be hidden. Be sure to upvote submissions and comments that you like, and praise informative contributions. If someone replies to your submission or comments, you'll see the gray envelope by your name turn ORANGE.

As you contribute, people will vote on your submissions and comments, and you'll gradually accumulate link and comment karma. More importantly, you'll accumulate credibility in the subreddit, which is great if you're making sincere, informed, well-read contributions, and are reading the contributions of others before commenting.

If you want a cheat sheet to making links, italicized text, etc.:

http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/6ewgt/reddit_markdown_primer_or_how_do_you_do_all_that/

NOW FIGHT THE POWER WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK I'M TELLING YOU ABOUT ALL THIS FOR

(http://www.animecrazy.net/wp-content/franky-300x300.png) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PygoEsATyc#t=2m27s)

WE ARE SUPER

SO GET FIRED UP YOU BASTARDS!  :kamina

Edit: After going through the top-rated history of the subreddit, I also learned that men from the MensRights subreddit are coming in to downvote every submission in feminisms, just as a ton of Christians and Muslims downvote everything in atheism (paradoxically contributing more activity, which keeps it in the top ten—right in their faces).

Take http://www.reddit.com/r/feminisms/comments/ad3ei/links_for_keeping_current_on_womens_issues/, for example; 4 upvotes, 3 downvotes. 3 people downvoted a simple request for people to post links about the topic of the subreddit itself.

With this in mind, it's very important to upvote good submissions. It's not enough to agree with something, comment, and move on...click that up arrow. Otherwise, contributors to the fem subreddit will get negative karma.

FaustWolf's already shown up at the subreddit to fight the power and cross-post things here and there. As a friend, Chrono luminary, activist, Ahab-wannabe, or whatever, I'm asking please for any and all help. It's simple. Just bookmark the damn subreddit and check in time to time. You'll stay fresh on feminist issues at no extra effort.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Uboa on December 10, 2009, 02:42:07 pm
How has any pervasive aspect of our culture -- media, religion, art, academia/pop-science? (other?) -- had a resounding influence (positive or negative) on your view of the opposite sex, or your own sex for that matter? 

Admittedly, my relationship with people of my own sex, and my perception of my own sex, has been a strained one from an early age.  This dates back to my witnessing portrayals of women in various forms of media growing up -- mostly on TV and in video games.  For the longest time when I was young, really young, I watched these women, or caricatures of women, in what appeared to be high places do things which I found wholly unremarkable.  None of them appealed to me in the sense that I would really want to be like them, but still there was present an uneasy feeling that these women, these females, were somehow "normal", even though they were boring.  The men on the Saturday morning cartoons and the men in the video games were the ones who were adventurous, bold, brave.  The women, on the whole, were nice and pretty, morally upstanding, and sometimes flamboyant.  But, they were not bold.  They had no sense of adventure.  They did not even seem remotely interested in the kinds of things that I would have been interested in.  So, from a very young age I found myself relating to, for the most part, men.  My role models were almost always male.  I played the male hero in the video game, and I watched the male hero of the cartoon series. 

There were some exceptions to this pattern.  There were physically strong women who accomplished amazing (to a seven year old) physical feats on American Gladiators.  Come fifth or sixth grade I was able to watch Kimberly and Trini fight the alien forces of evil on the show Mighty Morphin Power Rangers.  Of course, playing as Samus in the Metroid games was always a "blast", hah.  I was stoked when I noticed two of the strongest characters in Final Fantasy VI were women.  They were always the first to level 99 for me.  I appreciated the women on Star Trek: The Next Generation.  They seemed down-to-earth, strong, and realistic.  Although their roles on the Enterprise were somewhat stereotypical of women of the time, they were able to be adventurers to much of the same extent that the men were.

My love of bold adventurous females and my desire to be one found a home for a time.  My two best female friends for a long time were into fantasy and sci-fi games and shows, like I was.  We had a lot of fun together.  Looking back, we were all such tomboys, even though my one friend was always so damn pretty.  We played "adventure" in their back yard.  (They were sisters.)  We played Magic: The Gathering together, and simple games of Dungeons and Dragons.  We played Myst, and other computer adventure games together.  (Hah!  I just remembered that they were the first people I trolled chat rooms with, but that is an aside!)  We challenged one another to daring feats on old playground equipment.  They were the only two girls I was able to relate to.  No wonder I was so lost when they moved away as I entered middle school. 

Forlorn as I was at that time in my life, I guess part of me accepted that maybe I was supposed to look like those women who I felt so detached from since the beginning.  This depressed and distressed me at first, and if the chain of thoughts involved had as much fecundity as I'm thinking now then it eventually (along with a lot of other unfortunate distresses) nearly killed me, as I developed a life-threatening eating disorder in high school.

I don't pay attention to televised media much anymore, aside from DVD sets old TV series.  Watching all of Homicide: Life On The Street, and witnessing the very realistic and affecting portrayals of the women in the Homicide unit has been a great treat.  I think it is wonderful that the writers of that show and the actors were able to portray the female characters in a very positive light while being realistic about the kinds of challenges they would have faced on the force.  And, as I believe I've mentioned before, I've been thrilled to watch the sometimes wrenchingly realistic portrayal of the chaotic force that is Starbuck in Battlestar Galactica.  As welcome as these "mirrors" are now, I can't help but think of my young self and feel a little upset that I would not have been able to see these characters as my ideal ideals.  Only one character in a televised drama which I watched during the time spanning my entire adolescence came close to being that for me.  And, on that note (and shifting the topic sightly to relationships):

I had a realization the other day that dealt with my views of relationships, and that was how much of an impact the show The X-Files had on me in shaping some of those views.  In addition to the influence on my ideas about relationships, it also provided me with my strongest female "role model" in entertainment media, I guess you could say.  Dana Scully was a woman who I felt like I could look up to in almost every way, even though Mulder always ended up proving her wrong at the end of every episode!  She was intelligent, very strong-willed, able to hold her own, and she had awesome red hair.  She was the main reason that I dyed my hair red for a while in high school!  But, aside from the fact that I could look up to her, I also looked up to her relationship with Mulder; the respect that they showed one another, their deep friendship, and finally their acceptance of their romantic love for each other.  (And then two almost entirely utterly ridiculous seasons, but I digress.)  My lasting impression, though, is that they would always be friends first, and that is what appealed to me most about their relationship.  That "model" of relationship is something I've held as a pretty high ideal for a long time since.

I put off posting this because I was hoping to add something about how growing up around a lot of "pop-science" influenced my thinking about human sexuality, but as I was writing about all of that I realized it's something that I'd rather think more about first.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on December 10, 2009, 03:53:00 pm
Uboa, that's really powerful and profoundly sad, how you spent a significant portion of your life without media role models. I haven't kept up on the kinds of TV shows most kids watch nowadays, so I wonder whether the situation has improved drastically or remained about the same; seems television dramas are on an improving trend from what I can tell.

I'm reviving my interest in feminist media studies on account of our discussion here. Seirie no Moribito (Guardian of the Spirit) looks like one fantastic anime both male and female kids should be exposed to; I think Cartoon Network's been showing it, but not necessarily on a Saturday morning time slot (do kids even watch Saturday morning cartoons anymore?). I lost interest in it awhile ago because it suffers from a dozen-episode lull where virtually nothing happens, but this spear fight clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdKiPOkh0K8) has caused me to pick it up again. Besides the anime focusing on a female main character in an atypical role (that of a body guard), I really appreciate that one of the other main protagonists is a male doctor whose role is to care for and nurture others. That's the kind of male role model I felt was lacking in media when I grew up.

My theory is that if traditional roles are broken up, mixed, and stirred in popular media, that will be an important step in deconstructing previous social norms. If kids grow up exposed to a wide variety of characters filling a wide variety of roles, they might just realize there aren't "men" and "women" so much as there are just people.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: placidchap on December 10, 2009, 03:55:27 pm
Uboa, that's really powerful and profoundly sad, how you spent a significant portion of your life without media role models.

How is that sad?  I never had a role model...and I turned OK...after my wife whipped me into shape anyway.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on December 10, 2009, 04:40:41 pm
When I read what Uboa wrote, I kept reflecting on Lion-o and the Ninja Turtles, remembering how all these male characters were doing stupendous things. I never would have described them as "boring;" they were freaking awesome. While not necessarily role models in the sense that I wanted to emulate them exactly, these characters were still role models to me in the sense that I shared some basic biology with them (...I am part feline and part turtle, you see...) and therefore they helped construct my sense of what men were supposed to be, what they were supposed to do, and how they were supposed to act.

Though I have to admit, Inspector Gadget was a nice subversion. Were it not for Penny and that dog, the Inspector would have been up the proverbial creek without a paddle in no time. That show was interesting because I think it gave me the impression that men weren't invulnerable or anything.

I think the only show I watched as a kid that actually had a female lead character was Maya the Bee.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on December 10, 2009, 04:56:21 pm
I think the only show I watched as a kid that actually had a female lead character...

That made me think of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noozles

I watched that on Nickelodeon when I was little. Off the top of my head, that's the only show I can think of that I routinely watched as a kid that had a female lead, although I'm sure there were others. Here are some near misses: Eureka's Castle had Eureka, but I didn't actually watch that show very often; it was a little too young for me. I don't think she was actually the main character (it was an ensemble show), although she's the only one I remember besides that dragon. The Elephant Show had Sharon and Lois, but I don't know if they'd count as leads. Nickelodeon GUTS had Moira Quirk as the referee; she wasn't the lead but she was the top authority.

However, Faust is right: There were damn few female leads in these kids shows. That ties into what I said earlier about so much of our media being of, by, and for males.

Addendum: Even worse, in my opinion, than the dearth of female leads was the overall imbalance of males to females in the cast. Muppet Babies had I dunno how many males, but just three females (including Nanny). Ninja Turtles had April.

Oh! Clarissa Explains it All. That show rocked. That was my favorite Snick show.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on December 10, 2009, 05:09:12 pm
I wonder if the female characters in kids' shows back in the day were "boring" because they were simply poorly written? I seem to remember Cheetara as especially bland; I can't recall being attracted to any kind of dynamism on her part while watching Thundercats. Lion-o and his nemesis Mum-ra always got the cool parts, while Cheetara felt like an almost-nonexistent sideshow in comparison. Even Snarf had way more character.

I seem to remember Scarlet having a few interesting scenes in the old G.I. Joe cartoon, though sometimes it seemed like she was there just so Duke could have a love interest. A spiteful conversation she had with Destro sticks out in my memory (probably after she was captured or something, ugh -- but at least she had some personality).

Not to mention the record of minority female characters was nonexistent during our childhoods, or at least I can't name a single minority female character in any of the shows I watched. So double whammy if you're a young black girl looking for some sense of direction in the media.

EDIT: Though, to be fair, I can't remember a single male minority character in the shows I watched either.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on December 10, 2009, 06:11:39 pm
To be fair, it might actually be a good thing that there weren't female minority characters back then, as minority characters tended to be horrible things. Do we really need a female Apache Chief, El Dorado, or Samurai (as from The Superfriends)?

But it is rather impressive how difficult it is to think of even just good female characters. I think I remember a few good ones, however.

While not a lead character, I recall Princess Zelda from the old Captain N show was fairly admirable. They took the "rescue the princess" but from the first two games and turned her into an adventurer herself who generally seemed on equal footing with Link. Though she did fall into the stereotype of the responsible woman who is the love interest of the irresponsible man.

Gadget Hackwrench, from Chip N Dale's Rescue Rangers, though again not a lead character, was one of the first smart, mechanically savvy female characters I can remember. She was stereotyped, but a lot of guys have filled that same stereotype, I think.

Then there was Gosling from Darkwing Duck, who while not the title character, was usually more competent (and adventurous) than her father.

Gi and Linka from Captain Planet weren't that bad... though Wheeler sort of had a lead character role, I guess, since he was American, and Linka was thus the sort of default love interest (because you totally couldn't have him go after Gi, for whatever reason).

Demona, from Gargoyle, was evil but she may well have been the most awesome villain of my childhood memories. And even as a villain, a lot of her evilness resulted from her desire to protect her kind (as sort of good intentions gone astray situation). And Elisa Maza, though again not a main character, is actually still a rather impressive character. Sort of the Scully of the cartoon world.

She-Ra was a fairly strong lead character; I can't remember ever watching that show, but then I also can't remember watching He-man.

Annabelle, from Eek! the Cat, is one that I'll always remember, but I can't actually remember much about the character herself...

Oooo, Rainbow Brite! Or... should I be ashamed that I was a huge fan of her when I was young? Anywho, she was a fairly strong character, from what I remember, though perhaps the general setting of the franchise leaves something to be desired?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on December 10, 2009, 06:43:13 pm
Gadget Hackwrench! That's a great example. How could I have forgotten ol' Gadget? I also thought Chip was female, when I was a kid, because his voice was so high. So, we'll count Chip too.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Sajainta on December 13, 2009, 07:10:56 pm
I found this poem yesterday.  It is incredibly powerful and it made me cry.  I felt I had to share it.

blue blanket
Andrea Gibson

still
there are days
when there is no way
not even a chance
that i'd dare for even a second
glance at the reflection of my body in the mirror
and she knows why
like i know why
she
only cries
when she feels like she's about to lose control
she knows how much control is worth
knows what a woman can lose
when her power to move
is taken away
by a grip so thick with hate
it could clip the wings of god
leave the next eight generations of your blood shaking
and tonight something inside me is breaking
my heart beating so deep beneath the sheets of her pain
i could give every tear she's crying
a year---a name
and a face i'd forever erase from her mind if i could
just like she would
for me
or you
but how much closer to free would any of us be
if even a few of us forgot
what too many women in this world cannot
and i'm thinking
what the hell would you tell your daughter
your someday daughter
when you'd have to hold her beautiful face
to the beat up face of this place
that hasn't learned the meaning of
stop
what would you tell your daughter
of the womb raped empty
the eyes swollen shut
the gut too frightened to hold food
the thousands upon thousands of bodies used and abused
it was seven minutes of the worst kind of hell
seven
and she stopped believing in heaven
distrust became her law
fear her bible
the only chance of survival
don't trust any of them
bolt the doors to your home
iron gate your windows
walking to your car alone
get the keys in the lock
please please please please open
like already you can feel
that five fingered noose around your neck
two hundred pounds of hatred
digging graves into the sacred soil of your flesh
please please please please open
already you're choking for your breath
listening for the broken record of the defense
answer the question
answer the question
answer the question miss
why am i on trial for this
would you talk to your daughter
your sister your mother like this
i am generations of daughters sisters mothers
our bodies battlefields
war grounds
beneath the weapons of your brother's hands
do you know they've found land mines
in broken women's souls
black holes in the parts of their hearts
that once sang symphonies of creation
bright as the light on infinity's halo
she says
i remember the way love
used to glow like glitter on my skin
before he made his way in
now every touch feels like a sin
that could crucify medusa kali oshun mary
bury me in a blue blanket
so their god doesn't know i'm a girl
cut off my curls
i want peace when i'm dead
her friend knocks at the door
it's been three weeks
don't you think it's time you got out of bed
no
the ceiling fan still feels like his breath
i think i need just a couple more days of rest
please
bruises on her knees from praying to forget
she's heard stories of vietnam vets
who can still feel the tingling of their amputated limbs
she's wondering how many women are walking around this world
feeling the tingling of their amputated wings
remembering what it was to fly to sing
tonight she's not wondering
what she would tell her daughter
she knows what she would tell her daughter
she'd ask her
what gods do you believe in
i'll build you a temple of mirrors so you can see them!
pick the brightest star you've ever wished on
i'll show you the light in you
that made that wish come true!
tonight she's not asking
you what you would tell your daughter
she's life deep in the hell---the slaughter
has already died a thousand deaths with every unsteady breath
a thousand graves in every pore of her flesh
and she knows the war's not over
knows there's bleeding to come
knows she's far from the only woman or girl
trusting this world no more than the hands
trust rusted barbed wire
she was whole before that night
believed in heaven before that night
and she's not the only one
she knows she won't be the only one
she's not asking what you're gonna tell your daughter
she asking what you're gonna teach
your son
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on December 14, 2009, 12:19:06 pm
Let's aggregate news sites. It's hard to get things rolling freshly at the feminisms subreddit when news is piecemeal. We can start self.reddit discussions, of course, but they should be spice on top of a full meal of news.

http://www.un.org/womenwatch/
http://www.unifem.org/
http://www.hrw.org/en/category/topic/women
http://www.unfpa.org/public/
http://www.wfsnews.org/
http://www.feministing.com/
http://borderhouseblog.com/
http://contexts.org/socimages/
http://www.vivalafeminista.com/
http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/w/women/index.html

We need more, and especially more like that last one. There have to be other news aggregators and websites that have a "women" tag on their articles.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on December 18, 2009, 09:54:55 am
I have completed a second round of finding links. I now have a badass set of news and blogs sites. It's been my custom for the last two days to open all in the morning for reddit submissions, then open all again in the afternoon to pick up on any newer developments. It's easy to identify timestamped new articles, so it's not very time-consuming to review.

http://www.un.org/womenwatch/
http://www.unifem.org/
http://www.hrw.org/en/category/topic/women
http://www.unfpa.org/public/
http://www.wfsnews.org/
http://www.feministing.com/
http://borderhouseblog.com/
http://contexts.org/socimages/
http://www.vivalafeminista.com/
http://www.now.org/
http://www.conversationsforabetterworld.com/
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/blog/
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2004/10/feminism-101.html
http://www.kickaction.ca/
http://www.barbaraehrenreich.com/blogs.htm
http://disabledfeminists.com/
http://www.feminist.com/news/
http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswire.asp
http://www.globalfundforwomen.org/cms/

MSM (we need more of these)

http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/w/women/index.html
http://bbcnews.co.uk (one has to manually search articles by region/topic)

I'm sure there's news to be had at CNN and others, but it'd be nice to find more sites where articles about women can be grouped as cleanly as they are with the New York Times. More news and blog sites about women are welcome, especially from third-world sources. This week, I've observed consistently 5-6 news articles appropriate for the feminisms subreddit on the BBC each day. FafniR and I have been fighting the power well; as you can see from yesterday/today's submissions: http://www.reddit.com/r/feminisms/new/ Other contributors have been coming out in greater numbers as well. Do the impossible; see the invisible; row row, fight the power. If anything, participating in this is a fantastic way to keep up on news relevant to fighting sexism, no matter what the arena.

(http://www.nekomagic.com/figure_news/200808/eyeup_kamina01.jpg)

At the wrap of my feminisms class (which was a wonderful, educational experience), I let my professor know about this subreddit initiative. Part of the conversation strayed to my completion of Moby-Dick, and she joked that these days, it seems as if it would take a spirit of incinerating determination no less than that of Captain Ahab to successfully eradicate sexism and male privilege. Well, we don't have any goddamned shortage of that around here, do we?  :kamina
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on December 18, 2009, 01:55:06 pm
Awful lot of things coming down the pipe today. Upvotes are needed. A couple people are already trying to bury the article about Japanese train authorities installing cameras to catch and shame male gropers.

http://www.reddit.com/r/feminisms/new/
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on December 18, 2009, 02:19:28 pm
Forgive me, but I'm pretty unaware of reddit and digg's rating systems and what they mean, but, I think I'm lacking some perspective here...

Is that to say that installing cameras to catch and shame these pervs is bad?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on December 18, 2009, 02:29:07 pm
Some jerks are going around and just downvoting everything that pops up in the feminisms subreddit for the heck of it, it's like a strategic Reddit War. Though...it does look kind of bad to downvote an article like that one. They think feminism is getting too much attention or something, I guess. But it has a deleterious effect in denying people information -- people's reddit accounts are set up to show "What's Hot" by default, and something downvoted all the way to a zero rating won't appear on that tab at all and might pass under people's radars. Whether the "What's Hot" tab is always the first to be shown may depend on account setup though, I'm not entirely sure.

ZeaLitY, if you want to organize who's assigned to which sites I'll take Borderhouse, Hathor Legacy, Images, and other media-consumption-focused ones, since the subjects they cover interest me so. I'll be willing to share of course.  8)  I'll see if I can't do some kind of weekly commentary on a specific film, videogame, or other artifact. I just remembered I need to post a link to a really insightful discussion of the painting Madam X and the weird Victorian-era controversy surrounding it I encountered online somewhere a couple weeks back.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on December 18, 2009, 03:31:59 pm
It also punishes contributors. Normally, when you contribute something of value to Reddit, you accumulate upvotes with karma for your articles and comments. People who downvote everything keep redditors at 0. There are enough of them to put some feminism articles consistently at 0, which makes the subreddit look bad (imagine seeing a main page full of 0-rated submissions). The 0-rated submissions are also subjugated under anything with a higher vote count on the main page (called "What's Hot"). In the past, this has been used to keep male apologist articles above actual feminism articles. There are also trolls who come by to post misogynistic statements, and these idiots keep each other upvoted so that these sexist comments are at the top of the heap. The only upside of mass-downvoting is that it increases the subreddit's calculated activity, which can put it higher in the subreddit ranking. This is moot for now, though; the disruptive effects outweigh the benefits.

That sounds perfect, FW. I forgot about self reddit posts; perhaps we can get some kind of interesting discussion going. It's difficult, though, with all the "I AM OFFENDED AND OUTRAGED BY THIS MAN-BASHING" trolling going on.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: GenesisOne on December 19, 2009, 04:23:39 am

I recently saw Peter Pan.  Lo and behold:

- All the Indians were women
- Some of the Lost Boys were Lost Girls
- A couple of the Pirates were women

And it was a play put on a community group with such high production design.  Wonder of wonders.

It's nice to know that the stage is opening itself up to expanded feminism in naturally-occurring male roles.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZombieBucky on December 19, 2009, 01:44:35 pm
i hear about that a lot from mia. shes a senior and aside from being in the schools orchestra with her double bass (that thing is pretty awesome btw), she works the light and sound booth for stage productions. she told me that they scramble to find any guy interested in theater. we had planned a production of hamlet, but because there werent enough guys, the director changed it to hamlette. i asked her about it because if i had better reading skills (im not good at reading sometimes) i would love to do theater and she said that they have to scramble to find any guys interested because...
... they feel it makes them gay.
wow.
history seems to come full circle in a sense. from theater being a male only production (because of course girls suck at reading) to theater (at least in high school) being a predominately female production, not because girls keep the guys out but because the guys say that its gay. they see that girls are more interested in it and say 'oh thats a girly thing to do. imma go wrestle with this hot sweaty guy instead. thats not a girly, gay thing to do! thats manly!'
sickening.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on December 19, 2009, 02:09:23 pm
Fascinating insight about history coming full circle in theatre, Zombie. It's crazy to imagine that men used to dress up as women on stage, and now (in some local subcultures, perhaps, but certainly not all) some are afraid to even be men onstage. I suspect these phenomena are two sides of the same coin.

They've never been in a Lysander vs. Demetrius swordfight, obviously. Or should I say...a Lysandra vs. Demetriette swordfight?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on December 19, 2009, 03:46:21 pm
Just for the record, the (double) bass is indeed muy awesome. I love those deep, rich tones.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Radical_Dreamer on December 19, 2009, 04:04:37 pm

I recently saw Peter Pan.  Lo and behold:

- All the Indians were women
- Some of the Lost Boys were Lost Girls
- A couple of the Pirates were women

And it was a play put on a community group with such high production design.  Wonder of wonders.

It's nice to know that the stage is opening itself up to expanded feminism in naturally-occurring male roles.

Actually, the role of Peter Pan himself has traditionally been played by women.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on December 19, 2009, 04:12:23 pm
Actually, the role of Peter Pan himself has traditionally been played by women.

A double-edged sword, that is: It's a great opportunity for female actors, both career and amateur, to play a dramatic role outside the artistically narrow universe of "women" characters. However, the tradition of Female Pan is built on the sexist contention that adult females are comparable not only in appearance but in character to adolescent boys.

So it's one of those situations where the industry is so fucked up that one of the best ways to get ahead in a biased environment is to reaffirm another bias.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on December 19, 2009, 05:32:48 pm
The feminisms subreddit now has OVER 3000 subscribers!

Next goal: OVER 9000
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on December 19, 2009, 06:14:13 pm
FafniR and I are about to unload the day's catches, 10 articles. I think I saw a couple good new ones on Borderhouse/Images, so feel free to join in, FW.

 :kamina A real dream never dies.

Edit: Hah, what a concerted effort today. Excellent show. It's a five-man team extravaganza!
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on December 23, 2009, 03:34:27 pm
http://www.reddit.com/r/feminisms/comments/ahxov/ap_nominates_two_horses_for_female_athlete_of_the/ is getting unfairly buried, despite being a completely outrageous story.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: KebreI on December 23, 2009, 04:13:39 pm
Whoa, that's actually great news hidden in side a seemingly negative story. I actually with take the stance and support the list, an animal getting the nomination usually reserved for humans. That is progress right there, and in fact if it was on the male list most would have laughed and thought it was funny not insulting. How sexist.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on December 23, 2009, 04:45:18 pm
Had the Female Athletes list been made up of all humans and the Male Athletes list been made up of a mixture of non-human animals and humans, I think that's also worth being up in arms about; too often are men presented as and expected to be "brutish" to begin with.

For me (and I accept my interpretation is "radical" from the perspective of others, even most feminists, probably), traditional patriarchy steals from men qualities that are human (e.g., caring, nurturing, social understanding), grafts these onto women disproportionately, and then subverts their importance by limiting the opportunities of those people onto which the human qualities have been disproportionately grafted. The animalic portrayal of men is something I could very easily get worked up over for my part, and I wouldn't be surprised if a number of Men's Rights advocates agreed: nurturing qualities are something they, too, probably feel the need to recapture. And this is all without even addressing what men of African descent might feel if their sports heroes were listed alongside animals by the Associated Press.

The ladies at Feministing might be concerned with the impression that women are animalized in a sense when social barriers guide women along life's course, hiding from them other opportunities just a race horse's blinders and its master's whip narrows its possible alternatives along the race track. This is still in addition to racial issues that arise when people start lumping together minority athletes and non-humans.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on December 23, 2009, 05:04:45 pm
I think any advances in animal rights in this are nullified by equating female athletes with bred sport horses, and implying that the thousands of female athletes in the world aren't better enough athletes than a couple animals to make a list designed for humans (but male athletes are).

Still, I guess it's normal to expect that as far as news teams go, sports writers would be the most misogynist and brain-dead.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Sajainta on December 23, 2009, 06:56:51 pm
I submitted this on reddit, but I thought I would share it here.  Ugh.

Link (http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine-archive/2010/january/shopping/same-products-different-prices/overview/same-products-different-prices-ov.htm).
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: KebreI on December 24, 2009, 04:18:05 am
I think any advances in animal rights in this are nullified by equating female athletes with bred sport horses, and implying that the thousands of female athletes in the world aren't better enough athletes than a couple animals to make a list designed for humans (but male athletes are).

Still, I guess it's normal to expect that as far as news teams go, sports writers would be the most misogynist and brain-dead.
That is such a humanist thing to say, even if there wasn't a male/female list it was just one mix the Horses would should still be on it. If you read about them you know why, race horses are limited to specific breeds and only male horses due too them being "better". Yet two female horses both one of which is, if I recall correctly an equivalent to a mutt, not only out preformed the rest but broke nearly even damn record as well. They deserve to be on the list, equating them them to people is an insult to people? How is that not bigoted?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on December 24, 2009, 10:13:27 am
Because the list is intended for humans.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: KebreI on December 24, 2009, 05:00:14 pm
At no time was it said that it was human only. In fact the list wasn't written buy some misogynist and brain-dead sports writer, its a generalization same line as "all blacks have big cocks", it was a large group of different and conflicting viewed writers across the nation with there own weighted list to compose it. So if a horse made its on its not some dumb ass Sport writer, that horse must have done something to earn the respect of the whole nation.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on December 24, 2009, 06:43:23 pm
Here's a Reddit entry I think is particularly worth everyone's time. (http://www.reddit.com/r/feminisms/comments/aia4f/reflections_on_becoming_a_feminist/) This is a kind of conversation I feel happens all too seldom within the Feminist movement. It's an opportunity to see where each individual is coming from, and what factors have shaped each individual's particular ideology.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on December 24, 2009, 06:45:31 pm
I went and researched this, and it seems the horse Secretariat once did appear on a male list. I would still question the judgment of the Associated Press for appearing to denigrate female athletes of all sports by putting two horses in their top ten list. Horseracing is a male-dominated sport, with males breeding, owning, and jockeying the animals.

I would also question the value of storming into a thread devoted to women's rights and claiming (tenuously) that an article comparing women to horses is somehow sexist against men.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: KebreI on December 24, 2009, 09:21:15 pm
I would also question the value of storming into a thread devoted to women's rights and claiming (tenuously) that an article comparing women to horses is somehow sexist against men.
Ah then either my intent was obvious enough or you just missed it. I don't think this is sexist at all, men or women. My stance in defending the horses was for such a pointless reason and in then end nothing came of it. Much like a very obnoxious sexism thread on a video game fan site. No difference.

[tangent]
Yea, it's harsh but I would just like to play devils advocate for this for a little while. The Compendium for the past few months has been getting farther and from a place I, and many other people, enjoy. The talks about the mechanics of dimensional and time travel, the new bits and pieces that I always was unaware of, all the new projects(and the dying ones too!). Sure they won't be around forever as less and less is left to talk about, which brings me to the double edged sword of the compendium. The alternate discussions about religion, science, social order all of which are great reads and fascinating to participate in. A few months ago it to a change that I haven't seen, they began out numbering the Mission Statement of the site, it became less of a game site and more of a means for friends to talk to each other. I am ballsy enough to even put the blame on a few people:

Sajainta and Zephira are two pretty little faces who are great people. I have even had the please of meeting Zephira at the PAX meet up(if only for a short period), and she was fun to hang out with. The problem is that they, both of them, have made quite a bit of progress turning this group of internet friends into a nice "ChronoCompendium Family" and more and more is there personal talk and recently gift giving. Fueled by support for a few key members they keep up this gig and soon they are everyone's sister and threads are filled with nothing but Lord J incessant flirting with Zephira and Sajainta constant outburst from her past.

ZeaLitY and Lord J Esq are both amazing people and if put in the right situations have the makings of even a leader. Not necessarily good ones. They are both strong believers in a better tomorrow, and they wanted it done yesterday. I support them on about 80% of they things they do and if they want to use the compendium well, it is theirs so go ahead. The thing is they are such jack asses about every single thing they say. That you agree or are insulted to a point of Taken-a-back-ness and with out proper oppisition the site has pretty much turned it to their cult of personality.

Danial Krispin and nightmare975 are two key players. They left quite some time ago, and I won't complain about that it was there choice and there reasons, but they were opponents to the leaders. they gave the compendium balance. If a society never questioned it direction it probably never went any where or its lost. So this wonderful gaming site was now lost in a non-stop talk about Feminism, Sexism, religion, and they run with out being in check.

Even so there isn't a growth of Chrono related threads to quell the rise and some blame does fall to Square-Enix for the lack of new life in the series. Not just Official games but due to them fan games are also nil-nonexistent here. Which is one of the reasons the Mission Statement been neglected so easily.
[/tangent]


Holy fuck that was quite an outburst, It may need put in to its own thread but I don't have anything to add to it. Other then that I was contemplating leaving the compendium due to...well ^above^, but now I am staying because I would love to participate in game site not some sad wishy-washy drama site.


Men and Women and Horses are different, the should be treated differently and in no way does that at all mean poorly for fucks sake.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on December 24, 2009, 10:16:52 pm
Somebody needs a hug for Christmas.

So, you've aired your grievances. Now maybe you should offer some prescriptions. How would you like business here to be conducted differently? What changes do you want to see? But, before you answer that, consider these bits:

The General board is for just that: general discussion. If you don't like the existing fare, you can always start some other topics, or simply avoid this board. If you want more discussion on the other boards, then hop to it and go fire up a few topics. You can't tell other people how to interact on the boards; you can only control your own contribution.

If you're upset that other Compendiumites are getting along well together, then invest in some friendships of your own on these boards--or, if that's not your thing, then don't, and don't worry about it when others do. Don't be snide about the relationships they forge. Don't call anyone a "pretty little face" or belittle them for opening up and sharing their lives. If you're feeling left out, that's fair: Tell us what we can do to make you feel more welcome. That's a much better road than the one of personal attacks that you've just started down.

As for myself, I know that it can be a challenge (to put it mildly) to find oneself in disagreement with me on a political issue. I give people what they give me, ten times stronger. If they give logical arguments, I give even better ones. If they make fools of themselves, I make fools of them even worse. I'm kind of ruthless that way. It's a personal conviction of mine: People should not pontificate if they don't have solid ground to stand on, and they should enter into debate with a critical mind--and only if debate is what they truly seek. The commonness of these deficiencies is a big contributor to the nation's cultural problems. I understand why people might not like my style. Honestly, I can sympathize. I don't actually expect everyone to align themselves with me every time I type out a position. I wouldn't even want that. I don't want drones or minions or followers or whatever. In fact that's the opposite of what I want: What I want is for people to think for themselves, and there's not enough of that. I don't want to live in a world where people get along because they don't think about anything.

I live "by the sword" when it comes to ideas. If somebody shows me that I'm wrong, or relieves me of an ignorance, I am enriched for it. But I hold all humans to the same standard: Anyone, if they want to air their ideas to the world, must be prepared to defend those ideas in debate. Those who eschew this profound onus, who come into a debate full of opinions but short on reason, are mooks. And I'm very good at putting together the argument with the person making it.

Politics is not some academic sport. It's a very contentious place where, in times past, people were killed and wars fought for disagreements of ideas. We live in a better era now, but that doesn't mean the essential contentiousness has gone away. We can surely all "agree to disagree," but that doesn't actually resolve anything. There are many threads on General Discussion (although perhaps they have been a bit blurred of late) where non-contentious subjects can be safely and warmly discussed by all. If you want less "jackass" Josh, then go to those threads. I'm well-mannered there. Usually! But in the political threads, I'm all business. Because why else bother? If getting along with people were my dominant wish, I wouldn't have an opinion on anything. That I do have opinions is a testament to my passion on those subjects.

Which brings me to the issue of sexual equality, my top social passion. Reducing two of our female community members to "pretty little faces" is not cool. Accusing me of "incessantly flirting" with someone just because she's female and I'm male, or because we've met in person, is not cool. Don't say stuff like that. If you have sincere complaints, PM the people involved, or talk to an administrator. I can recommend Radical_Dreamer.

*hugs Kebrel*
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on December 25, 2009, 01:40:46 am
Quote from: Lord J Esq
*hugs Kebrel*
And thus did the true holiday spirit shine through Lord J Esq. I cried a little man-tear while reading that.

I would always prefer an honest outburst to a dishonest one. I have little to add, but Kebrel, note that Lord J did practically tear Zephira's liver out and eat it when she made that fat comment a week or so ago; he's not showing any favortism here as far as I can see. We've all had our livers nibbled -- or perhaps sliced and diced -- by J in debate; this is something each of us on the Compendium share if we've been so brave (or so unwitting) as to speak up on an issue he is also passionate about. It's a downright frightening experience!

Although Krispin and nightmare seem to have left for the time being, I really admire Truthordeal's and GenesisOne's willingness to continue engaging here despite what is a more-liberal-than-not atmosphere. If the discussion atmosphere seems oppressive here due to personality clashes, perhaps I should be weighing in with some moderating position more often -- and piss off J with moderat-ism, haha!

If Sajainta and Zephira are admired widely here, it is because they earned this through their dedication to the Chrono series, smart discussion, and fanworks, just like any other member of any gender identity here, and not because they're turning the Compendium into some kind of sappy sorority. I have probably been seen posting sappier things to male members here than they have to one another. If I had the ability to take up knitting, why, I'd probably send around a scarf or two as well. Sadly, I am limited to digital products as expressions of community and appreciation for my fellow Chrono fans.

On the Chrono discussion front, there are still some things to look forward to. While fanwork took a major hit due to the C&D, there's still the following:

*Crimson Echoes discussion. The story is still there for the viewing, and there are enough complexities therein that I feel a separate discussion forum will be warranted whenever it's judged safe.

*Flash Projects. Neo-Fusion and tushantin are working on some and are champing at the bit for feedback and participation. Chrono Trigger Unglued is still going, and Clovis would probably appreciate more feedback on that as well. We're on the lookout as new ones pop up from time to time.

*Fan fiction. Smokey just came out with an eight-chapter piece, Skylark's been waiting patiently for me forever to give feedback on a giant work of his (I don't think we have it up in fact, I should discuss that with him and see if he wants to release); there's Chrono Helix; the ongoing RPs; and then there will be Winter's Fragments and then the Dream Splash! 2010, which should be really really groovy with all kinds of multimedia contributions. I wonder if we shouldn't start the Splash early and make it run longer this time around for missing one in 2009 due to the uproar, but we'll see. Part of that is the admins having enough time for logistical setup.

But in short, I think we can look forward to a more energetic New Year that reminds us of the magic that drew us here in the first place. Returning to the subject of social activism at the Compendium, we've seen an uptick in feminism/pro-feminism specifically because several members here have made this subject a priority in their lives. I'm not sure our discussion here will save the world, but I appreciate that we've been able to feed off one another's enthusiasm, and been encouraged in that way to pursue our interests in this field.

Now, if you'll all excuse me, I have a strange craving for fava beans. I think I'll have a friend for dinner...
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on December 26, 2009, 08:50:20 pm
Okay, I'm looking for feedback on this one Reddit user's responses to an article, and what the next feminist/pro-feminist volley should be. The user's initial comment has been downvoted to the point where you have to voluntarily click on a little (+) sign to see the exchange. This is a small border skirmish within the greater war for sexual equality.
http://www.reddit.com/r/feminisms/comments/aii9l/gendered_gifts_galore/

The exchange starts with the user in question delivering: "This is fucking pathetic" and it goes from there. I could simply say, "show me the stats" to his (or heck, could be her) last response, but nor was I fair in providing any articles on the aboriginal gender role reversal I mentioned. In fact, although I distinctly recall learning about such aboriginal societies in Sociology class in high school and college, it's a difficult subject to research because those societies are small and have specific names. The singing pygmies of Africa might be a weak example; I could have sworn there was a specific society in Africa, Indonesia, Madagascar, or Australia or someplace in which women were violently aggressive while men had all the nurturing qualities.

So, I guess I'm inviting the following:

*Help me identify some aboriginal societies (or even Western subcultures) that exhibit either stark gender role reversal or greater balance than what we have currently. I could at least trade that for the stats I'd be asking for, so I'm not standing on weaker ground than the opposition;

*Suggest how the stats he/she mentions could be critiqued even in general ways and jump in there to help fight the good fight!


We could also have a discussion here about why the feminist movement should find gendered gift advertisements something worth identifying and deconstructing.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on December 26, 2009, 09:20:51 pm
In the future, the best course is to just downvote. This guy is a regular troll. He's not interested in the opposing argument, nor looking for any kind of substantive discussion. Posting something incendiary usually just lures a hapless replier who opens the floor and topics up to even more trolling.

Sadly, without more reinforcements, we can't really downvote trolls to the hidden threshold. I'd say it's not worth it to argue with this idiot. He's never, ever going to acknowledge that gender stereotypes motivate children and adults on either side of the marketing equation, even subconsciously or from learned, thoughtless tradition. Without that concession, he'll always be angrily asking what the point is and calling it fucking pathetic. Replying to him just gives him more targets for his idiocy. It could be productive if he walked into an obvious trap, but he's setting something up here that's a little harder to prove, then violently thrusting the burden of proof on you with sexist indignancy.

Yuck, though. I have to say, I was unprepared for the repulsiveness of male apologists. They really are completely despicable.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: MsBlack on December 26, 2009, 09:31:12 pm
(Written before I saw Z's reply.)

Yeah, looks like Appanouki's another one trying to sabotage the subreddit.

Quote
It's been experimentally proven to be biological. Girls and boys statistically make different choices, when you control for culture. They've even shown this with monkeys.

Without having much knowledge of these oft-invoked studies, I'd suggest:

Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on December 26, 2009, 09:43:45 pm
In this case there were enough downvotes to hide where the discussion went from that point forward. I'm aware of Appanouki's history but I'm still interested in engaging these people, because it's a real battle, and real arguments have to be made in non-Internet life over this same sort of thing. This is a place where we can sharpen our feminist and pro-feminist debate skills, among both feminists and nonfeminists. In non-Internet life it's never as easy as just downvoting a troll; we have to out-argue them in realtime and let the observers judge. Although, the upvotes and downvotes basically give the observer an explicit voice that isn't necessarily present in real life debate, so that can be viewed as one of Reddit's strengths as a form of social commentary and discussion.

I've found some surprisingly good discussion at Reddit, to the point where we could probably take all this thread's participants over there (if we haven't already). Then again, it's a double-edged sword since each discussion thread gets buried over time to service Reddit's purpose as a sort of viral news aggregator.

MsBlack, I feel those are fantastic observations. I'd still encourage you to copy/paste those over, but looks like the user's getting downvoted so much it won't even be seen by the majority of people just blowing through. Maybe we could start a topic on these kinds of studies specifically, if we can find these supposed studies and present them as a Self.Feminisms newspost with accompanying critique.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: tushantin on December 27, 2009, 12:56:17 am
Sorry for being simplistic on this matter, but times have changed, yo. Gone are the days when females were considered nothing more than baby spewers, or even to keep the penalty of Eve's sins. Well they're still considered as baby-spewers today (not by EVERYONE though) but they have much more value as individuals as any of us males today. A woman can take her pride and join anything, anywhere and anytime and can do all what men can do.

But it all comes down to perception and strength.

Males were tough ever since the beginning of time, giving them an alpha position. But quite to the contrast females considered beauty OVER strength, giving an impression that brains and appearance are better than brawn in some cases. Despite that, strength often has taken up leadership, and even so a woman's intellect is always needed even for leaders (most WISE leaders).

Sometimes sexism is taken the wrong way. Women ARE born different from Men. Be PROUD of that difference! Now I'm not saying that either of the genders should be suppressed or oppressed by one another, but it's the law of nature. Females aren't supposed to take up physical strength.

But that doesn't limit them, of course, for they CAN develop physical mass if they wanna.  :lol: Depends what appearance they prefer; 1) Madona 2) Arnold Schwarzenegger.

There are various things that women can do that males can NEVER accomplish. There are many views that they can see that men can never grasp. Do note that this is why men really need women subconsciously. To be complete.


Of course, even today, there are some people who still cling onto the old thoughts and being offensive to women. Sometimes you can do somethin about it, sometimes not. If someone was so disrespectful to MY girl, mother, cousin, etc. I'd give em a big middle finger.

As I always say, difference MATTERS! Be different, and be proud to be different!
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on December 27, 2009, 02:19:33 am
Quote
There are various things that women can do that males can NEVER accomplish. There are many views that they can see that men can never grasp. Do note that this is why men really need women subconsciously. To be complete.
See, this is something I used to believe through and through as well; I inappropriately labeled it the "feminine mystique" because I hadn't actually read Betty Friedan's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminine_mystique) book at that point. It's still on my reading list, but I think she meant the "feminine mystique" as something negative that was confounding women's lives, rather than some kind of awesome mystical qualities and powers associated with femininity.

I start out with this seemingly pointless point because I think Betty Friedan and I might really have been looking at some of the same things, although obviously our cultural perspectives differ widely. I attached a sort of mysticism to femininity: women were the caretakers, the healers, the givers of life, the holders of shapely beauty, the ones who could cover up blemishes through arcane sorcery, the ones with the higher magic ratings in RPGs. Because, obviously, someone who can wear high heels and not trip wouldn't be able to do that without a high magic rating!

But I think Friedan found some negatives within that same set of sentimental attitudes. Maybe she was worried that, if women are regarded invariably as the ones who nurture, then society will have a tendency -- sometimes rock solid and observable in legal codes, sometimes softer and more nebulous -- to guide them into reproduction. More dangerously: if we honor the mystical cooking abilities of a middle class stay-at-home-mom in the US during the 1940s, or the fact that Abigail Adams did a right good job of advising her husband the second President of the United States, it might fool us into thinking we've given them their due when, maybe, we really haven't. That 1940s stay-at-home-mom might have preferred to go into cancer research, and maybe Abigail could have been president herself -- and a better one -- if things had been different.

I have to reach back into history because I can't think of too too many prominent examples who are more recent, and that is good. But the work of feminism isn't done once certain trends have been started, because there are still deeply-rooted problems to be dealt with. Not to mention that a single major ultraconservative backlash could obliterate the gains we've made during the past century. Ultraconservative backlashes have been doing this throughout history, possibly; it would be irresponsible of feminists to think that their work is now finished in the United States and other countries that have had successful feminist movements lately.

There's a significant amount of misogyny still seething within at least some sections of Western society, at level I didn't recognize until I began digging deeper and even finding it within myself -- it's a thing that becomes programmed over time. The belief that there is a mystical connection between men and women, and that one needs the other to be complete, can be harmless and romantic on the one hand. On the other, it can make men and women feel compelled to enter relationships or sexual encounters they might have been better off not pursuing, or maybe didn't even truly want to pursue aside from feeling that society demanded this of them. It is also a slap in the face to homosexuals, who get by just fine without their mystical better half; I suspect you didn't mean it in this sense, but it's still a concept we have to be careful with.

Now, if an individual man or woman finds meaning in traditional roles, I won't begrudge this of them, and I suspect most feminists wouldn't either; feminism's goal is simply to uproot that "mystique" in the sense in which it acts as something that actively shapes people's lives and constricts their choices. Indeed, feminist economic programs could empower some sections of women to choose traditional roles, and don all that magical mystique they've been locked out of due to sheer poverty; in the United States Sojourner Truth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ain%27t_I_a_Woman%3F) did a great job of (blowing the lid open on the fact that some women might have very much enjoyed being sheltered housewives, spending time with their kids as opposed to working their hands raw in the fields and factories.


Feminism doesn't mean we can't embrace our differences as traditionally defined; it means that when we do, we're really doing that because it floats our boats and not because we feel forced to due to some external command, whether that command is hard-coded or implied repeatedly. At least, this is my personal take on what the movement means.

EDIT: It's true, of course, that men can't bear children; I really consider that the final frontier of separation between the sexes. As I've been saying all along... (http://www.comparestoreprices.co.uk/images/oz/ozbozz-alien-birth-pod.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on December 27, 2009, 12:30:45 pm
Women are routinely raped and physically oppressed in other parts of the world. And the first world is still one in which women are socially oppressed in a variety of ways, whether legal, religious, or cultural.

There is a lot of work to be done.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: GenesisOne on December 27, 2009, 05:20:43 pm

If you’re going to combat against gender oppression, here's my suggestion for a good starting place (remember, it's only a suggestion, not a command):

Take your fight to the Islamic people over in the Middle East, where their governments reinforce the strictest theocracies in the world.  There, women aren’t allowed to vote.  They need written permission from a man to study, work, or travel.  The religious police are everywhere making sure that women are covered, that women aren’t driving cars, and other gender-oppressive actions.  These religious police are no better than the Taliban, and those guys are scary enough.

You're right.  There is a lot of work to be done.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Jutty on December 27, 2009, 09:09:04 pm
(http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2008/6/17/633492633482741440-feminism.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on December 27, 2009, 09:47:46 pm
Quote
Take your fight to the Islamic people over in the Middle East, where their governments reinforce the strictest theocracies in the world.  There, women aren’t allowed to vote.  They need written permission from a man to study, work, or travel.  The religious police are everywhere making sure that women are covered, that women aren’t driving cars, and other gender-oppressive actions.  These religious police are no better than the Taliban, and those guys are scary enough.
The question of properly combating the hard-coded sexism present in some countries foreign to feminists in the USA/Canada/Europe/Developed East is an important one. It must be done, but how to do it is a question I'm still unclear on. I'm worried that if feminism as it exists in non-Islamic countries appears imposed, like cultural invasion, it could potentially be rebuffed. I'd rather find ways of supporting movements that already exist in these places; donating to a microlending organization like Kiva could empower women in some Islamic countries, though I still need to check out how Kiva aid is targeted; but I think that's what I'm going to settle on. There's also the possibility of providing logistical support like Internet organizing tactics, and supporting feminist-positive media creators in those places...again, that's a "somehow."


As for that tongue-in-cheek pic Jutty posted, I happen to think feminists can be quite attractive. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jO9p6e4SWLM)
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZombieBucky on December 27, 2009, 11:53:33 pm
this just fired me up.
today i was at my cousins house with my brother and sister. i have three cousins from this particular relative: will, sam, and cassie. will and sam recently got an xbox360, along with guitar hero. they invited me and pat to play with them, and who am i to decline? ive been told i have a good sense of rhythm, but i have trouble hitting the fifth button.
then megan asked if she could play.
i personally feel that megan is very rhythmically gifted. shes the kind of person who sings out math formulas to remember them. so i told her that as soon as this song was over, id let her take the controller.
will then said no.
he didnt say why, but he said something about her not knowing how to work it right. keep in mind that will is about 12 right now and sam is 15. i explained that i would teach her how to hold it so that it couldnt break and that her hands wouldnt hurt (unless she played for like fifteen hours or something), but he said no. i think he said something about girls not knowing good video games. (keep in mind that megan is now a huge final fantasy fan and i will soon introduce her to chrono) we went back and forth until sam got into the middle of this and said that girls cant play video games, and if they try theyll fail horribly. i countered that some of the best gamers i had ever seen were, in fact, female. after a little bit of this they consented and megan promptly beat their high score. after that they turned it off and shunned me and megan from all activities.
while i was walking past their room to go to the bathroom before we left, i heard them refer to me as a fag.

yeah.
im a fag for sticking up for a girls right to play video games.
thats another big thing with sexism. its not just that guys feel like theyre being threatened (some do), but theyre afraid of being insulted for standing up. its either youre afraid for your job or status or something or youre afraid for your masculinity. for being tough and cold and unemotional and unthinking and a MAN.
if thats what being a man entails, then i dont want to be a man.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on December 28, 2009, 12:13:41 am
Daaaamn, that fires me up just hearing about it. Great job Zombie, it's awesome that you were able to recognize an opportunity to directly combat sexism and acted on that.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Uboa on December 30, 2009, 05:30:25 am
its either youre afraid for your job or status or something or youre afraid for your masculinity. for being tough and cold and unemotional and unthinking and a MAN.
if thats what being a man entails, then i dont want to be a man.

It is a terrible widespread perception, isn't it?  Sad to see it taken to that extent in youngsters.  One of the reasons I'm most grateful for this forum is that the male caricature you described is not the norm here, and it certainly is not promoted as ideal in any way.  How terrific that it is actually widely spurned here, and that it is regarded as more of a mental trap than anything.

I hope Will and Sam will come around sooner rather than later.  I'm not aware of gender politics among kids these days, but perhaps Will's perceptions of girls are still clouded by fear of cooties, or something along those lines.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on January 02, 2010, 08:34:48 pm
Composed this for /feminisms/, so cross-posting:

Reflections on Becoming a Feminist

Growing up, I was never too idealistic or altruistic a person. I fell into my parents' religion, didn't care much about politics or the world at large, and was casually sexist. (For example, joking with several friends about PMS and that women talk too much, accepting some of the sexist tenets of the Christian religion, including that canard about "virtuous" women being harder to find than virtuous men, and so on.)

Thankfully, I kept learning, having new experiences, and making better friends. With time, I've lost my religion, gained a more open mind, and become politically literate, socially aware, and actively committed to humanist ideals and improving the world. If ignorance is evil, then I've wanted to help fix what I perceive to be two of the world's greatest ignorances and evils: religious belief and sexism, including male privilege. Religion is the far easier of the two evils, as sexism is ingrained in absolutely every part of civilization. Toward the activist end, this year, I've read a few books (and listed several more to tackle), spoken with several women's rights activists, and participated in my university's graduate women's studies program to learn more about the state of "feminism" today. This piece is a reflection about what feminism's come to mean to me.

This subreddit is called "feminisms" for a reason—because many people, male and female, fight for women's rights for varying reasons and in varying ways, across different cultures, religions, societies, economies, and countries. My own "personal feminism" is an activist response to sexism, based upon the ideal that people should be free to pursue opportunities and behavior free of restrictions, privileges, and expectations built on sex and gender. I've found that at the highest levels of feminist organizing and networks, this equality message is basically the same. However, go down a notch to national, state, and local levels across the world, and women's rights advocacy groups become very different and unique.

A group organized to resist sweatshops may be comprised mostly of women (as sweatshop labor pools are), and have nothing about idealistic humanity or gendered privilege in its mission statement. But it still qualifies as a women's rights/feminist group. After all, sweatshop labor pools are female because they're infamously easier to control and coerce; this is sexist. Likewise, a group of Islamic women resisting hijab or wife sequestering may have nothing to do with secular humanism, nor have a scope inclusive of problems faced in other religions. Nonetheless, sequestering and hijab are sexist conventions, and these Islamic women resisting them are feminists. They're fighting for women's rights against patriarchal institutions and oppression. The same goes for Indian groups addressing poverty (for a few reasons, the majority of impoverished people are female), or European groups working on domestic servant abuse.

The need for cooperation is clear, but the variety of causes makes pegging them and the definition of feminism/women's rights advocacy to some universal, high standard difficult. I've learned (though I need to read more on the subject) that there's historically been a lot of friction between "first" and "third" world advocacy groups over the disparity of their aims and perceived problems in society. But I've also watched documentaries on the 1995 Fourth World Conference in Beijing and read about the issues defined and what I saw was a mass of people from every background conceivable mingling with euphoria and encouragement. The goodwill towards one another was palpable, and it made international cooperation and sisterhood seem possible. Now that stonewaller Jesse Helms is gone, perhaps CEDAW even has a chance for ratification.

After learning about international organization and feminist networks, I feel as if there's so much incredible potential in women's rights activism. A universal problem like sexism is certainly capable of eliciting universal organization and response. Confronting economic, religious, and social problems has already enabled many people to transcend restrictive barriers and work together. This is especially necessary now that globalization of business is intertwining the economic and social fates of the world's national constituents. But there's something deeper, too—a truly human kind of organizing. These disparate activists are capable of respecting differences of language and culture while seeking common solutions and productive discourses for problems of sexism and privilege. This interaction promotes understanding and communication, while facilitating the emergence of the most meritorious ideas about economic, governmental, and social issues.

Compare the spirit of this with the recent Copenhagen climate change meetings, filled with suspicions and failures. Granted, Beijing was a meeting of activists, and Copenhagen a meeting of leaders (though, on second thought, this isn't very flattering to leaders, is it?). Humanism invokes the image of the international citizen; the appeal to the fundamental, indivisible human being; the focus on rationality, transcending prejudices and superstitions; the organization around human rights and the value of sentience—is it not there, among the enlivened, optimistic feminists of the Beijing conference? Is the potential not there for international organizing and a confluence of goals towards the eradication of sexism and oppression?

It certainly is. Because of its size and roots, sexism will likely be the last great problem tackled as humanity becomes better than it once was. And feminism will likely be the organizing rally that proves humanity's greatest unification on the road to an illuminated future. It starts here, whether by tackling reproductive rights, commercial and media sexism, the feminization of labor and poverty, or any other problem of sexual and gendered oppression. By being a feminist, I'm hoping to accomplish a lot by working to alleviate the deep ills caused by sexism—but what really excites me is this potential for future organization and humanist idealism. Sexual and gendered oppression bring down all of humanity, and are something all of humanity can get together to address.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Kodokami on January 07, 2010, 12:36:24 am
I was pissed today, and my anger can easily be traced back to this wretched seed of sexism embedded in humanity's heart.

For Christmas, my girlfriend received this very cute, black leather jacket from a family member. I had seen her wearing it a lot during the Christmas break, so I knew she thoroughly enjoyed wearing it. She wore it to school today, along with a pretty blue skirt over black pants. To me, I thought she looked gorgeous. But apparently to some asshole at the school who felt the need to say this directly to her, my girlfriend looked like a slut.

Thus I became pissed, and my girlfriend was severely upset. To make matters worse, she told me that she was wondering why women are called sluts for wearing leather jackets, while men receive high-fives for being assholes to women.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on January 07, 2010, 01:24:17 am
=(
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on January 07, 2010, 01:48:59 pm
What can someone do in a situation like that? Reporting it will probably get one nowhere since it's just hearsay.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: KebreI on January 07, 2010, 05:51:42 pm
I say that is a justified time to kick his ass after something like that.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Kodokami on January 08, 2010, 12:30:14 am
I unfortunately wasn't there at the time. Sigh.

Still. The guy should not have called her that...
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Jutty on January 08, 2010, 02:11:51 pm
Who cares what some asshole thinks? Maybe I'm different from other people, but I was never really offended by name calling or shit people said.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on January 08, 2010, 02:17:00 pm
I seem to recall you being offended quite recently, right here at the Compendium, in a now-deleted post, by something somebody said to you that amounted to criticism.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Jutty on January 09, 2010, 12:33:50 am
I don't recall. I normally just open fire verbally right back at someone. I don't take anything to heart and I'm sure not going to allow something said to me on a message board upset me. I'm not saying I've never flamed anyone or been in arguments. I'm just saying I couldn't care less what most people think.

Edit: But what was the situation? Or post about? If it was the typical american thing I'm pretty much used to getting hated on by everyone outside the country. I deleted my post because I thought calling him a fag was a bit harsh and immature.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Kodokami on January 09, 2010, 11:37:52 am
I'm just saying I couldn't care less what most people think.

Is it not this kind of thinking that is deconstructive to the feminist cause, along with many others?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on January 09, 2010, 02:01:54 pm
http://womensrights.change.org/blog/view/buddhist_monks_freak_out_over_female_ordination

Real Buddhism (not western cherrypicking new age spiritualism) is rigid, dogmatic, and sexist! Who knew? For centuries, Buddhists have kept women out of the clergy and reinforced sexism via the social order, and now, an ordained female monk is causing a big fucking noise. Fucking anti-spiral self-hating jackass Buddhists. Abrahamic clergy always claim some kind of authority and prestige, but even more insidious is this idea in the West that Buddhist monks and practitioners are enlightened, special thinkers and gentle, non-violent paragons and saints of humanity, and it's all because they gave up on getting the things they want in life and decided to sit around meditating and starving. What a giant waste of potential and life.

Fuck all religion, superstition, and supernatural faith. Die the motherfucking death.

Edit: The comment at that article is fucking glorious:

Quote
What? Patriarchy in a Buddhist culture? But but...I thought Buddhist countries were havens of peace, tolerance, equality, veganism, and all the things good and pure. What next? Will we learn that Buddhist cultures have been historically just as socially harsh as European ones? That they too have waged bloody wars in the name of ideologies?  I guess I can't rely on the self-help industry to teach me about human history, religion and culture anymore :(  Now where do I turn? Can I ever do yoga again? Will I ever be able to consume processed Buddhism again without my modern western sensitivities remembering this offense?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Jutty on January 09, 2010, 10:47:20 pm
I'm just saying I couldn't care less what most people think.

Is it not this kind of thinking that is deconstructive to the feminist cause, along with many others?

Yes my lack of caring what people think about me is setting back the feminist cause...
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on January 10, 2010, 02:37:22 pm
Angry Mouse, who to my great pleasure has recently been promoted to the Front Page, makes a good point in this article:
http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/10/822892/-Feminism-Fail

Explicitly, she points out that our national feminist organizations are not very effective. I don't think it's for lack of enthusiasm; they just don't have a winning strategy.

So: What would a "winning strategy" entail?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on January 10, 2010, 03:11:55 pm
Well, we know at least that the feminist movement has worked for some portion of us; some particular aspect of it has touched each of us who identify as feminists, and inspired our participation.

However, that "something" might be different for each of us. For ZeaLitY, I think it was learning that one of his friends had been subjected to a particularly ugly event rooted in sexism, if I remember correctly; in my case, exposure to feminist-positive media at an early age helped lay the foundation for my current attitudes. Learning about certain horrific events in Sajainta's life has touched us all, I think, and probably helped spark the urgency we've felt with regard to this cause recently. There's no time to sit back; we feminists have to strike out now. The question is how, and what actions will be most effective.

My theory on feminist action, for what it's worth, is to make use of those things that worked on us to begin with, and replicate those. ZeaLitY knows that learning about the ugliness of rape will have an impact on at least some people, because it had an impact on him; I know feminist-positive media will have an impact on at least some people, because it had an impact on me; and so on and so forth.

The drawback to this may be lack of strengthening network effects and decentralization of efforts. But is it truly a drawback? I'm not entirely sure. It's my suspicion that most people who deride feminism view it as if it were still in rigid, Second Wave, semi-centralized Andrea Dworkin/Betty Friedan mode.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Radical_Dreamer on January 11, 2010, 06:52:05 pm
In wake of the release of Bayonetta, I've been having some interesting discussions with my girlfriend and a friend of ours on the topic of the portrayal of women in games. In a video we watched, the point was made that all protagonist characters in video games are idealized forms, male or female.

The first flaw that came to mind with this view is that the idealized male form (as seen in games) is one of greater functionality. More muscle means more strength, means more tasks are possible to the character. With female characters? Not so much. Rarely are female game characters designed in such a way that their physique would imply above average physical capabilities.

It didn't take me long to figure out the root of that issue: Both of these notions of idealized form are male notions of idealized form. It's what a man wants to see in men and women. It also came up in discussion that the Final Fantasy series of games seems to have male characters which are more appealing to women than the hulking action movie hero types found in many games.

In my professional experience, I have worked with one female designer, and she was a level designer; due to that and a couple other factors, not in a position to meaningfully effect character design. I wonder if having more female designers in games would help with this issue, as the conventional wisdom seems to assert. I'm also curious for an opinion from any female members who'd care to comment; can you think of any female game characters who are an idealized form based on what you would consider an idealized female form?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on January 11, 2010, 07:19:23 pm
Well, I'm not female, but I've had the same thought myself. It's good to point out. This is just one more part of that endless dimension of "by and for males" which dominates all of our popular media. I've been sour for years that Magus and Crono are both vastly more muscular than Ayla, who is the strongest physical character in the game by stats. This sort of omission undercuts the credibility of strong female characters.

There's so much more to talk about here: The very fact of emphasizing physical strength, for instance, is clearly a male prerogative, since in the real world males vastly dominate females in that department. (Not only are they naturally predisposed to being stronger, but society relentlessly discourages females from realizing what strength potential they have. I've seen males accuse other males of being gay after stating a preference for muscular females.) Then there's the fact that female characters are usually cast with even greater stereotypes than male ones. Again this gets traces back to the fact that female characters in games are designed by and for males. Female characters who are not overtly evil are overwhelmingly afflicted with profound troubles or profound innocence, either of which is addressed in the course of the plot with a love story, inevitably involving one of the male characters. I shouldn't need to point out where that comes from.

And on, and on...
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on January 11, 2010, 08:09:37 pm
An additional matter I've become curious about of late is the ratio of male to female characters in the typical RPG party roster. I've recently come across an incredibly obscure (but insanely good, so far) Taiwanese RPG (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrV6WWziiDQ) which has the following interesting characteristics:

*The player's party is composed of a female majority, and I think this trend extends through the whole game judging from other videos I've seen: two permanent male characters and one male temp, whereas there appear to be three to four permanent female party members.

*The main character, while male, is physically average in appearance (this is emphasized by the huge, meaty grunt-iness of the male antagonists he has to face in battle). Moreover, his stat progression and available equipment as I've observed them so far leave him physically inferior to some of his female cohorts. He seems more suitable as a back-row mage than as a frontline attacker.

While I'm sure the gender ratio, combined with various choices the player has, is going to lead to the same "harem syndrome" Final Fantasy VII could be accused of, I still found these aspects of the game refreshing. I can't exactly read the characters are saying, but this was the first time in a while I've seen an RPG conversation in which 75% of the partipants were female, and all participants were wearing earrings.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: alfadorredux on January 11, 2010, 08:26:36 pm
Japan, at least, does produce some video games (mostly RPGs and visual novels) aimed at a female audience, but they're almost never translated into English. They usually contain a different set of stereotypes, mostly derived from shoujo manga--in particular, the males tend to be eye-candy bishounen.

I wish I thought this was any more positive than the stereotypes appearing in the games aimed at male audiences.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on January 11, 2010, 09:00:28 pm
Quote from: alfadorredux
I wish I thought this was any more positive than the stereotypes appearing in the games aimed at male audiences.
And this is where I worry about sitting back and letting the market solve imbalances in stereotypical media portrayals. My prediction is, that as women account for a growing percentage of total income, masculinity will be increasingly sexualized and commodified just as femininity has been. Maybe we'll have a version of Dead or Alive: XTreme Beach Volleyball where all the characters are men tailor-designed to appeal to whatever the programmers guess women's sexual appetites are.

That would, on its face, solve an imbalance. But I'm not sure it solves it in a way I find agreeable; I suspect that is the Second Waver in me speaking.



Getting back to something J mentioned for a second:
Quote from: Lord J Esq
The very fact of emphasizing physical strength, for instance, is clearly a male prerogative, since in the real world males vastly dominate females in that department.
I realize I'm going out on a huuuuge cultural limb here, and I honestly feel rather embarrassed about asking this because it could be in scientific literature of which I am unaware, but has the statement in the real world males vastly dominate females in the (physical) department ever been statistically proven? Like, in a randomized sample, focusing on a specific competitive activity? Say, arm wrestling?

My (completely untested) hypothesis is, most human bodies fall into some middling range where men and women overlap considerably in terms of physical strength. True, I've never seen a woman look like Arnold Schwarzenegger or Jesse Ventura, but Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jesse Ventura are popular because they are rare dudes, and have gone through intensive physical training to get where they are at. I consider myself about average in physical terms, and I've done the following things during adolescence:

1. Defeated an average male in arm wrestling
2. Been defeated by an average female in arm wrestling

All participants mentioned were of comparable height and age. Just thought I'd throw it out there and see what everyone's reaction is.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on January 11, 2010, 09:18:34 pm
I spent an afternoon at the library a number of years ago asking that very question. What I found is that female and male muscle are functionally identical, but that males have more of it--considerably more, in fact--making them significantly stronger. This comes at least partially and probably mostly (my guess) from from sex-specific differences at the genetic level (as opposed to the environmental level). I don't like it, but that's the way it is.

I'm sure you can find study abstracts online that convey the same bottom line.

You're right that there's a lot of overlap, but "a lot" hardly constitutes a majority. I haven't seen any statistics establishing "90 percent of males are stronger than 75 percent of females" (fictitious figures provided as an example), but I'm sure such statistics are out there, and that they would reflect that, overlapping aside, most males are going to be physically stronger than most females. If you find those numbers, let me see 'em.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Uboa on January 11, 2010, 11:52:52 pm
I'm also curious for an opinion from any female members who'd care to comment; can you think of any female game characters who are an idealized form based on what you would consider an idealized female form?

I can say without a doubt, no.  The one who comes closest is Samus, but only because one can assume certain admirable character traits from the way she operates in the games, particularly in the Prime series.  If her story was more fleshed out I'd probably consider her an ideal female.  I think there is whole lot of potential for her actualization in her story, since she was fostered by a race and a culture which, compared to our own, seems almost utopian, and then would have had to deal with "becoming human" amidst her own kind.  This is why the untold story behind the Metroid series always intrigued me, and lured me into several fanfiction projects which never amounted to anything in the end, unfortunately.

I do harbor a lot of bitterness at the fact that practically all "powerful" female video game characters are reflective of male ideals of how powerful women should look and act.  J, you mention your sourness with the depiction of Magus and Crono as stronger than the depiction of Ayla.  I'm definitely with you there, but perhaps for slightly different reasons.  I think that Ayla's depiction not only undermines the credibility of strong female characters, but actually undermines the idea of female strength itself.  First, her depiction is obviously geared toward reflecting the predominate male ideals of female video game characters, and that in itself makes her strength seem more like fanciful male thinking than anything substantial.  Second, her depiction is reflective of the kind of female "strength" typified in supplement-driven female body-building, which is in itself just another image of supposed strength.  Most women cannot realistically be that "cut".  It's just not how our physiology works.  For example, think of the female swimmers in the Olympic games.  Their figures are huge but their muscle definition is almost nonexistent compared with that of their male counterparts.  

Edit:  Then there's Dara Torres...
(http://www.pollsb.com/photos/60/42253-41_year_old_olympic_swimmer_dana_torres_is.jpg)

If there was a female video game character who had Ayla's strength and was depicted realistically, she'd (probably, edit in light of DT, hah) look completely different from any depiction of a female fighter to date.  I guess I'd characterize my "ideal female form", at least for a fighter, as how I'd imagine such a character to look and act.

(Samus gets a pass on some of this because she has the coolest biomechanical suit of armor.  Ever. </geekout moment>)
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Uboa on January 12, 2010, 03:24:01 am
Necessary double post.

I've learned the potential power of self posts on reddit.  This shocked me, and made me realize that even though things may not be as bad today as they were in the 50's (I'm guessing the decade given her statement about her mother's age at one point), the lingering anxieties of that oppressive "feminine" culture still affect young women today!  Sometimes terribly.  :(

http://www.reddit.com/r/feminisms/comments/aoi0d/i_just_finished_reading_the_feminine_mystique_i/
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: KebreI on January 12, 2010, 06:40:21 am
http://www.gamepro.com/article/features/213466/bayonetta-empowering-or-exploitative/ (http://www.gamepro.com/article/features/213466/bayonetta-empowering-or-exploitative/)
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Radical_Dreamer on January 12, 2010, 07:45:39 pm
http://www.gamepro.com/article/features/213466/bayonetta-empowering-or-exploitative/ (http://www.gamepro.com/article/features/213466/bayonetta-empowering-or-exploitative/)

I will reply to this link as I have elsewhere:
http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2010/01/how_sexual_objectification_silences_women_-_the_male_glance.php?utm_source=editorspicks

FaustWolf, you might be particularly interested in this link.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on January 12, 2010, 07:47:42 pm
That link hadn't been submitted to feminisms yet in its one-year history. Let's vote this to the top: http://www.reddit.com/r/feminisms/comments/aov8g/how_objectification_silences_women_the_male/

Edit: http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/aoumb/women_talking_too_much_stare_at_her_body_shell/ How cute; a token sexist on the science reddit submitted it there with a sexist title. Someone deserves to lose a few teeth.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Uboa on January 12, 2010, 10:11:56 pm
http://www.gamepro.com/article/features/213466/bayonetta-empowering-or-exploitative/ (http://www.gamepro.com/article/features/213466/bayonetta-empowering-or-exploitative/)

How is this not Feminine Mystique 2.0?  The female lead's power and her capacity to "empower" stem from her "brand" of sexuality.  And that is all it is.  A brand.  A caricature of enticement which is thought best portrayed through a female.  "Feminine sexuality = power".  This message gets replayed and rehashed through every conceivable media outlet with such frequency that it makes my head spin.

If people find the game empowering, then I don't want to stop them from playing or feeling empowered.  But, I feel like the message in this article is somewhat if not mostly apologetic, and apologists often try to assign virtue where it is not due.  A rehashing of the same old same old, with regard to the feminine mystique message, misses the mark where female empowerment is concerned.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on January 12, 2010, 10:19:21 pm
Yeah. Female empowerment (and sexual equality more broadly) will always get caught up in gender-based thinking so long as people aren't willing to discard gendered thinking entirely. Trying to make female empowerment work within the context of gender necessarily sends out a strong signal of segregation-in-principle, which, given the existing imbalances, manifests as this confusing dilemma of "Is it empowering or not to put females into the spotlight on account of being women?" It's a tangle, a big bramble patch. The clear way ahead is for people to practice ungendered thinking and ungendered behavior.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on January 14, 2010, 06:38:04 pm
Most people who use MSN have probably seen their dating advice pages pop up in the log-on screen. Bother to read them, and you'll find that they've been consistently really, really bad. The latest one is just ridiculous: 10 Things Every Single Girl Must Own - http://dating.uk.msn.com/matchscene/article.aspx?articleid=3996&lid=0

The sexism goes both ways in this. Some people do behave like this, so some of the tips do barely have (extremely) tenuous merit. Overall, though, they're vapid and gendered. I'm assuming this is written for the absolute lowest-common denominator. Here's a quick run-through:

1. A fabulous photo of yourself - "Daa-aamn, girl, you're hotter than I realised!"

MALE: Shit, now I really want to fuck this bitch! I was like "yeah I'd hit it" before but damn!

FEMALE: I am fundamentally UGLY. I must go to great lengths to look beautiful and manufacture illusion to ensnare a lay.

3. An Eminem CD

MALE: Haha, did she think I was going to actually like her for who she is? Hot fuck, this CD means she's just like one of the guys! I admire taste in music, and Eminem is an epicurean delight!

FEMALE: I cannot hope to have a relationship based on my true identity and tastes. I should get used to creating a home full of artifice and pretend to like things I don't.

4. A great pickup line…and a way to blow 'em off - "In this post-chivalrous period, we can't always depend on guys to initiate contact"

MALE: Men should be chivalrous, even if it's severely patronizing and reinforces gender roles. After all, she's totally a bitch if you hold the door open for her, but she doesn't put out later in thanks.

FEMALE: LIE! For god's sake, lie, lest you seem like a BITCH for *gasp* rejecting someone you don't want!

(Admittedly, lying is more than justified in getting rid of overbearing jerks or creeps.)

5. A six-pack of good bottled beer

MALE: BEEEEEEEEEER, UGG WANT BEER, GIVE BEEEEEEEEER

FEMALE: Buy and drink shit you don't like, or be involuntarily celibate.

6. Bathroom reading - "Or, just buy a book that's made for the bathroom, like Schott's Original Miscellany by Ben Schott so he can learn a few things about shoelace lengths and sign language while he passes the, uh, time."

MALE: Nevermind that I'm already up to shitting in her bathroom despite the fact that we just started seeing each other. I want entertainment, goddamnit, and I'm incapable of appreciating any female-marketed literature.

FEMALE: I am so willing to please and desperate to serve my man to keep him that I must find ways to impress him, even when he's relieving himself.

8. Earplugs

MALE: I'm a stupid fuck who doesn't realize that snoring can be indicative of a serious medical problem, and I'm an inconsiderate asshole for not acknowledging its disrupting effect on those I sleep with.

FEMALE: God forbid I actually tell someone I'm seeing to go to the doctor for something or, you know, seek help for a condition that could totally blow my sleep for the entire duration of our relationship, or the rest of my life. No, that'd offend him, and he'd leave me. I must tolerate his insensitivity and ignorance or be lonely.

9. A straight male friend on your speed-dial

MALE: LOL @ empathy.

FEMALE: Despite being human, having a brain, and sharing the same earth and experiences with them, I am helpless to understand or comprehend men.

10. A condom

MALE: I LUV BANGIN' WITHOUT RUBBERS

FEMALE: I have so little dignity that I am willing to date men who are completely irresponsible about their personal health, *my* personal health, and family planning/contraception. Oh yeah, this one's a keeper.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on January 14, 2010, 07:02:28 pm
Ha ha ha, I had to laugh at the beer advice. I tend to think dating (is one of the few activities that) should be done sober.

About the condoms: I personally feel it's a little sad on some level given ZeaLitY's observation about the deeper meaning behind this little piece of latex, but if I had a daughter I guess I'd rather have her carry a condom with her than not if she insists on going through with such a deed. Say, doesn't carrying condoms in DC get you arrested for prostitution nowadays? Way to discourage safety!
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: GenesisOne on January 14, 2010, 07:19:59 pm

Is it just me, or has rom-com movies of the past decade (or even past two decades) have depicted women (especially those in high school) as being:

High School (think 17 Again)
- a brat
- an idiot
- a slut

Beyond High School (think All About Steve and The Proposal)
- a doormat
- still an idiot
- a hopeless freak

It would seem that as far as cinema is concerned for the past decade, rom-coms are officially on life support, and not just for the reasons that I listed above.  If there is a way to improve them for the future, please share them, as I too would like to inject some ideas of my own.

P.S. Is it not a coincidence that Sandra Bullock starred in those two films?  She either needs to fire her agent or find a new line of work.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on January 15, 2010, 11:47:39 am
Ah, you should take both sides of a conversation more often Z, that was delicious.

Though it seems that the "article" was directed mostly at individuals who habitually engage in one-night stands or otherwise intentionally brief relationships. While this is still quite sexist, the fault then lies with the underlying premise of the article and not necessarily the insights that the article offers.

If one's goal is simply a few nights of sex, then the smoke and mirrors approach of the article is potentially effective and pragmatic. Sex as the goal of a relationship will inherently produce sexist behaviors (as I think was discussed in the abstinence thread).

If one is in a relationship and that relationships goal is to get to know another human being, then one is changing the very premises that the article was founded on and the value of the recommendations based upon one's goal shifts.

Which is all a fancy way of saying that with the basic premise of the article, there was no way it could have been good.

However, that being said, two of the points actually do touch upon legitimate behaviors.

If you entertain a lot, it is indeed a good idea to have a varied drink selection. It shows that you are aware that people are different from you, that you care about those differences, and you are willing to adjust your behavior (in this case, buying behavior) accordingly. I dislike dry wines, but if I am going to have a dinner party, it would be prudent for me to get a few bottles of such to have on hand. This isn't really where the article was going with this basic premise, but it is sound advice if one extrapolates a little.

The second is that one's health is always one's own responsibility. Certainly a guy should have at least one condom with him, but it is far too important a matter to fully trust someone else. He might have a condom, but it is a brand one should trust? What if it is defective and breaks while putting it on (and if one is already putting on a condom, it is unlikely that reason will rule the day if it turns out there is something wrong with it)? What if one has a latex allergy? And so on, and so forth.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on January 15, 2010, 07:52:11 pm
Reading through UNIFEM'S Progress of World's Women report: http://unhq-appspub-01.un.org/LIB/DHLRefWeblog.nsf/dx/08012010041407PMUNRSXH.htm (free PDF download in different languages)

UNIFEM recently released their 2008-2009 Progress of the World's Women report, which focuses on accountability for enforcement of progressive programs. The report states that there's a lot of good ground to be gained in this area; that women must be part of governance oversight and that governance must be evaluated from a standpoint of advancing women's rights.

The problem the report focuses on is one of female incapacity to demand accountability from government. In democracies, constituents demand accountability from their elected leaders, whether by "voice" in showing community action/voting, or "choice", like economic action. The report demonstrates with studies and arguments that women are disadvantaged from exercising their ability to demand accountability, because their life decisions are often mediated by men. This includes decisions about personal health, family visitation, and use of personal money. There's an interesting study showing that many women have limited (or even severely limited) say in the final decisions of their households. The report then outlines how UNIFEM's been fighting this, by empowering women to demand and receive accountability.

There's a very interesting report cited from Transparency International's Global Corruption Barometer which states that women, on average, perceive more corruption in the world than men. The implied reasoning is obvious: women have less power to be involved in their government and demand accountability from leaders, as their choices are filtered through and sometimes negated by male authority, and their powers are reduced or misappropriated because of sexism. The decision issue reminded me of a study that compiled anecdotes from wives who had sought to take part of popular political movements or revolutions in various countries. Many women reported that they were forbidden from being politically active by their husbands, in some cases because their husbands were suspicious of their going to political meetings at night, feeling that they were using politics as a ruse to cover up sexual affairs.

The report then focuses on different areas of this issue and recent gains, starting with politics. UNIFEM estimates that developed nations will achieve governments where no more than 60% of a single gender holds seats by 2027, while developing nations won't reach it until 2047—assuming the current rate of progress, which by no means can be taken for granted. There are several interesting stories in this section, including an excellent chart showing many countries' quotas for women that have helped females gain access to government. The next section, Services, is much like Seager's Atlas of Women, full of studies showing gender imbalances across the world in countless areas of life. The section after covers markets and economics, and inadvertently serves as a nice primer for economic globalization and labor's effect on women. There are a few choice examples, like gender discrimination at Walmart. (Just check out the export processing zone ratio of female to male workers. Yeesh.) I was glad to see an appeal to international law, as national law is often insufficient to confront international economic forces (especially in the case of developing countries with IMF programs or dependency on a few multinationals).

Justice is next, and given the recent abortion issues in the United States, it's compelling to read about the challenge of enforcing existing rights compared to winning new ones. It brings to mind the anti-choice attempts to stigmatize and complicate legal abortion procedures such that women won't dare to seek them because of the hassle (framed as the the subverted "moderate" position of, "Instead of arguing about abortion, let's just reduce the need for abortions."). The next section covered aid & security, subjects I admit to being not familiar enough with as I'd like (as they apply to women's rights). This is top-level stuff—criticisms of international organizations by international organizations. It was painful to notice the little box mentioning that UNIFEM, for its grand mission against sexual inequality and oppression—a fundamental, pervasive problem in the world—had only 47 core staff in 2003, versus 980 for UNFPA (the population fund) and 2,794 for UNICEF.

This was an enthralling read, and contains a lot of excellent, recent studies and explanations. Feminisms and countercurrents against sexual inequalities among nations are varied and often fragmented, so it's edifying to read a report truly universal in its scope and analysis.

As a final aside, the report brought up a Norwegian mandate (starting 2008) for all companies to have 40% female board membership. This sounds Draconian, but I've debated the issue of the business old boys club before, and dealt with a couple gender discrimination case studies in my proper graduate auditing class. After discussing the issue with some current auditing and public accounting employees/seniors, young and old, we reached the consensus that breaking up an old boys club from the outside is virtually impossible, unless there's a wave of other social factors at work. This seems to have been the same argument by the Norwegians, who cited previous failed initiatives in their decision to legislate this quota. This is really fascinating to me, and so I hope to learn more about the program and how well it's working. If anyone knows more about this, I invite you to offer your perspective and experience.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on January 18, 2010, 01:48:10 am
I'm still making my way through that European Feminist Forum PDF book. (http://europeanfeministforum.org/IMG/pdf/EFF_Herstory_web.pdf)

It explains its concept of affinity groups as an attempt to organize. The book highlights that sisterhood and solidarity have failed as approaches (sisterhood because it's exclusive; solidarity because it's incompatible with the reality of fragmented organizing and thinking). The book asks if anything can be built on identity, since "womanhood" is a mellifluous category with all kinds of experiences that's been used to keep out certain supporters, like men, lesbians, and transgenders. The authors then write that there's been potential in defining things as countercurrents and anti-movements, like anti-globalization, anti-environmental destruction, and so on. It still notes that thinking is fragmentary and big movements have lost their funding in recent years.

The book then explains the concept of affinity groups, which are incredibly open ended. The EFF was basically a call for a bunch of self-identifying "feminists" or women's rights activists (or really, any interested parties) to come together in like-minded groups to define Europe, feminism, and issues they cared about. The fact that the call is what resulted in their coming together is theoretically important to the writers, who argue that movements built on static foundations sometimes fail because they encapsulate sentiments and alliances at a particular time, which erodes as the future drags on. They say these affinity groups were a success.

I'm not halfway through, but I just had to stop and write how dearly, dearly tired I am of this and disgusted that so much effort in combating sexism is spent on this damn paralysis by analysis. These organizers are admirably trying to do the impossible. To unite against women's rights internationally, one has to include a host of people with their own ignorance and prejudices. Feminists have to ally with Latin American union organizers who don't give a flying fuck about gender roles, but care about workplace conditions. They have to ally with Islamic women who retardedly have no problem wearing hijab, but do care about stopping domestic violence. They have to ally with rich, elite women who hold conservative politics but are willing to fund them on certain issues. This is a minefield of in-fighting and political maneuvering.

But who is "they" in the first place? Where is the head of this creature; the top of the pyramid that's doing all this allying? There isn't one, as Western feminists encountered problems of prejudices and "hierarchical abuse" during the second wave period, offending feminists and activists in third world countries and sparking massive in-fighting. So there is no head to this chicken. It's a massive, fragmentary clusterfuck of disconnected, frayed organizations focusing on individual problems and thus lacking the allied power needed to combat the international forces (and pervasive, underlying root of sexism) causing them. You might point to UNIFEM and call that the head, but UNIFEM, like most top-level feminist organizations, is constrained by its own organizational culture and donor-politics. It's also understaffed, compared to other, more successful UN initiatives. Who can organize anything like this? There is no leadership, and there is no common platform. What can be done with this? If you don't define the purpose of something, and define the problem across a million shattered pieces of isolated humanity, what can you accomplish, no matter what you may seem to be doing?

So, some personal thoughts, while waiting for more knowledge or more-informed opinions.

Humanism

I can't see much ever being done without a concerted, organized force. UNIFEM and other rights networks are effective because they do define a common platform, even if it runs afoul of all the over-analyzed grievances of postmodern organizational thought (god, I sound like a poseur to even type something like that). They have a purpose. They know where they're going. They can construe and plan all their actions and all their strategies through the lens of their singular purpose, and focus with clarity.

There is a movement today aiming to do the same; it's humanism/the Brights. First, a concession: humanism, atheism, rationalism, and the Brights aren't an organized political force or movement, and don't have a crystal clear foundation. There are humanists who believe in New Age spiritualistic bullshit. There are atheists who believe in religions without ostensible Gods, like Buddhism. There are rationalists who have closed minds because of tradition or ingrained ideology. And there are Brights who do all of the above. But in spite of these, humanism comes closest to the purity and clarity of human advancement. After all, it is named after such. It's increasingly synonymous with the potential of humanity for greatness; the unyielding desire to understand humanity and its environment; and above all else, reason. It is reasonable that humanity be reasonable. It is reasonable that no segment of humanity be oppressed because of ignorance or prejudice. And it is reasonable that humanity should strive to improve itself, to the extent of fighting for women's rights.

I have thus come to hold reason (or, more palatable for some, humanism) as the proper, crystal-clear foundation of ideals for women's rights. It is painful to read these thoughts about organization in this EFF document, written by people who are struggling to herd cats without an idea of the grander setting; who, because it would invoke hierarchy and disagreements of reason against allies, cannot see the forest of reason for the trees. Even worse is the fact that many rationalists and humanists are technologically-inclined, "nerdy" males, who, as is evident in trips to reddit, Digg, or any profession involved in IT, have their own brand of pervasive misogyny and sexism. Their behavior, and the lack of understanding of the problem of sexism by humanist and atheist males at large, has demonized humanism to several feminists, to the point that making an argument as I am doing now sounds like a request for them to hand over the keys of their kingdom to sexist, white male atheists. This is unfortunate. It was because of the patriarchy and sexism that males are the first, and the most, to drop out of religion and other irrationalities to compose the mass of Brights and humanists. And it was extant sexism again in common behavior and thought that stigmatized the group. (Not to mention, again, the problem of adopting a base of reason when there are all these offended-at-the-drop-of-a-hat myth-believers who must be allied with to accomplish reforms.)

So, what to do? UNIFEM and other networks are effective precisely because they have mission statements and foundations. The United Nations is virtually a humanist organization unto itself, transcending nationalities and religions to advocate human rights and international law. No wonder UNIFEM's been effective, despite its limitations and the problems of influence. But all these advances are being done in an atmosphere largely absent of movements. Sure, there's a token Scandinavian country or two at any given time whose badass government is leading the charge for women's rights, but largely, there is no palpable movement. In the United States the right wing has demonized the term feminist so much that several women's rights activists are afraid to even call themselves that label, and many others are clueless what feminism is actually about (but assume it's evil and misguided). What to do?

I'm not sure what the answer is, given my early stage of experience. I fantasize about a true, crystal-clear-founded humanist organization, truly free of all prejudice and irrational belief, and committed to the illumination of humanity, but that might be a ways off. The United Nations is pretty attractive to me personally, but I haven't researched it enough to know how much of an impact I could make there. In the meantime, the EFF's affinity groups have done some good, yeah. But unlike so other movements like environmentalism or animal rights, feminism is focused on rectifying problems of half of humanity as caused by sexism, all of , and sexism pervades all the institutions that can be conveniently overlooked in other movements of less scope. There can be Christian environmentalists, sure. But can there ever be a Christian feminist, when Christianity is so deeply sexist? (Just to use one example.)

What an annoying problem. I almost want to ask the authors if they're actually atheist, but are taking this conciliatory tone with the affinity groups and their other publications as to maximize fragmented organization and alliances with believers and other impure allies—to avoid stepping on toes, so to speak. I wish a city on a hill did truly exist, and that illumination could spread out from there. Instead, we're having to unify different degrees of discorded, flawed peoples. Ugh.

I'll find the answer. We'll find it. Whether it's humanism or feminism, we won't waste a step towards the illumination of humanity. The stars are calling us. Adventure awaits. Let's clean the human house of sexism and its other afflictions and start exploring space and all our wild dreams.

The springtime of youth waits for no one.

(http://media.urbandictionary.com/image/page/rocklee-4038.jpg)

It's a determined promise. We'll never give up. Our burning blood will cut through fate.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Uboa on January 26, 2010, 10:31:19 pm
I had my suspicions that this situation was bad, but I had no idea that it was this bad. 

http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/01/26/13rd-of-women-in-us-military-raped/

(http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/metroid/images/7/77/Dark_Samus_MP3.jpg)

Apologies for the large image, but I needed something dramatic to depict the rage that this inspires.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on January 28, 2010, 12:59:17 pm
Not quite sure where to put this, as we almost need a "New Link" thread, though that would step on the toes of preexisting threads. Anywho, I present for your reading consideration, The Anti-Rape Condom (http://arkitipintel.com/2008/01/14/rape-axe-the-anti-rape-condom/)
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Sajainta on January 28, 2010, 05:36:34 pm
Not quite sure where to put this, as we almost need a "New Link" thread, though that would step on the toes of preexisting threads. Anywho, I present for your reading consideration, The Anti-Rape Condom (http://arkitipintel.com/2008/01/14/rape-axe-the-anti-rape-condom/)

I've heard of that before.  I would just be scared that the rapist would become so enraged that he would kill the victim.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on January 28, 2010, 05:47:57 pm
Aye, that thought had crossed my mind as well. Though perhaps in South Africa, where rape is more likely to be done by complete strangers than here, it will give the women enough of a chance to escape that death will be no more common.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on February 06, 2010, 05:41:28 am
There's a festival in Sicily for Santa Aganta, who refused to marry to someone she didn't love, and was killed and her breasts cut off. She was killed in a horrifying way; her bones were broken and she rotted for a day without medical attention. She was then going to be burned, but an earthquake struck at the time of burning, and so she was thrown into prison half-burned and half-dead, where she died a few hours later.

You know what they serve at that festival to honor her?

Sweets shaped like breasts.

(http://andreagraziano.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/cassatedde-o-minnuzze-di-santagata-catania.jpg)

Fuck this world. Fuck all machismo cultures and all sexism. Fuck all the people who eat and delight in that sweet, and fuck all the people who venerate anyone in any religious sense. They hand out a bunch of goddamned yellow candles for the feeble-minded believers to burn as part of the festivity, and you know what fucking happens after it takes place? The excess candles and the other ones are thrown in a fucking dump truck and hauled off. So much for religious sanctity, you stupid fucks. God; fucking ignorant, fallen, worthless, inferior, mediocre, stupid, sexist humanity.

Unfuckingbelievable. They should fuck off and die. Italian and Sicilian culture is ridiculously fucking sexist to begin with, more than most western states. What a rotten fucking condition.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on February 06, 2010, 05:49:53 am
Just today (or, rather, in the past day), I have read three stories that turned my tummy:

1. Rush Limbaugh has been selected as a Miss America judge and things the women's movement is great when he's walking behind it.

2. A teenager in Turkey was buried alive after talking to some unrelated boys.

3. Many female veterans, once they get out of the military, end up in a life of homelessness, prostitution and sexual abuse, substance abuse, and mental illness.

And to top it all off, an assault on a friend has left me feeling upset indeed.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: TMC on February 06, 2010, 11:30:15 am
Just today (or, rather, in the past day), I have read three stories that turned my tummy:

1. Rush Limbaugh has been selected as a Miss America judge and things the women's movement is great when he's walking behind it.

2. A teenager in Turkey was buried alive after talking to some unrelated boys.

3. Many female veterans, once they get out of the military, end up in a life of homelessness, prostitution and sexual abuse, substance abuse, and mental illness.

And to top it all off, an assault on a friend has left me feeling upset indeed.

Aww sounds like a bad day, indeed, can't stand Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck for that matter. D: I'm sorry, did your friend (or you) at least kick the guy who did this in the nuts?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Sajainta on February 06, 2010, 04:01:37 pm
Oh my god J, that's awful.  I hope your friend is okay.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: desrever2 on February 06, 2010, 04:24:56 pm
Whoa, ZeaLitY. That story made me throw-up a little.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on February 06, 2010, 04:29:47 pm
Quote
And to top it all off, an assault on a friend has left me feeling upset indeed.
Man, what the...just, what the hell? How does this keep happening? It's so frustrating just to hear reports of this; hope the friend's okay.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: GenesisOne on February 06, 2010, 07:32:10 pm

Had your share of F-bombs today, Z?

Now that that's out of your system, what do you plan to do about it?



Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on February 06, 2010, 07:44:13 pm

Had your share of F-bombs today, Z?

Now that that's out of your system, what do you plan to do about it?

Become executive director of UNIFEM. What do you plan to do about it?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on February 07, 2010, 08:26:59 pm
Quote
Become executive director of UNIFEM.
*Sniff* And to think, just a few months ago people were probably saying: Moderator of /feminisms/? Him? Naaaah.

Twenty to thirty years from now, we may be due for another oh snaaaap moment! Double oh snaaaap if he does it in ten.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZombieBucky on February 07, 2010, 10:55:05 pm
ugh.
i saw a few commercials for the super bowl while waiting for the playstation to free up. one of them featured a man and his girlfriend/wife/female companion. she had apparently dragged him to the store to go get stuff for her and was so cruel as to not let him watch the game on the large televisions. the add was for a phone that you could watch tv on. that way when the woman does this again you can simply not care and watch muscular men in tight clothes bash into each other.
really.
men cant simply say that we dont want to do this again, or at least that we want to watch the game?
is it so unmanly to communicate our desires? are we that selfish that everyone around us must KNOW what we feel and want every waking second? and if you dont know that youre a horrible person and a shrew?
ugh.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on February 07, 2010, 11:10:23 pm
Zombie, did you happen to see a Mr/Mrs Potato Head commercial where Mrs Potato Head kept harping incessantly on Mr, until her mouth fell off? Way to go, Superbowl ads -- let's just reinforce all these sexist impressions of behavioral tropes, why don't we?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: GenesisOne on February 08, 2010, 04:24:01 pm

What about the ads depicting men constantly snacking on Doritos and downing bottle after bottle of Budweiser no matter what the social context?  I'd call that a "sexist impression of behavioral tropes".
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on February 08, 2010, 04:31:16 pm
I agree. It's interesting what role economics plays in perpetuating these things, now that you mention those examples.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: GenesisOne on February 08, 2010, 04:35:34 pm

Yeah.  Especially around Christmas time:

A Christmas program extolling love and charity interrupted every 7-10 minutes with commercials extolling greed and waste.  Nice to know the spirit of the season to brought to us by snack and beer conglomerates.

Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Shee on February 09, 2010, 04:22:57 am
I agree. It's interesting what role economics plays in perpetuating these things, now that you mention those examples.

A lot of these gripes are legit.  The whole "girl drags guy away from game" is old, outdated, and less and less true than ever.  But it did/does exist.  Not saying that's good or bad, because honestly I thnk it's a mixed can.  It's an exagerration at this point, is that a good thing?  Is it reinforcing sexist values or poking fun at a fading stereotype?

As an actor, notably one who took part in the Doritos Super Bowl competition, I had some questions.  Oh, first let me give you our premise.  I was hanging out with a woman who's head was a Dorito (awesome makeup job) and it was silly-sensual like and then my (assumed)wife/girlfriend walks in on us, obviously upset....until she has a Dorito...tada!

Anyway, what of the actors?  Personally, that's massive...maaaassssive exposure and a good/at least decent payday not to mention siging a union contract, which CAN be a great thing.  This is something I would go for.  I quoted Faust above because my "personal economics" has a huge stake in the mess of it all.

As far as snacking on Doritos and drinkin' some Buds...well sheeeeit pardner it's the Super Bowl.  'Tis meant for snacking.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on February 09, 2010, 10:34:44 am
It's basic pavlovian training. People watch the super bowl and snack. The snacking produces a pleasant hormonal rush which helps connect the two, making people like the super bowl, which in turn causes them to want to watch it, and when they watch it they desire to snack. It is a dastardly plot. I would even go so far as to say it is a Dick Dastardly plot!
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Zephira on February 09, 2010, 04:02:59 pm
I don't really get the whole "woman drags man away from super bowl" thing. It's a Sunday afternoon, what else would you be doing then? I like the Super Bowl because of the Little Smokies, the nachos, the devilled eggs, the clam dip, and all the other fun little foods that come with it. The commercials can be pretty entertaining sometimes, too, like that one phone commercial that had Gary Brolsma and the Chocolate Rain guy. It's a good time for the family to get together and watch/ignore the game (I just read comics through the whole thing) and eat food. It's like a holiday without any of the holy stuff.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Sajainta on February 09, 2010, 04:12:20 pm
It's like a holiday without any of the holy stuff.

That amuses me to no end.  It's strange to me how much importance people here place on sports.  Although they did the same thing in the UK too.  No one in my family cares all that much about sports, and so to see people go all up in arms over the Super Bowl and treat it like a holiday is just weird for us.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Zephira on February 09, 2010, 06:25:17 pm
See, I don't give a rats ass about football, or most sports. I don't know how the game is played, I don't know why they keep running back and forth, I don't even know what the positions are or what the teams are called. I just know you have to cheer and take a shot (coca cola!) when they score a touchdown. It's just entertaining seeing how excited other people get, and seeing how much fun you can have with complete strangers. The subject of that Hooters football party was completely uninteresting to me, but there were some hilarious people (and a guy from Nintendo!) to share stories and laugh with. Plus, food. I got a hundred hot wings for free off that.

Now, back to that image of man getting pulled away from the Super Bowl in commercials. There was this one headlight commercial set outside of a house with a garage; you could see into the living room's window, and there were a lot of men in there shouting and watching the game. However, there was one man stuck outside in the dark changing headlights on a car. The commercial starts out sounding like it's going to be one of those "girlfriend made me do it" gags, but it turns out the car is his daughter's, and she's about to go to some football party of her own and can't drive in the dark. The ending line was something about headlights being replaceable, but not the girl's life. Would that fall into the sexist category with the rest of those?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Sajainta on February 12, 2010, 05:17:16 pm
I need advice on something..

In my one literature class we're reading Miller's The Crucible--set during the Salem witch-trials.  To explain what spectral evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_evidence) meant, the professor used me as an example.  "Say that Ms. Sajainta [for clarification's sake--I'm not going to share my last name] has a high school teacher that she doesn't like.  He's always going about school scowling and he gave her a B+ on an exam!"  I was laughing along, because I thought this was amusing.

"Now Ms. Sajainta is in front of the court and is trying to brand Mr. McGurdy as a witch.  "Why," she says, "He sent his familiar into my room last night.  He came in my room, flapping his wings, and then he had his way with me." "

I stopped laughing and felt really sick.  I couldn't even concentrate on what he said after that for the rest of the class period because I was so upset.  I don't mind being used as an example for class, but I can't believe he did that.

To make matters worse, he knows about certain things.  I have to tell all of my professors the first day of class the same spiel--"I have PTSD, I might need to leave class sometimes, I might not be able to discuss triggering material."  I told him this the first day of class and I also brought up the potential difficulty I might have with reading certain materials laid out in the syllabus.  He was understanding and even said I didn't need to do one of the readings, which contained a lot of elements of sexual abuse.

So the fact that he knew I had been abused in that way and then described a scene, however brief, to the entire class in which I was raped by a made-up teacher's familiar makes me all the more upset.  I don't think he did it maliciously, just without thinking, but still.  Does he not have any sense?  Or any sensitivity?  That was grossly inappropriate on all counts, and what made it all the more worse was that he knew that I had been raped in the past.  Yet he said that anyway.  To the entire class.

I feel like I should say something, but I don't know what to say.  What should I do?

Ugh... I feel sick.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on February 12, 2010, 05:41:34 pm
My advice would be to talk to the professor himself about it. There's no sense in letting it fester inside you, and letting him know about what he did yourself is a lot better than just confiding in some friends.

I suppose it is possible(although definitely not excusable) that he didn't even realize his behavior crossed a line, so to avoid future incidents like this, the best course of action would be to tell him, and elicit an apology, of course.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Uboa on February 12, 2010, 06:01:30 pm
I agree with ToD.  It is really unthinkable that you should have to confront your professor about such a thing, but indeed not all professors possess a reasonable amount of common sense.  Additionally, if you know anybody who has more experience in dealing with this professor, say a former student, then perhaps you could ask them if he's exhibited questionable classroom behavior in the past.  I hate to think that he just has a knack for being inappropriate and that he may be a source of future emotional turbulence for you, but if that is the case I imagine that it would be better to know...
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on February 12, 2010, 07:57:25 pm
Normally I would advise a person who's got a non-academic problem with a teacher to talk to the teacher first, and give them a chance to understand what offense they committed, and a chance to behave better in the future. But in your case, the magnitude of your reaction is a testament to the seriousness of the offense. Had he used someone else as his example, that person almost certainly wouldn't have had the background to produce such a feeling of sickness and astonishment (which isn't to say that hypothetical non-cautionary rape scenarios are ever appropriate). Since he chose you as the example, and since he had at least some recognition that you're very raw on this subject, I think "inappropriate" isn't sufficient enough. I think you should transfer out of the class for sure, and, optionally, press for disciplinary action to be taken against him. You probably need to talk to either the Dean or the Registrar, so that your transfer request can be put in context. If you're not sure of the procedure, maybe talk to one of the student counselors first.

I'm sorry that such a course of action would be very disruptive to your studies. If that's an overriding concern for you, then confront the instructor as if it were a lesser offense and hope for a détente until the term is over, with the understanding that future impropriety on his part would force your hand in terms of remaining in the class.

Three pieces of advice in the general: As a student and a teacher, you're there to receive instruction and you are the junior partner. But you're also an adult, and as two human beings you and the teacher are on equal terms. An offense of this nature is no less serious in the classroom than it would be elsewhere. Perhaps it is even more serious, given your reliance on the teacher for your instruction and grade. Secondly, remember that your college studies are paramount. Don't let this disrupt your degree course any more than it has to. Try to confront the issue directly rather than lingering on it, as Truthordeal suggested. Lastly, to the extent it is within your convenience and willingness, it would do this instructor a lot more good if he understood the severity of his mistake not only in the academic sense but emotionally as well. If he gets a lecture or a reprimand from a superior, maybe he'll be more considerate of his future students.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on February 15, 2010, 07:02:18 pm
http://womensrights.change.org/blog/view/more_than_half_of_young_uk_women_victim-blame

Victim-blamers are deficient.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Sajainta on February 15, 2010, 07:37:24 pm
Wow, that's...horrifically disgusting.

"About one-third actually thinks it isn't rape to have sex with their partner when said partner is unwilling."

I really have no words.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Sajainta on February 16, 2010, 03:37:04 pm
I have run this by a few people but ugh...I really need to write it out and ask for advice, if anything.

The professor did it again yesterday during class.  He was divying up roles to people at random to read the first part of the play.  There is this one scene where one of the main female characters--Abigail--throws herself at the main character, with whom she has slept with in the past and who is married.  The professor was asking other girls to read the part of Abigail (at random) but when he came to that part he told me to do it, and said the following::

"Now Sajainta, you need to be really seductive and sexy and lustful, just let that lust drip out of your voice.  You really want him."

He went on, and I couldn't take it and spoke up and said I didn't want to do that part.

I was so upset.  I just stared down at my desk and tried to keep from shaking.  I couldn't understand it.  I don't understand it.

This is the second time in a row he has been inappropriate, and it is creeping me out.  And he KNOWS I was trafficked.  He KNOWS I was fucking TRAFFICKED.  That I was forced to act seductive and sexy and lustful.

Why me??  Out of all the girls in the class, why me??  One time was bad enough, but twice?!  I've talked to a lot of friends about this, and the vast majority of them are more than a little unnerved and think it is deliberate.

One theory a friend gave me today is that the professor might think this is "helping" me or some shit.  Helping me get over it.  Like "Oh, it's okay to talk about it."  The same friend also thinks it might be because I'm "that girl."  That he wanted me to read that part because he thought I would be good at it because hey, she's done it in the past.  She can play the part effectively.  He doesn't think it's malicious, but he definitely doesn't think it's by chance.

Another friend thinks it is malicious, and it might be a generation gap / chauvinism issue.  He's an older professor (60s +) and he strikes me as being a conservative, tight-laced person.  Maybe he doesn't understand that it was forced prostitution and rape and he sees me as some kind of "loose woman", or just as an outright whore, and feels the need to humiliate me in front of the class.

I just... I don't fucking know.  I don't know what to do.  I've gotten advice from "Just deal with it." to "This is blatant sexual harassment and you should get out of the class right away and go to the highest up person there is about this."

I won't go very far into my worst fear of it all, but it's the one I think is probably the truth (although I will acknowledge my intense paranoia and my struggle with borderline misandry).  Maybe he is simply a lecherous old man.  I told a few friends about this last night.  I started to tell a friend today (the first friend mentioned with the "that girl" theory) about it, and he told me to stop because he knew it would upset me.  I was thankful for that.  It upsets me and terrifies me more than I can imagine.  It makes me want to vomit.

This is getting out of control.  I can't even function, I feel so sick.  Just hearing his voice in my head--"You need to be really seductive and sexy and lustful, just let that lust drip out of your voice." (and he said it in such a salacious, suggestive way) makes me want to throw up.  It reminds me of "them", prepping me for a client.  It reminds me of "him."
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on February 16, 2010, 03:59:45 pm
I would propose that "why" the professor is doing this has become a moot point. I had been thinking over your previous problems with him and, in like of this, while knowing the reason might be nice, the course of action seems to be similar regardless.

If the professor stopped this behavior today and never did anything of the sort again, would that fix everything/anything? He has already associated himself with triggers and so may well be becoming a trigger himself. Even if he were perfectly innocent of maliciousness and intentional wrong doing, he has behaved in a manner that has made his classroom a hostile environment.

Since it seems that he has poisoned all your options of resolving it while remaining in the class, the only options left are to withdraw, something that I would recommend doing sooner rather than later (if you drop before the census date it doesn't show up on your transcript, for example, and usually the sooner you drop the more of a refund you get).

Do you need to go to the highest person in the chain of command? I would propose that such a question is a side issue that you can deal with separately. Break the problem down and deal with individual parts as you are able and need to. Removing yourself from this environment seems to be the most urgent and most fundamental component, the rest can wait.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on February 16, 2010, 04:03:23 pm
I think it's important to reiterate that the dude's weird attentions aren't your fault Sajainta. The Prof is a sexist jerk whichever way you slice it, and regardless of whatever fine academic qualifications and tenure he may have. No woman (or man, for that matter) should have to put up with this from anyone, let alone from someone in a position of authority. Any student would be right to be frustrated at his behavior.

Were you ever able to look into your school's sexual harassment policy to see if there's any guidelines for handling harassment from Profs?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZombieBucky on February 16, 2010, 08:57:19 pm
yeah, ive never dealt with college people before, but i have to say that this guy is just plain creepy. i think you should not only get out of there but tell someone in his department or something. its inappropriate and just not good for your health. if youre actually making yourself sick over this, then its not good.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Sajainta on February 17, 2010, 02:31:29 am
Tomorrow (hopefully) I'm going to go to the head of the English department with my friend.  She's in my class with me and she's witnessed everything the professor has said.  She's equally as horrified as I am, especially since she knows about my past.  He actually used to be her favourite professor, but after the past two classes that is no longer the case and she has lost all faith and trust in the creep.  She's never seen him act this way (and she's had him for a few classes--she's a senior).  I'm so glad that I have her as a witness.  She's a great friend, and a good ally.  I hope tomorrow goes well...we'll see.  :(

I am just so sick and tired of dealing with creeps.  I know not all men are like this but Jesus...there are so many.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: GenesisOne on February 17, 2010, 01:41:16 pm

You put him in his place.

He has no right to toy with your emotions (or anyone else's, for that matter) like that.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Uboa on February 18, 2010, 04:22:44 am
Haven't seen you around the Compendium while I've been online today, Saj.  I really hope everything went alright...
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Uboa on February 18, 2010, 06:05:22 am
(http://wii.jeuxvideo.org/files/MaaAx/Jeux/Metroid%20Prime%203/wii_Metroid_Prime_3_Corruption_Dark_Samus.jpg)

The top link on Digg is currently...
http://coolmaterial.com/roundup/if-men-wrote-womens-magazines/
^...that.  I was going to call it garbage, but I'm not sure if "garbage" quite encompasses what that is.  It is absolutely insulting to every human being, period, and yet it is so insidiously insulting that the great majority of Diggers cannot see past the facade of lackluster "humor" and bury the thing.  What a dismal mirror of just how screwed up our preconceptions about the sexes still are.  It's hard to fathom just how corrupting these prevalent stereotypes can be until you see something like this and wonder at just how strongly it reinforces the rotten thought patterns which cause people of both sexes so much misery. 
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on February 18, 2010, 06:06:24 am
Digg might as well be populated by cavemen now.

Still dealing with trolls at reddit. Uniques are up and the new format is working out well.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on February 18, 2010, 06:31:44 am
Sick.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZombieBucky on February 18, 2010, 12:32:33 pm
god.
thats just... beyond words. i feel generally insulted that this is what it seems 'men' want from women. i cant imagine how it must feel to be a woman and see that this is what 'men' want from you. sex, tv, and food. theres so much more than sex, tv, and food in a healthy relationship.
and beer is gross.
why would you have your girl fetch you something gross when she could be giving the best hugs ever?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: GenesisOne on February 18, 2010, 06:43:53 pm

Saj, I had no idea you were trafficked in a previous life.

This puts lots of things in perspective now that I know.

Sorry you had to put up with that professor.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on February 19, 2010, 10:22:25 am
Here's the base of links I'm currently drawing on. Some of these overlap in news.

~

Institutional/NGO Sites

Association for Women's Rights in Development (News): http://www.awid.org/eng/Women-s-Rights-in-the-News

Change for Equality: http://www.sign4change.info/english/

Feminist Majority Foundation (News): http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswire.asp

Global Fund for Women (Blog): http://globalfundforwomen.wordpress.com/

Global Fund for Women (Grantee News): http://www.globalfundforwomen.org/cms/media-center/current-grantee-news/

Global Fund for Women (News): http://www.globalfundforwomen.org/cms/media-center/current-gfw-in-the-news/

Human Rights Watch (Women): http://www.hrw.org/en/category/topic/women

NOW: http://www.now.org/

Stop Rape Now (News): http://www.stoprapenow.org/news.html

UNIANWGE WomenWatch: http://www.un.org/womenwatch/

UNIFEM (News & Events): http://www.unifem.org/news_events/

UNFPA (News): http://www.unfpa.org/public/cache/offonce/news

UN Gender Equality Newsfeed: http://www.un.org/womenwatch/ungen/

Women for Women (News): http://www.womenforwomen.org/news-women-for-women/women-for-women-breaking-news.php

News Sites

BitchMedia: http://bitchmagazine.org/

Change.org (Women's Rights): http://womensrights.change.org/

Feminist.com: http://www.feminist.com/news/

Feminist Law Professors: http://feministlawprofessors.com/ (this is a great site)

Jezebel: http://jezebel.com/

Livejournal ONTD (Politics): http://community.livejournal.com/ontd_political/

New York Times (Women): http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/w/women/index.html (isn't the NYTimes going behind a paywall soon? That'll be the end of this source, fuck)

New York Times (Women and Girls): http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=des&v1=WOMEN+AND+GIRLS

New York Times (Discrimination): http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=des&v1=DISCRIMINATION

New York Times (Freedom and Human Rights): http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=des&v1=FREEDOM+AND+HUMAN+RIGHTS

RHRealityCheck.org: http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/

Salon (Broadsheet): http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/index.html

Washington City Paper (The Sexist): http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/

Women's eNews: http://www.womensenews.org/

World Pulse (PulseWire): http://www.worldpulse.com/pulsewire

General Purpose Blogs

Alternet (Reproductive Rights): http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/

Appetite for Equal Rights: http://appetiteforequalrights.blogspot.com/

Awearness Blog: http://awearnessblog.com/

Barbara Ehrenreich's Blog: http://www.barbaraehrenreich.com/blogs.htm

Bitch PhD: http://bitchphd.blogspot.com/

DailyKos (Feminism): http://www.dailykos.com/tag/feminism

DailyKos (SheKos): http://www.dailykos.com/tag/SheKos (annoyingly, they haven't given the reddit a shout-out yet)

DailyKos (Women): http://www.dailykos.com/tag/women

DailyKos (Women's Rights): http://www.dailykos.com/tag/Women%27s%20Rights

fbomb: http://thefbomb.org/

Feministe: http://www.feministe.us/

Feministing: http://www.feministing.com/

Feminist Teacher: http://feministteacher.com/

Kickaction.ca: http://www.kickaction.ca/

Livejournal (Sluts4Choice): http://community.livejournal.com/sluts4choice/

Livejournal (WTF Sexism Community): http://community.livejournal.com/wtf_sexism/

Mothers for Women's Lib: http://mothersforwomenslib.com/

NCRW (The Big Five): http://www.ncrw.org/ncrwbigfive/?page_id=20

Shakesville: http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/

The Curvature: http://thecurvature.com/

The F-Word (Blog): http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/

The F-Word (Features): http://www.thefword.org.uk/index

The Political Voices of Women: http://politicsanew.com/

Viva la Feminista: http://www.vivalafeminista.com/

Media Blogs

Adventures of a Young Feminist: http://adventuresofayoungfeminist.com/

Feminist SF: http://blogs.feministsf.net/

Sociological Images: http://contexts.org/socimages/

The Border House: http://borderhouseblog.com/

The Hathor Legacy: http://thehathorlegacy.com/

Women & Hollywood: http://womenandhollywood.com/

Intersecting Blogs

Blag Hag: http://www.blaghag.com/

Conversations for a Better World: http://www.conversationsforabetterworld.com/

FWD (Feminists with Disabilities): http://disabledfeminists.com/

Muslim Media Watch: http://muslimahmediawatch.org/ ; granted, some of their theological slant and spin is really unpalatable (as Christian and other short-sighted religious attitudes are; fucking ugh), but they often link to good, relevant women's rights news and issues

Pharyngula (Feminism): http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/feminism/

Skeptifem: http://skeptifem.blogspot.com/

Transadvocate: http://www.transadvocate.com/

Reddit

Feminisms: http://www.reddit.com/r/feminisms/new/

LGBT: http://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/new/

Transgender: http://www.reddit.com/r/transgender/new/

TwoXChromosomes: http://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/new/

Women: http://www.reddit.com/r/women/new/

Foreign Language News/Blogs

Livejournal Russian Feminists: http://community.livejournal.com/feminism_ua/ (I've never posted anything from there since I can't read Russian, but it seems to be a nice source of opinion, so I'm keeping it just in case)

ZeaLitY's Personal Sites

This is part of my daily reading (well, in addition to all of that), and sometimes these blogs cover women's rights issues.

Daily Kos: http://dailykos.com/

Digg: http://digg.com/ (though more often than not, there's misogynist stuff)

Ezra Klein: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/

Matthew Yglesias: http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/

PZ Myers Pharyngula: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Reddit (Atheism): http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/

Reddit (US Politics): http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/

Reddit (World News): http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/

The Daily Dish: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/

NOW LETS FIGHT THE POWER

DO THE IMPOSSIBLE

SEE THE INVISIBLE

RAW RAW


FIGHT THE POWER

(http://chronofan.com/Zeality/d2a7abfe01347894e399ff8fd8ccc4efa6574cba.jpg) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wmfAU_3Epk)

OUR BURNING BLOOD WILL CUT THROUGH FATE

(http://chronofan.com/Zeality/1274733.gif) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9z8t6k3liU)
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on February 19, 2010, 12:18:36 pm
Thanks for the links Z. I've found that just focusing on a small segment of sites (such as the media ones I've been pulling from nearly exclusively) limits participation because the submitted articles start to sound repetitious after awhile. And it also eventually gets one accused of "blogspam," especially by MRAs who are just looking for opportunities to discredit feminist Redditors over there.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Sajainta on February 19, 2010, 02:02:33 pm
I met with the head of the English department with a friend yesterday.  She agreed that it was horrifically inappropriate.  There are a couple options I have, all of which are too long to type up here (I'm tired and strapped for time).  Basically, the ball is in my court, I get to decide what to do, and I have the English department on my side (as well as all of my friends whom I've told.  And you guys!).  That's good.

Haven't seen you around the Compendium while I've been online today, Saj.  I really hope everything went alright...

I've been really busy and barely have time to breathe, let alone do anything else, heh.  I think things will be fine, though.

Saj, I had no idea you were trafficked in a previous life.

This puts lots of things in perspective now that I know.

Sorry you had to put up with that professor.

I really do wish it felt like it was in a previous life.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on February 19, 2010, 02:28:13 pm
Basically, the ball is in my court, I get to decide what to do, and I have the English department on my side...

I'm very glad for that. I expected as much, but given how you've been mistreated by he authorities in the past I was wary nevertheless.

I really do wish it felt like it was in a previous life.

I know what you mean. Actually, I don't know what you mean. Never will. But I can imagine it, and I can think of my own experiences that are either "in a previous life" or not, and wonder.

'Tis a new year. Cheers for an early victory against the forces of sexism, and here's all the best to ya.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on February 19, 2010, 02:42:08 pm
Whoa, you're really fighting the power, Sajainta.  I honestly thought you'd have a much harder time getting the department on your side, and that attitude toward these things probably holds back a lot of progress. Kudos on dealing with this effectively!
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on April 02, 2010, 06:37:55 pm
This opinion article's title, and its premise, is sexist:

Does Wall Street Need an Estrogen Injection? (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/does-wall-street-need-an-estrogen-injection/)
Author: William Cohen

The purpose of pursuing sexual equality is not to prevent economic crises; it is to achieve sexual equality that will see all people free to be self-determining without regard to their sex. While I would certainly entertain the claim that this would bring about improvements in our economy, I would still be as in favor of sexual equality as I am now even if it were unambiguously bad from an economic standpoint. It's not about the economy, stupid: It's about control over oneself as upheld by the law.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on April 02, 2010, 08:18:11 pm
Lucca makes an appearance on a feminist gaming blog!
http://borderhouseblog.com/?p=1814
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on April 02, 2010, 08:44:38 pm
It's so true. Lucca is one of the least-gendered female playable video game characters in any RPG--so much so that she is underestimated and even overlooked outright as a feminist icon in '90s gaming.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: KebreI on April 02, 2010, 09:05:44 pm
One of the fucking mods at /women/ resigned today and deleted her account because some fucking piece of shit stalker posted personal details assembled from her comment history to a comment she made defending women's rights. That's goddamned fucking ideological terrorism. I don't want to submit links today. I want to fucking break someone.
I've done that to people before!

...

Oh you don't approve? I support you fully in your intent but she posted online then its as good as posting it on the local bulletin board(often it is the exact same). The dude was a jackass, but did she give out something private? personal? harmful? Hopefully she'll learn. Not to say the man isn't with out some degree of guilt but whole matters like this are just silly from the start.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Sajainta on April 03, 2010, 04:59:48 am
April is Sexual Assault Awareness Month.  Sexual assault happens to males, of course, but the vast majority of the victims are female.

Just a head's up, in case you guys weren't aware.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on April 03, 2010, 05:07:31 am
Sajainta, thanks so much for the reminder. Looks like there's even a whole site dedicated to it!
http://www.nsvrc.org/saam
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on April 25, 2010, 06:58:21 pm
Required reading today by the excellent Daily Kos front-page diarist Angry Mouse:

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/4/25/860191/-Setting-the-Record-Straight-on-the-Sanctimonious-Male-Studies-Set

It's about a group of people who want to create a "male studies" program to counter what they see as the abuses of feminism. It's a very good article, and it covers all the points it needs to cover.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on April 25, 2010, 07:27:54 pm
J, check out some quotes from one of the sites the Kos author links to (manhood101.com):

Quote from: Principles 101
E.g., fat people often take offense when negatively judged for
their appearance. Yet, instead of taking responsibility for their
dysfunctional eating habits or lack of exercise, fat people find it
less painful if their critics are vilified as “hateful.”

As this professional victim-mentality becomes entrenched in
our culture, it provides the basis for shaping public opinion.
Now, fearing legal reprisals, society undermines its own
integrity by creating fat-friendly euphemisms. It adopts ad
campaigns designed to absolve fat people of any blame. No
longer do they have to feel bad about their appearance.
...
Clothiers are pressured to tailor their fashions to accommodate
dysfunctional body sizes. Feminists lobby the government to
create a protected interest group for fat people. Legislation is
proposed to ban “doctors from pressing patients to slim down.”
Sensible condemnation of obesity is now demonized as “hate
speech.”

Under Feminism's politically correct stranglehold, people have
become truth-adverse. They’d rather suffer silently than face
their humiliating condition. In short, everything is done to
ensure the preservation of the self-esteem.

Yeah, I'll let you describe just how wrong this is on multiple levels, since you've done more research on the pertinent subject than I have. But doesn't it strike you as just a little too unflatteringly similar to Hitler haphazardly spouting off things in Mein Kampf?  These people want to to be taken seriously -- they claim to teach "classes" instructed by people with the title "Dr." I hope this group is being vigorously fought within the Males Studies Movement just as extremists within feminist studies have been strongly critiqued and rebuked within feminist circles.


And then, there's this telling bit:

Quote from: Principles 101
Manhood has been misunderstood for too long. It does not merely...represent a misogynistic declaration of gender superiority...Simply put, Manhood is your authority—the proper form necessary to govern the lives of others, especially women.
:picardno

EDIT: Ah, crap, I succumbed to Godwin's Law in this post. Well, my point stands. The talking points that appear in this manual strike me as oversimplifications that nevertheless might look attractive to people who feel lost within the current environment.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: KebreI on April 26, 2010, 05:49:57 am
The man is pretty much spouting crap but is there any on this:
Quote
Legislation is
proposed to ban “doctors from pressing patients to slim down.”
Sensible condemnation of obesity is now demonized as “hate
speech.”

That sounds like something the current legislation would do and I am wondering and worried.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: GenesisOne on April 26, 2010, 04:07:32 pm

Just thought the feminist-sensitive here would like what I'm doing this semester in my Chaucer class:

I'm writing a thesis about the commoditization of marriage and how overbearing patriarchies and imperious family bonds affect relationships between married couples (that is to say, in the context of the Tales) and how marriage becomes the social and personal means of controlling the couple's sexuality in the face of somatic temptation.

On a similar note, I've come across an interesting paper dated back to the middle ages.  It's Andreas Capellanus' De Amore; aka The Art of Courtly Love.  It was an interesting read, but the most interesting was at the end when the author listed the "rules."  They are:

I. Marriage is no excuse for not loving.
II. He who is not jealous can not love.
III. No one can be bound by two loves.
IV. Love is always growing or diminishing.
V. It is not good for one lover to take anything against the will of the other.
VI. A male cannot love until he has fully reached puberty.
VII. Two years of mourning for a dead lover are prescribed for surviving lovers.
VIII. No one should be deprived of love without a valid reason.
IX. No one can love who is not driven to do so by the power of love.
X. Love always departs from the dwelling place of avarice.
XI. It is not proper to love one whom one would be ashamed to marry.
XII. The true lover never desires the embraces of any save his lover.
XIII. Love rarely lasts when it is revealed.
XIV. An easy attainment makes love contemptible; a difficult one
makes it more dear.
XV. Every lover turns pale in the presence of his beloved.
XVI. When a lover suddenly has sight of his beloved, his heart beats wildly.
XVII. A new love expells an old one.
XVIII. Moral integrity alone makes one worthy of love.
XIX. If love diminishes, it quickly leaves and rarely revives.
XX. A lover is always fearful.
XXI. True jealousy always increases the effects of love.
XXII. If a lover suspects another, jealousy and the efects of love increase.
XXIII. He who is vexed by the thoughts of love eats little and seldom sleeps.
XXIV. Every action of a lover ends in the thought of his beloved.
XXV. The true lover believes only that which he thinks will please his beloved.
XXVI. Love can deny nothing to love.
XXVII. A lover can never have enough of the embraces of his beloved.
XXVIII. The slightest suspicion incites the lover to suspect the worse of his beloved.
XXIX. He who suffers from an excess of passion is not suited to love.
XXX. The true lover is continuously obsessed with the image of his beloved.
XXXI. Nothing prevents a woman from being loved by two men, or a man
from being loved by two women.

So, which one's do you agree or disagree with?  Which ones are sexist in your view?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on April 26, 2010, 06:46:50 pm
@ GenesisOne:

My second thought--not very deep, I know--is that this would have been the perfect occasion for a period usage of sex-inclusive pronoun language such as "his or her" instead of just "his."

My first thought was that your comment at the beginning about how the institution of marriage is also a control on male sexuality as well as female sexuality is an interesting one, a gateway comment that if you will explore it shall lead you to the fascinating and rather horrifying realization that the institution of misogyny, in order to be as powerful as it was and is, required significant constraints on the self-determination of males as well--at least those males who chose to follow the customs and folkways, when they chose to do so.

As for the list itself, the two most overt sexisms in it are the specific exclusion of females in the line about puberty (an acknowledgment that females were pressed into sexual relationships at all ages of childhood), and of course the dominance of the male gaze.

What I agree or don't agree with on the list is outside the realm of this topic, but needless to say I agree with some of these "rules" and not others.

@ FaustWolf:

I think Angry Mouse hit the nail on the head when she described this effort to create a "male studies" program (keeping in mind that there is already a "men's studies" program as a counterpart to the women's studies one) as the death throes of some expiring social attitudes. Unfortunately, like Iraq, I expect these death throes to continue for a while, and, more importantly, to echo down the generations. The rise of fundamentalist Islam in Europe and the widespread lack of opposition to it by the European left is a key example of two social realities that are deadly when combined: the defense of sexual equality is weak in many people's minds, and the desire of religion to end sexual equality is very powerful. Hitleresque? I don't know...but it is horrifying.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on May 07, 2010, 04:47:51 pm
Hahahaha, I can't stop laughing after watching this. My only regret is that it is all so terribly true.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NKXNThJ610
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on May 07, 2010, 05:32:25 pm
That's awesome.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on May 08, 2010, 10:06:44 am
In response to this post from the Frustration thread (http://www.chronocompendium.com/Forums/index.php/topic,4445.msg193127.html#msg193127), where ZeaLitY wrote:

Ugh, tired of hearing that it's "women's choice" to wear hijab in France, in regards to the possible ban. It was not their choice to be born into a Muslim family in which, as children, they had no real choice but to accept and be conditioned by the religion of their parents. A brainwashed "choice" is an oxymoron. I would only debate the ban in terms of how effectively it will erode religion and whether it will have any counterproductive effects. Otherwise, it's a smashing attack on religion, no matter if it's partially motivated by xenophobia.

Big matter that it's partially motivated by xenophobia. When you find yourself in pursuit of a worthy cause but are attracting the alliance of villains, it's extremely important to own the terms of the debate and to explicitly distinguish the good motives from the bad. If bad people are on your side, you can't help that, but you can do the cause a lot of hurt by ignoring it, downplaying it, or excusing it. I am categorically against blurring the line between humanistic and xenophobic motives for banning the public use of the veil. You need to remember that in terms of world power structures the more dangerous people are still the Christian fundamentalists, not the Muslim ones.

At any rate, because this is a very difficult issue for Western sensibilities, I offer some more explanation beyond what ZeaLitY hinted at. But first I point out that his use of the word hijab is incorrect. This popular misuse of the word is perhaps allowable from the position of ignorance, for the meaning is understood, but to use it this way deprives us of the correct word for other aspects of Islamic dress. A more correct word would be niqab, which means "mask." More to the point: France's ban, and the remainder of this post, pertain to face-covering veils. While face-covering veils tend to be a part of hijab, the reverse is not true. I tend nowadays simply to call it "the veil," which is both accurate in conveying the meaning and sufficiently generic as not to avoid misrepresentation of any specifics. Now, then, on to the topic at hand:

Usually when we talk about the evils of sexism, we're talking about the violation of people's dignity, safety, and opportunity. But to conceal a human face, which is an essential source of cues to anyone with eyesight, is a deeper violation, for it dehumanizes the individual to whom that face belongs...and a person without a face is a person without an identity. To be conditioned into wanting to wear the veil does not change any of this. To make such a choice, and to be allowed to make such a choice by society, is not empowering. It is a function of freedom, but only the freedom to live in oppression by embracing a familiar prison. Being able to execute the choice may or may not subjectively improve the quality of a person's life, but such improvement would only be possible if her spirit is already bent or broken, or if her worldview is severely warped because of the religious dogma. As far as I have been able to explore, there is no credible line of logic whatsoever in support of encouraging or forcing a person to wear the veil in order to "protect" the religious virtue of both her and any males who might see her. This premise in Islam is totally without external justification.

In France the main rationale for banning the veil in public is that it deteriorates social cohesion, but for me that isn't a compelling line of argument. Though I appreciate the risks to social cohesion, I'm much more concerned about the wellbeing of the people behind the veil. I've read about self-determining Westerners, some right here in my own city, who, as adults, converted into Islam and took to the veil. Such a decision baffles me completely and speaks to the corruptibility of human character, but presumably it is a choice made freely and with some information. Yet these are the minority, as most freethinking adults are not sick enough, fool enough, or under pressure enough that they would ever seriously consider such a self-limiting act. In stark contrast, it simply isn't the case that children reared under the heel of fundamentalism are likely to be able make an informed decision about the veil when it comes time for them to wear it. They don't have the information. They don't have the objectivity. They don't have the maturity. But what's worse is that they may not even have the ability, the mental competence, to chose against what they have been conditioned to need. We would talk about it in terms of psychological disorder, but what it amounts to qualitatively is a broken spirit. Adults who "choose" to wear the veil under such realities are not really making a choice. They are obeying their programming. And I'm not even talking about those even poorer souls who don't have a choice at all, the ones who would face serious retribution by not wearing the veil. Even in France there are those for whom family and community ties are so strong that the will of these local interests supersede the liberty to which we assume all citizens of the developed nations have ready access.

Thus, whenever I see someone wearing the veil--more often in the news than in person--I know there is a strong likelihood that they never had the opportunity to make an informed decision. I also understand that they may no longer be fit to reevaluate their circumstances. These factors, I think, are much more relevant to the justification of a public ban on the veil. What I am arguing, essentially, is that the decision to wear the veil is seldom made freely, with good information, and sound mind. Together with the fact that the veil is physically so deleterious to an individual's humanity, because of its identity-erasing power, I cannot in good conscience support the right to wear it in public. This kind of absolute ban is very hard for me to support, but the conditions are such that I end up supporting it very strongly. In my view, this is a freedom not worth having. Even those who would lose nothing that they are not knowledgeably willing to lose, should not be able to wear the veil in public, simply because it is so destruct for so many people. The argument about social cohesion is but an exclamation point to all that.

It's an ugly thing to indoctrinate children for the purpose of breaking their spirit. There are many evils within Islam so profoundly deplorable that each one of them alone would discredit the entire religion. Among these great evils is the power to erase identity and break spirit: the veil. Niqāb.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on May 08, 2010, 06:26:37 pm
What do you all make of this excerpt from Tanmeet Sethi's Essay "Ladies Only"?

Quote
The burkha is a black, amorphous cover, leaving only the eyes visible. It drives most western women crazy. For some reason, they always ask me how I feel about it, even though I am not Muslim. I supposed to them I look close enough.

Today I sit in a café with two Western women who are disturbed by the burkha. I explain to them that it is a tool of oppression in some countries and in others, some women choose to wear it . They shudder at this thought as they sip their lattés. One is encased in makeup and wears a tight shirt with capri pants. Another wears a midriff shirt and jeans with her hair flowing over her neck and around her face. I explain that many women in the world use the burkha as a symbol of power, a statement of their value system. Women who wear the burkha refuse to be judged by their body or face. They want to be seen as another being, not as a sexual object. In this way, a burkha can be a tool of empowerment.

The women across from me listen with blank faces and confused stares. They argue that it is their right as women to wear what they want and how they wish to wear it. I agree and feel that this is precisely my point. I realize that these women in front of me are oppressed in many ways by society’s perception of what a beautiful woman is. They respond to the abundant images of barely clad women with “perfect” bodies and fine-tuned makeup. They sit before me as conformists to their own cultural values. They sport the latest fashions and revel in their sun-soaked glows.

I pity them; their oppression is so subtle they cannot even recognize it.

There's certainly no small amount of smugness on the author's part in judging her makeup-wearing peers, but reading this awhile back gave me some pause, and forced me to reconsider this issue. I can now see one compelling rationale for allowing women (and men, for that matter) to don the veil, and that is as a radical protest against a hyper-visual society in which people are judged on the basis of their appearance and not the power of their ideas or their utility to society. The idea of going incognito to escape snap judgment is a compelling motivator; this ideal is something I find particularly attractive about Internet discussion, and I'm probably not the only representative of such thinking.

To borrow one of J's ideas and twist it a bit, if he'll allow: the veiling of a face will rob some people of their identity; but contrarily, it is the face itself that robs others of their identities, thanks to prevailing norms, and perhaps our very evolution, which has rendered us a visual-centric species.

I would agree that the veil did not begin as, and currently does not exist as, a meaningful widespread protest in the way I describe. The circumstances surrounding its origin and continuation smack of both misogyny and misandry. However, I would stop short of insinuating that some mental problem necessarily lies at the heart of a decision to take up such dress, in the same way I would stop short of insinuating that a mental problem necessarily lies at the heart of decisions to wear Goth makeup, engage in violent bondage porn, or turn oneself into a Tiger. (http://www.thedailygreen.com/cm/thedailygreen/images/cat-man-lg.jpg)

Sure, I have reservations about the middle example, but if there's one thing I've learned here, it is the pre-eminent importance of bodily self determination. If there is one thing that is "holy" in feminism, it must be this concept. I would not wish to force a famous orchestra conductor's body to be attached to another human being to keep the conductor alive (unless the benefactor volunteered). Any marginal gain in communicative efficacy from forcing off a veil can only pale by comparison to that sort of thing, and this is the genius of JJ Thomson's orchestra conductor example.

The concern I have with the veil, much like my concern about pornography, is the difficulty of distinguishing participants who are doing it because they feel compelled to conform in some way from those who find it truly empowering, or have taken it up in the name of meaningful protest. That I have a similar conflict with both is no accident, because I feel they come from opposite ends of the same patriarchal spectrum. But I could not support a complete ban on either at this stage in my development.

For one thing, have we ever known a complete ban on anything to work? And let's say we do ban the veil -- how is it likely to be enforced? A $50 fine levied on every woman caught wearing one, while the men and women who forced that upon her get off scott-free? The people we need to be concentrating on here are the family members who burden women with the veil in the first place. Re-socialising these people is a slow and painful process, and it will suffer its setbacks, but I feel it's about the best we can do.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Kodokami on May 08, 2010, 10:58:38 pm
Quote
Women who wear the burkha refuse to be judged by their body or face.

A burkha is not necessary for this kind of achievement. There are more productive ways of being in control with one's own identity and not vice-versa.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on June 05, 2010, 06:34:39 am
http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/cbhuf/its_impossible_to_be_sexist_towards_men/

God, reddit is full of dumbass males. Only in a technofuck place like that is an example of an idiot extrapolated to women at large and given 1600 upvotes.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Dice. on June 05, 2010, 02:20:29 pm
http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/cbhuf/its_impossible_to_be_sexist_towards_men/

God, reddit is full of dumbass males. Only in a technofuck place like that is an example of an idiot extrapolated to women at large and given 1600 upvotes.

I'm not 100% on how the site works (I don't know what an "upvote" is or why you think the article is good/bad).  But interesting find nonetheless.  Poor guy, actually.  There's a problem in a good majority of women that, wrong or right, will always take the side of other women.  Ladies are good to be stupidly emotional at the worst of times, and can be quite irrational.  Or at least, the women on that forum take the "all female" deal quite seriously (forget someone in need).
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on June 05, 2010, 03:40:26 pm
I attempted to find the forum from the OP to see what he found objectional(because the post in the forums makes it clear that the "no boys allowed" rule is the least of his concerns) but apparently the site has been knocked offline. I'm assuming that the reddit story has increased traffic too much for their bandwidth.

Either way, I'll try again later.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on June 05, 2010, 06:08:25 pm
In the original thread captured in the pic, the guy quickly resorted to misogynistic language, which hardly helped his case. His point that he was being discriminated against was valid IMO, but he really put his foot in his mouth there.

I don't usually welcome the kind of separatism on display in that mother's forum - indeed, I find it counterproductive in many cases - but the fact that the regulars there directed the topic starter to other forums where he could get his concerns addressed got me thinking that a valid purpose other than misandry might underlie their separatism. They probably do it to preserve a sense of emotional safety and security, a place where women can just be women (or, if they prefer, "womyn") and not have to worry about gender dynamics creeping in. I mean, seriously, if I were a woman trying to talk to other women about breastfeeding and stuff, it's understandable why I wouldn't necessarily want a dude suddenly barging into that environment.

As for the "impossible to be sexist against men" quote from the site admin there, it seems she's conflating sexism with patriarchy. I'm not sure what's up with that, unless she's trying to make a point about historical trends in the direction of sexism and its effects on women.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on June 05, 2010, 06:35:47 pm
There's a problem in a good majority of women that, wrong or right, will always take the side of other women.  Ladies are good to be stupidly emotional at the worst of times, and can be quite irrational. 

This is true of both sexes; it is a human weakness, not a female one, and such sexist generalizations don't help anybody.

I mean, seriously, if I were a woman trying to talk to other women about breastfeeding and stuff, it's understandable why I wouldn't necessarily want a dude suddenly barging in.

If anyone is going to have a sex-segregated forum, it ought to be handled by a manual registration approval process. Allowing males to register for a female-only forum is just asking for trouble and is needlessly offensive.

As for the "impossible to be sexist against men" quote from the site admin there, it seems she's mistakenly conflating sexism with patriarchy.

You're probably right, but, even if you are, she's still wrong. Even patriarchy has a deleterious affect on males. Like most if not all systems of institutionalized bigotry, the group of people whom the bigotry is designed to benefit are subjected to its delusions like anyone else.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on June 16, 2010, 01:38:57 am
I wonder...

A lot of feminists nowadays raise issues with criticizing cultural institutions or practices in other countries. They cite the abuses of imperialism and the failure of second wave feminists to connect with women in other countries; instead, they say, second wavers simply shook their finger at other cultures and acted superior. Some go on to say that we, Western feminists, must respect other cultures and experiences, as there is no universal standard for human living and what's true for us may not be true for them. Where imperialists of old coerced other peoples, we will use diplomacy.

And then these same feminists turn around and use American and International law to coerce all kinds of subcultures—conservatives, rednecks, Southerners, pedophiles, the religious, and misogynists at large—into obeying their ideals. It seems that when it comes to a feminist's own country, the line about respecting and engaging others is off, and we get back into serious, hellraising, coercive reform. We subjugate the wills of others to move towards a more illuminated and progressive humanity.

But similar attitudes are vilified in other parts of the world. An American pedophile is utter scum, but a practice of child brides in an Asian country must be respected and diplomatically engaged. Sexists here are dude-ass bastards who fucking ruin humanity and need to fucking submit to higher principles, while abroad, they're the unfortunate practitioners of outdated customs that must be shaped by sharing experiences and finding common ground.

There's a disconnect here, even with the argument that Western feminists coerce their own people because they know whats best for them. Humanity and the human condition are not so disparate and complex that common sense ethics and rights cannot be applied to different cultures, and neither should culture be exempt from intelligent criticism. Because of this hijab debate, I keep hearing people say, "we don't know what's best for Muslim women. We should let them choose." Yeah? Well I think it's fucking obvious that 1) the ideal of freedom to choose clothes and bodily freedom is good, and that 2) fallacious religious conditioning and social bullying/brainwashing is bad. The second element can be removed without the first, as demonstrated by a French punishment for any man who forces a woman to wear hijab (how to catch and prosecute such is another problem, since the woman will likely be retaliated against in her community). There is no fucking arguing in favor of choice—as a product of religious belief, not simple style or function, like sunblock—without deigning to my second point. That line of thinking cedes grounds to brutal practices and horrible sexism.

I understand that it pays to be diplomatic. But too many people are believing this academic boon of diplomacy so much that they're actually respecting these cultural practices and losing sight of common humanity. That religion still must be respected in this world is probably responsible for a lot of the blame. Coercing one's own culture into submission but playing the role of a hands-off diplomat for other cultures is basically boiling things down to nationalism. Well, human ideals and ethics don't need borders, and neither does the illumination of our civilization. Be pragmatically diplomatic, and idealistically unforgiving.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on June 16, 2010, 02:35:44 am
That's the first thoughtful thing you've written here in weeks. Of course, you would expect me to say that, since it's almost exactly a restatement of my own position. As a reasonably well-informed freethinker, unobstructed by religious faith or specious logic, it's quite straightforward for me to perceive the hypocrisy in multiculturalism whereby our own bigots are held to a higher standard than those belonging to other cultures on the grounds that our Western culture must respect the autonomy of other cultures. I'm not an "imperialist" in the old colonial sense (which gave imperialism its present-day bad reputation), but I am imperialist in the humanistic sense that I insist that every person should be afforded a basic equality of opportunity by their society to make cultural judgments for themselves as they pass through adolescence and into adulthood, even though I am fully aware that many cultural values are incompatible with the social infrastructure necessary to provide individuals with both the knowledge and power to make these judgments--thereby necessitating that such values be overruled if not outright suppressed. This describes secular humanistic empire. The human condition--specifically our curiosity and desire for self-determination--outranks national boundaries, or political boundaries of any type yet devised. It may be arrogant to say that freethought knows better than tradition, but it's the truth, and it justifies an imperialist stance. I hinted at these considerations in my speculation as to why Western liberals would side with Islamic fundamentalists in their opposition to the democratic Israeli state, which you of course failed to recognize because you're too dogmatic for your own good. But it's good to see that your blind spot is rather narrow, and that you can appreciate this multiculturalism problem at least from the point of view of sexism.

I noticed that your conclusion, "Be pragmatically diplomatic, and idealistically unforgiving," is uncharacteristically weak, to the point of uselessness. What we need to do is convince multiculturalists that they are fundamentally in error to presume that the secular humanist has no justification to infringe on other cultures. This is a purely internal challenge, and it can be confronted through debate and persuasion with other "Westerners" who are quite like us. That's a remarkably easy order when compared to the fight against sexism that lies beyond. However, I don't count you among this "we," as I no longer trust you as a standard-bearer for imperialism. You're not a freethinker but a dogmatist, your style has become increasingly hateful, and you have always been deficient in empathy. As far as I'm concerned, your energies are better spent on combating sexism in our own country, since in this enterprise you will always have strong institutional guidance for your policy thinking. Nevertheless, I leave it to you to decide what to do with yourself. It's a free country, after all, and you will continue to be useful until you're not.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on June 16, 2010, 03:37:37 am
As a pragmatist I find myself most drawn to the question of what practical methodology would produce positive change most efficiently, and I think jumping straight into this and bypassing the question of whether foreign cultural institutions need to be "respected" is one tactic you might want to try when encountering the attitudes you mentioned, ZeaLitY.

I could be wrong, but it's my impression that the great majority of women who are forced into child marriages, suffer clitoridectomy, etc., instinctively know they've been given the short end of the stick somewhere along the line, by virtue of their basic humanity. Western women were able to begin the process of throwing off sexism's shackles with their own gumption and elbow grease, and I'm sure many in these conservative cultures would jump at the soonest opportunity to do likewise. Supplying them with education and helping them build organizational infrastructure doesn't sound too much like infringing imperialism to me, the main caveat being that the women suffering the oppressive institutions in question -- and not their Western benefactors -- get to determine where their movement goes once they get a helping hand. I think many a Western feminist concerned about "imperialism" should find such an arrangement amenable.

What I'm still iffy about is what to do in the most heavily fortified societies -- the West literally had to bust into Afghanistan to start producing change there, and I fear the Taliban's militancy will stifle any budding feminist movements there the moment we leave, regardless of educational opportunities Afghan women have started taking advantage of since we entered. I once thought Iran would be a perfect place to target with the "helping hand" methodology, but the government's use of bullets there has got me wondering how much longer it's going to be before the younger generation is able to topple that bastion of conservatism.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on June 16, 2010, 03:40:51 am
However, I don't count you among this "we," as I no longer trust you as a standard-bearer for imperialism. You're not a freethinker but a dogmatist, your style has become increasingly hateful, and you have always been deficient in empathy. As far as I'm concerned, your energies are better spent on combating sexism in our own country, since in this enterprise you will always have strong institutional guidance for your policy thinking. Nevertheless, I leave it to you to decide what to do with yourself. It's a free country, after all, and you will continue to be useful until you're not.

You're welcome to leave the Compendium anytime, soursport.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on June 16, 2010, 04:53:38 am
I could be wrong, but it's my impression that the great majority of women who are forced into child marriages, suffer clitoridectomy, etc., instinctively know they've been given the short end of the stick somewhere along the line, by virtue of their basic humanity.

I wish you were right, but I've come to better appreciate just how thoroughly a person's desires and frustrations can be rubbed out of their conscious awareness. Perhaps it's a survival mechanism; subjugated humans have a remarkable capacity for total surrender. It's sad.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on July 09, 2010, 03:36:53 pm
An interesting post regarding a potential new WoW policy that gives insight into the female gamer's world: http://www.metafilter.com/93492/But-my-name-really-is-Deathblood-Blackaxe#3171416
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Sajainta on July 09, 2010, 04:18:16 pm
Apparently they changed the policy after all the backlash and "at this time" won't require real names next to their forum posts.

That was an excellent comment.  Thank you for sharing, Thought.  I've never played an MMO (other than having one ex-boyfriend who played WoW make me a character), but from what I've heard from female friends who do play MMOs, that comment is spot-on.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on July 09, 2010, 08:08:57 pm
That's a worthy read. Thanks for the link, Thought.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on July 10, 2010, 12:48:44 am
I'm not one for the gossip trade, but the news media have been atwitter this week about a report in a gossip magazine that Mel Gibson went on a career-destroying bigoted rant against his partner. Now that magazine has posted the audio of his rant on its website:

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2010/07/world-exclusive-audio-mel-gibsons-explosive-racist-rant-listen-it-here

It's pretty nasty. This will probably end his career. His agency has dropped him, and he's looking at possible charges. As far as Mel Gibson goes, I can't say I'm sorry for him. This guy has done nothing but alienate himself as he has become more explicitly religious over the years. His anti-Semitic rant a few years ago turned many people off to him, and this ought to be the final straw for everyone with a lick of sense.

The one good thing in this is that the relationship is almost certainly over, and his partner will probably get some money out of him. That's no salve for the emotional turmoil of being with an abusive partner, but moving on helps, and money helps. Of course, the sad counterpoint to this is that way too many people continue to stay in relationships exactly like this one, and, even if they do get out, they are often left with no financial support whatsoever, except for what they can earn themselves or collect from charity organizations.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Sajainta on July 10, 2010, 05:40:14 am
That was absolutely despicable.  Ever since he spewed that anti-Semitic garbage, I haven't had any respect for him whatsoever.  The man deserves no respect.

Quote
You go out in public and it’s a f*cking embarrassment to me. You look like a f*cking bitch in heat. And if you get raped by a pack of ni**ers it will be your fault. Alright? Because you provoked it. You are provocatively dressed all the time with your fake boobs that you feel you have to show off.

I don't have words for that.  It is deplorable.  He is a racist, sexist, abusive, vile human being.  I hope she gains custody of the child.  No child deserves to be raised by someone that horrid.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: tushantin on August 03, 2010, 01:00:09 pm
Ah, we found our target.

Quote from: Mark Shuttleworth
Tribalism is when one group of people start to think people from another group are “wrong by default”. It’s the great-granddaddy of racism and sexism. And the most dangerous kind of tribalism is completely invisible: it has nothing to do with someone’s “birth tribe” and everything to do with their affiliations: where they work, which sports team they support, which linux distribution they love.

You can read the article here.
http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/439
Admittedly this has nothing to do with sexism, but more on tribalism, but just thought it'd be philosophically relevant in a way.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Hayden on August 12, 2010, 04:10:14 pm
Ookay...? Could of at least put a star on the f*ck
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on August 24, 2010, 03:02:22 am
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/16/AR2010081602839_2.html

Quote
"Women demand men have houses and cars, why can't men demand women be virgins?" asked one man on the Tianya site. "So, greedy women, remember, you have to protect your hymens, because those are big dowries for you to exchange for money."

Some men who were interviewed agreed about the importance of finding a virgin. "I really care about virginity," said Xia Yang, product manager for a technology company. "If you go to buy a cellphone, of course you'd want to buy a new cellphone. Who would spend the same amount of money to buy an old cellphone that's been used for two years?"

Give me an army.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Sajainta on August 24, 2010, 03:12:28 am
What the FUCK.  I absolutely LOVE being compared to objects and animals.  :x

Because after all, "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?"

And now this.  I heard very similar things during boarding school.  It's such bullshit and it's so fucking degrading.

Just remember, fellow ladies, it's your hymen that counts for a potential husband.  Not your intellect, or your ambitions, or your personality.  Pssht, forget all that.  Just keep your legs firmly closed, so you can give your husband that "ultimate gift" when you marry him.  Because, obviously, a commitment to love someone for the rest of your life is obviously a LOT less important and less of a gift than your hymen remaining intact.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on August 24, 2010, 09:41:16 pm
My sister is spending her first large amounts of time east of the West Coast, and she was complaining to me last night about how much worse, in relative terms, the sexism is in a place like Memphis than in our hometown in the Mojave Desert. I wish  could be made to travel, in their youthful adulthood, to other cultures and see just how different the sexism is. I have friends from college and more recently who were brought up in the South or Midwest and were very surprised to come to Seattle and experience how much more liberal and egalitarian the sexual climate is. And I have friends and family who've done the opposite, going to more sexist places for the first time and really understanding as never before just how serious the problem is.

And that's just in this country...
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on August 28, 2010, 04:24:22 am
I love old books. I've been into Wuthering Heights recently. There have been a lot of feminist discourses on it. Mostly, I read the book for the lulz because OMFG it is all melodrama. I remember when Heathcliff's wife ran away because he treated her like shit. She died and had his kid and eventually the kid had to return to him and he was like "Your mother, that slut! How dare she not mention my name?" The feminist discourse is that Isabella, the wife, was feminist because she ran away from an abusive husband to raise her kid on her own, and this was really rare in those days. There are other discourses about other women in the book, but mostly I don't pay attention to analyzing Catherine because there is little to analyze- she is a completely psycho, over emotional bitch who dies from her own craziness.

On another note, what does everyone think of all these young girls maturing so early these days. Mostly, they've determined it's hormones from stuff the mom and girls eat. That is really sad : (. There are so many girls who have matured young and keep getting mistaken for older girls. I know that my neighbor's 11 year old looked like she was at least 15 to me at first. Then there is still the issue of parents allowing their daughters to dress like 18 year olds or just... really badly. For example, Heather Locklear's 12 year old. I can't find the picture right now because it was posted on facebook, but no 12 year old needs to be wearing tiny hotpants D:. She could easily be mistaken for a 16 year old or maybe older.

If I had a daughter, hopefully her dork genes will protect her, but I would not be a "feminist" parent because I wouldn't allow her to wear anything close to that until she was at least 18 :p. My parents never had any kind of problem with me because I wasn't that type, but other girls need a lot more restrictions.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on August 28, 2010, 05:29:40 am
I recall that I absolutely detested Heathcliff. Didn't he hang a puppy out a window from a noose (I'm not shitting anyone, this actually happens in the book)? And it was his fiancee's puppy, and this was on their wedding night? The dude is just the cruelest, most rotten...I-don't-know-what. Emily Brontë really succeeded in making a Hell of a character right there. I've never felt such a powerful revulsion toward any other fictional character.

If Isabella were making a feminist statement she should either have divorced his ass right then and there or at least gotten even. Preferably with a katana, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies-style.

As for feminist parenting, I'm honestly not sure what I'd do in a parent's shoes when it comes to dress. I'd probably encourage a daughter to develop her own unique and kickass dress style and avoid conformism, but beyond that I'm really drawing a blank. It's a question worth thinking about though: can one be a feminist parent and yet set guidelines against skimpiness and that sort of thing? Should there be a magic switch that gets flipped at age 18 and not a second before or after? I'd love to read articles by parents who self-identify as feminists about their handling of this for curiosity's sake.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on August 28, 2010, 11:48:23 am
^ Um... actually I believe that was Hareton specifically.  Heathcliff usually didn't physically abuse, he was much, much more of a psychological and emotional abuser. Hareton's genes-- his father namely is actually much more sadistic than Heathcliff's. Actually, Hareton's father, Hindley's cruel sadism is one of the reasons Heathcliff is such a horrible individual.

I personally love Heathcliff. I certainly love him better than that dumb psycho bitch he obsessed over for all his life. I find Heathcliff rather like my one of my favorite literary characters, Snape. A bunch of cruel shit happened to him when he was young which he could never  get over. That and the love of his life was a psychowoman who literally drove herself so crazy that she died. Well technically it was from childbirth but... still. Heathcliff still wasn't done obsessing over her. He continued his quest for driving everyone around him to either craziness or misery because that was the only vindication he could have. I'm surprised that Heathcliff inspired this revulsion in you. I guess that I have experienced that with Catharine more. I really hate her >_>;. I mean, she was basically mentally ill most of her adult life which could be an excuse I suppose, and even before a selfish bitch, but she kind of was the driving force that really made Heathcliff live out the rest of his life doing everything in his power to make himself and others miserable.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on August 28, 2010, 06:32:53 pm
Found the passage where Heathcliff hangs the poor little doggy, and given the overtones it's so fraught with, this is actually really interesting to be discussing in the Sexism thread.
(http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/2698/image1kw.png)

I didn't remember enough of the story to comment much on Isabella's behavior from a feminist perspective, but judging from the passage here it seems this situation fits the "bad guy is irresistible to women" motif. I find myself wondering why she stayed in the relationship as long as she did, given the complete lack of emotional partnership - and furthermore, the outright vehemence - on Heathcliff's end of the deal. What, was he just an irresistible leather-jacket wearing stud or something?

Well, at least I can give Heathcliff credit for one thing: he was honest in letting her know he despised her. That she whould return to that kind of abuse as long as she did is a precisely unfeminist outcome in my mind. Then again, a nineteenth century reader would have been evaluating this at a time when relationships were way easier to get into than to leave.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZaichikArky on August 28, 2010, 10:42:17 pm
Oh well the passage I found was about Hareton hanging a puppy. So I guess that he took after both his sadistic father, and asshole guardian/master. I think that both of them hanging the puppies kind of sent her over the edge because she realized she had been thrown into a whole web of deceit and cruelty. She was just a pawn. I actually kind of admire her character because at least it doesn't sound like she went crazy, but really wanted a better life for her and her son. It's too bad that she died young and Heathcliff survived, so he could continue his scheming.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on September 13, 2010, 01:03:44 am
Fuck this goddamned Teach Yourself Czech book. This chapter marks the third time out of ten chapters that a sexist joke or observation has been made.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on November 27, 2010, 02:34:38 pm
A book that might be of interest to those concerned with gender equality is "Ale, Beer, and Brewsters in England" by Judith Bennett. Essentially, it addresses why women were squeezed out of the brewing industry in the late Medieval/Early Modern age and attributes it to a diffuse system of patriarchical systems.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on November 27, 2010, 06:16:41 pm
Thanks Thought! Here's some Google Books linkage (http://books.google.com/books?id=c6MQJ-pdbwAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%2B%22Ale,+Beer,+and+Brewsters+in+England%22&source=bl&ots=HUy4x1WOnw&sig=i2y0qlCPnEhthChEHKdFvEOuBFA&hl=en&ei=5oLxTM7hKtLsngej-8WcCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false) for anyone interested. I'mma take a look at this. Naturally, everything goes good with a pint.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on November 27, 2010, 08:44:35 pm
"diffuse system of patriarchical systems"? Wow, apparently I need more sleep.

Thanks for posting that link, Faust. Of particular interest is probably the introduction and chapter 8 (the conclusion). The book is interesting because the author is arguing that the social status of women really hasn't changed much from the 1300's. Back then women earned about 1/2 to 3/4th the wages of men, a statistic disturbingly close to the modern era. Bennett's main insight seems to be that while the form of women's work has changed (in this case, brewing over several centuries), the substance of it has not. She doesn't blame a specific, singular, unified patriarchy, but rather several smaller institutions that include such basic assumptions but which survive for other reasons (guilds, for examples, or family division of labor).

And yes, alcohol makes any academic book better :P
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on December 22, 2010, 08:33:42 pm
So, my Dad's out Christmas shopping, and he's staring at this incredibly unwieldy office chair he wants to buy from Office Max. I'm like, 20 miles away, and I'm still worried the guy's gonna croak from a heart attack any day now. I ask him over the phone to make sure he's going to get help from someone in the store for transporting this thing to the car, and he replies: "Don't worry, there's a young lady here who'll carry it for me."

Just thought that anecdote might instill some holiday cheer in this thread.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on December 24, 2010, 01:36:21 am
Indeed. Bon Holiday, all!
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: tushantin on December 24, 2010, 03:22:36 am
So, my Dad's out Christmas shopping, and he's staring at this incredibly unwieldy office chair he wants to buy from Office Max. I'm like, 20 miles away, and I'm still worried the guy's gonna croak from a heart attack any day now. I ask him over the phone to make sure he's going to get help from someone in the store for transporting this thing to the car, and he replies: "Don't worry, there's a young lady here who'll carry it for me."

Just thought that anecdote might instill some holiday cheer in this thread.
Still didn't get what that meant (kinda seemed a bit morbid), but happy holidays to you and your family.  :D
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Sajainta on December 24, 2010, 03:43:37 am
So, my Dad's out Christmas shopping, and he's staring at this incredibly unwieldy office chair he wants to buy from Office Max. I'm like, 20 miles away, and I'm still worried the guy's gonna croak from a heart attack any day now. I ask him over the phone to make sure he's going to get help from someone in the store for transporting this thing to the car, and he replies: "Don't worry, there's a young lady here who'll carry it for me."

Just thought that anecdote might instill some holiday cheer in this thread.
Still didn't get what that meant (kinda seemed a bit morbid), but happy holidays to you and your family.  :D

Means that there wasn't any "Oh a GIRL couldn't possibly help me carry this thing because, you know, she's a wimpy girl."
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: tushantin on December 24, 2010, 06:38:41 am
Means that there wasn't any "Oh a GIRL couldn't possibly help me carry this thing because, you know, she's a wimpy girl."
XDDD Oh. I see now. Unfortunately, here most females are proud of their status. If a man asks a woman to help him carry a chair, whether old or not, the response (from most, not all) would usually be, "Excuse me? I'm a woman; lifting things and barbaric chores are a man's job." <----- Or something along those lines. Nevertheless, here at least a gentleman is supposed to assist a lady anyway. Primary courtesy and respect.  8)
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on December 24, 2010, 06:19:31 pm
Heh heh, lest I give the wrong impression of what happened, she was a store employee and not a fellow shopper my Dad randomly flagged down or anything. Just part of her job. What interests me most is the split second pause before I exclaimed my relief; it shows that what's commonly called chivalry is still ingrained into my subconscious, and I wonder if it'll always be that way. Is this the nature of cultural programming one receives in childhood?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: tushantin on December 25, 2010, 08:31:25 am
xDDD Indeed! Humans have this amazing ability to completely change from what's defined in their DNA and leave the rest to evolution. Basically, program and reprogram a brain as your genes are passed down. It could be good or bad, but mostly good's come out of it. I think you might be in an article by David Wong at Cracked where he mentions how morality is important in a civilization.

Anywhos, this is a thread about Feminism. Anybody's got any idea of the sexuality status at the time of Cleopatra and Nefertiti? I mean gender priority and discrimination status, that is.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: alfadorredux on December 25, 2010, 09:32:05 am
Anywhos, this is a thread about Feminism. Anybody's got any idea of the sexuality status at the time of Cleopatra and Nefertiti? I mean gender priority and discrimination status, that is.

Relative gender status in Ancient Egypt? My understanding is that it's complicated, but surprisingly, there's some evidence that things were more equal there than they would be later on. You might be interested in looking up Hatshepsut--female pharaoh, reigned for something on the order of 20 years, and probably commanded at least one military campaign while on the throne, IIRC. She's a more interesting example than Cleopatra (remembered mainly for stringing Roman generals along) or Nefertiti (remembered mainly because of artwork depicting her and because of her rather strange husband, the pharaoh Akhnaton). In general, though, Ancient Egyptian women were allowed to own property and all that good stuff, and had an important role in their religion (again, IIRC).
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on February 12, 2011, 07:12:29 am
What's this I see? An old game that passes the Bechdel Test (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPFvr7aBvcg)?

Not that the technical requirements of the Bechdel Test are the be-all and end-all of judging media for this thread's purposes, but still. Brings a little tear to me eye, it does.

(Oh, if the music sounds oddly familiar, that's just the usual FW video tinkering habit).
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Manly Man on February 12, 2011, 11:40:25 am
That game distinctly reminds me of the Breath of Fire series for some reason.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on April 21, 2011, 04:14:39 am
One of the volunteers who canvassed with me during the Obama Campaign is leading an effort to investigate and stop human trafficking in our area. Damn, I am just... so proud of this guy!

Fighting ethnic massage parlors is such an uphill battle due to the risk of essentially misfiring and looking like a prude in the process. I mean, these places operate quietly and in plain sight on major avenues, so people assume everything's on the up-and-up. These ones being targeted in our area definitely advertise sex acts and look creepy enough that I've been paying particular attention to them since I've become more aware of this issue. I just wish definitive probable cause for a police or FBI investigation could be found! I'm thrilled that this person & co. are taking the bull by the horns finally.

I still need to find out more, as I just saw this in the local news, but from what I gather the only way to really combat these is to pressure local city councils to outlaw ethnic massage parlors completely. I think this is the route the local group is going for, starting with a public awareness campaign. This is particularly messy, as it quickly gets wrapped up in discussion of sexual rights, and the shadier operations get the same blanket shield in public opinion as the, I guess, not-so-shady outfits. How can we improve the mechanics of rooting out human trafficking, I wonder? I'll keep you guys up to date on how this situation progresses in my area.

While researching this, I discovered a RAND corporation report about human trafficking in Ohio while researching this more (http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2007/RAND_MG689.pdf); I'm not sure whether RAND has a series of these for every state.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on May 08, 2011, 10:15:24 pm
For completeness, I'm linking here to something I posted about in the News thread.

http://www.chronocompendium.com/Forums/index.php/topic,3283.msg205058.html#msg205058
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on May 12, 2011, 11:29:10 pm
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/05/11/kenya.children.beading/index.html?hpt=Mid

Quote
Philip Lemantile, the father of 14-year-old Nasuto, says beading is aimed at stopping promiscuity among young girls.

The depths of the twisted thinking behind this is depressing.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: chi_z on May 13, 2011, 12:16:55 am
that goes a little beyond mere sexism, that's crimes against humanity imo. what gets me is the parents apparently allow this.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Radical_Dreamer on May 15, 2011, 03:12:46 pm
Last night, I was watching My Wife is a Gangster 2. It's a generally silly Korean action movie, but there's a delightful scene where a vendor is being rude to a woman, and insisting on his right to do so as a man. The protagonist (the gangster who became a wife) stops him. "Is your mother a man or a woman?" She proceeds with that line of questioning (and violence) through his immediate family before reminding him explicitly to treat women with respect.

Good stuff.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on June 28, 2011, 01:31:16 am
Wow, check out this pre-school in Sweden (http://beta.news.yahoo.com/no-him-her-preschool-fights-gender-bias-122541829.html). Far out stuff!

I do have to express some worry about a curriculum that focuses on a goal without equally recognizing the struggle to reach that goal. I mean, having the kiddies sit down to listen to "Snow White" in a society where the gender roles are pretty compatible with what's in the story is a fundamentally different experience for said kiddies compared to the story about the gay giraffes. There's a sort of cultural dissonance in the latter case compared to the "Snow White" example. Then again, it's only preschool; maybe you have to start somewhere.

Environmentalism was the big thing when I was that age -- one of my first memories was a discussion of the Exxon Valdez oil spill in kindergarten (Nickelodeon may have facilitated, but not sure now). Even at that tender age we received a clear and dire message, no punches pulled: lots of older people didn't give a rat's arse about the environment, and some really funky stuff was gonna happen to this world unless we kids took up the fight to save it. I sooo wanted to start recycling. And kicking ass! If we had just been shown how an environmentally conscious society operates in a vacuum, I'm not sure I would have felt the same impulse.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: tushantin on June 28, 2011, 05:03:44 pm
Hah, tribalism and general discrimination is hard-wired into our brains, but it actually helped us survive in a long term. A saying goes that when we don't understand something we tend to fear it, and when you cannot comprehend the pain of someone else you tend to hurt them more. I cannot speak for the females, but the difference between genders is usually leaves young boys pondering, unable to understand girls and why they like what they like. Then these like-minded boys make a group and begin ensuring their dominance, and usually convincing others (and themselves) that the opposite party is a piece of shit. Thus, the clash.

But of course, once puberty hits, tables turn: Guys begin treating girls like princesses.  :cry:

Sexism is almost the same as other forms of tribalism, such as politics and fanboy-ism. Everyone likes to think of themselves as heroes, though deluding themselves as infallible (read: that bastard Osama bin Laden), but their idea of for the greater good becomes quite a problem when they begin succumbing to sheer hatred. Hatred that's brought by anger. Anger that's brought by lack of understanding. Education, wisdom and empathy has helped us effectively fight mindless discrimination before, and it will do so again.

Environmentalism was the big thing when I was that age -- one of my first memories was a discussion of the Exxon Valdez oil spill in kindergarten (Nickelodeon may have facilitated, but not sure now). Even at that tender age we received a clear and dire message, no punches pulled: lots of older people didn't give a rat's arse about the environment, and some really funky stuff was gonna happen to this world unless we kids took up the fight to save it. I sooo wanted to start recycling. And kicking ass! If we had just been shown how an environmentally conscious society operates in a vacuum, I'm not sure I would have felt the same impulse.
You bring up a good point there! You know, the thing every kid wonders at one point in their lives is that grow ups are stupid. It is that when things grow horribly wrong the grown ups do completely the opposite of what they're expected to do, or often a kid is educated into thinking that hurting someone is wrong and childish and yet the parent decides to get into fist fights from time to time. Kids find the adults to be dumb and confusing hypocrites, and in a way they are right to perceive it.

Kids are curious by nature and willing to believe anything, and building on their curiosity will help them grow into genii. They take interest in anything and everything, often seeing the world as some kind of a magical place. As it stands, perceiving our world as magical is the right thing to do, but as we grow older our thinking begins to stagnate, or the idea that believing in magic makes you uncool is drummed into their heads. Their tiny heads don't hold much detail, but they thinking is sufficiently different and imaginative. For example, there was a recent case on CNN where a cheerleader refused to cheer for her rapist, but she lost the case at the Supreme Court. It takes a sufficiently skilled wordsmith to bend truth and confuse the world with details (either shown or deliberately left out) and turn people's decisions, kids often never loose track of common sense. They don't care about the details; all that matters is that a woman was hurt and didn't receive justice. And when this happens, they realize that the world was being governed by idiots (what with cops wanting bribes, government ignoring these corruptions, people refusing to help the needy and dilly-dallying of the Lokpal Bill).

So what happens to all their realizations? Though they were right, unfortunately thy all grow up.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on June 28, 2011, 09:34:29 pm
Wow, check out this pre-school in Sweden (http://beta.news.yahoo.com/no-him-her-preschool-fights-gender-bias-122541829.html). Far out stuff!

The article noted that nearly all the books at that daycare deal with adopted children, homosexual couples, and single parents: I would love to see their actual reading list. The books that I can recall reading at such a young age tended to lack defined parental figures entirely. I thus wonder to what extent this school is correcting an imbalance in a category and to what extent it is creating a new category in order to balance.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: tushantin on August 12, 2011, 11:44:18 am
Pardon me, but today's Friday, so this might be the only time in the week I get for a full-fledged reply to anyone. Here goes:

Lord J, I would have considered your post from a happy and practical point of view, despite your ignorance, if not for a single statement you offended me personally with. I say: Ouch! Is that any way you talk to a friend? If so, let me start with that offensive statement.

Tushantin, your religiosity and traditionalism hold you back from recognizing your own shortcomings.
And you, sir, bound in stone by your own blind bias and wretched prejudice from seeing a better picture. Secondly, your ignorance is in the post is showing as you completely miss the point of my conversation about the tradition and it's meaning, and even more so as I pointed out a cultural view; these are not my personal view, hence the term "considered". Thirdly, my reply to FaustWolf was simple cultural information that we usually share, and had no religious ground in the first place. So please, next time you accuse someone think twice before doing so, lest you look like a troll trying hard to look awesome.

Now let's get on to the change of topic; from Sibling Bond we head to Gender equality to Feminism. You guys just love conflict, don't you?

Yes it does. It may "make sense," but that does not preclude it from still being sexist, which it is.
Yeah, it's like saying that someone who isn't scared of the dark does not preclude Boogeyman from existing. See, there are two factors to my statement, the first being language's imperfection that drives bias in the subconscious. Second being the incomplete picture painted on the Western minds, which results in them thinking shit up. Why? Because everyone seems to be a fan of sensationalism these days. I don't mean to be racist here, but that's exactly what you're doing: enforcing your theories based on flawed or incomplete knowledge without making an effort to understand the culture and their reasoning.

This is such a common sentiment--not unique to your part of the world at all. People and societies in general routinely reason that, because males are fractionally physically stronger than females, they should have control over the key social facilities--industry and commerce--while leaving females to provide some form or another of bullshit "support," like shoes on feet.

What a popular belief, given how simple its fallacy is!
See, the fallacy of your reasoning and observation shows here again. Do again note when I carefully placed the words "important role to play towards the society, not necessarily limiting". The roles implied were fundamental and basic from the days of agriculture, where the genders mutual cooperation in each field was recognized; males handled farming, while females handled domestic chores, both fields equally difficult, but noble, to deal with. The not limiting part means that in modern times females (or males far that matter) don't necessarily have to be limited to their fundamental roles and can move beyond, such as advanced engineering or labor intensive military, if they choose to do so. Yes, the Hindu philosophy has a long line of tradition, but that doesn't make it an enemy of human rights. Our philosophy evolves over time and has been doing so for the past 9000 years, and more than anything we respect humanity, self-development and empathy.

Oh, and are you influenced by RPG too much that you wouldn't want a "supportive" protagonist for yourself? You think everyone should be forced to undertake Nuclear Physics or something? Come to India and listen to Feminist Movements here; being a housewife is a well respected occupation that many women proudly undertake. They aren't forced, that's for sure, and several also manage business at the same time, but all they want in return is recognition. And us males? We salute them, give them the freedom they deserve and assist them in every way we can. The reasoning behind this is one Hindi philosophy:

All roads end up home, and home is sacred, a haven.

Indeed, in many societies--including your own India--females are routinely made to perform menial hard labor such as carrying water, typically for little or no remuneration. The reality of female physical labor is completely ignored both in those people's levels of compensation and in the bogus social theories which assert that females cannot or should not perform hard or skilled labor.
Oh, should I applaud your observations? Should I worship you because you think you know more about my own nation than me? Sigh.

Let me correct you on this: in many societies (including America), females undertake menial hard labor because they are given the freedom to do so if they wish. Very few of those situations actually have females forced to do tasks, and that counts as slave trafficking (and sometimes also brothel), which I must point out is unjust. Today's age is far better than decades ago when women were being oppressed at a large scale, and will constantly keep getting better so long as people realize the pain and suffering of those before them.

Oh, and the "carrying water" thing? Remember the Domestic Chores talk. Women undertake the welfare of family and other tasks, while their husbands are out there under the fucking sun, tilling the land with heavy equipment on their shoulders that could break their spine! Their roles were of mutual compromise; if males struggled under the sun the females meanwhile would stock up on resources, such as water from the wells/rivers and preparing cowdung, food, gathering milk from the cows, maintain society, etc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhyRb-FhCwk). Oh, and it gets worse in desert lands!  :D

But even then the women aren't restrained, as they frequently enter the farms and help their husbands plant seeds and such. But once they have a child, they prefer to stay home to care for their future. So tell me: why should we be so blinded by Feminism's light that we fail to see that the males also work incredibly hard for the society and yet are protective towards females?

But if you really want to talk about female oppression, how about Rajasthan? The state in a dessert with scarcity in religion but rich in culture nevertheless. The land of the Rajput. So what about it? Apparently Dowree is widespread in the area, and many uneducated village folks reach out for abortion as soon as the tests say that the baby would be female. Their reasoning is that a Girl in the family would be a burden to them, while a Boy may ask whatever amount in dowree as he pleases. And what do we get? Deaths of thousands of would-be kids (and also already born kids), all because they're unlucky enough to be born as females. And it's not just the case in Rajasthan either, but whole other places such as Africa, Middle East and Asia too.

Ah, this reminds me. Remember that anti-abortion scandal regarding the Law and Christianity at the USA? Well, apparently this inhumane killing is what they've been fearing all along, thus standing for the basic human right: the right to LIVE.

I try not to "believe" in anything. Belief is inherently erroneous in matters of fact and logic...
If so, you probably don't even know how a human mind functions in the first place. And strangely enough, it actually makes even you quite predictable. I do admit, though not so surprised at your belief in Fate, I am quite surprised at your belief in disbelief.  :)
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on August 12, 2011, 12:09:57 pm
Culture/religion/tradition are inseparable in many cases.

Quote
Let me correct you on this: in many societies (including America), females undertake menial hard labor because they are given the freedom to do so if they wish. Very few of those situations actually have females forced to do tasks,

Fortunately, there are decades of research on this subject, which have demonstrated that across the world (except in Scandinavia and the Netherlands), women do more domestic work than men. This is the concept of the second shift; women have to work in the daytime, and then work at night to rear children and keep the house clean. Just try getting married and expecting the opposite to occur, or to have an understanding male partner. We would not have "go make me a sandwich/get back in the kitchen" jokes if it were not the sad reality of sexism.

If you are brought up in a world in which gender roles constantly, daily reinforce an image of females being housewives, that is most certainly coercion. No one is holding a gun to a woman's head and telling her to do housework; they don't need to, as women have been brought up in that role ever since they started getting pink toys and Barbies and being prevented from exploring anything that's not hetero or gendernormative.

Quote
we fail to see that the males also work incredibly hard for the society and yet are protective towards females?

Chivalry is sexist and needs to be destroyed with prejudice. Its very core tenet is that women are part of a weak underclass, and thus need protecting from big, strong males. It is impossible for women to achieve autonomy and respect under such a system.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on August 12, 2011, 01:22:10 pm
Tsk tsk, Tush. You shouldn't ask questions you don't want answered.

I appreciate that you are more willing to entertain intelligent discussion than many of your predecessors in Compendium days gone by, but we don't seem to make much progress in our discussions, do we?

You can spin your sexist views as far as you like; it's a rare person who shows me something I haven't seen before in that regard. I will apologize for offending your sensibilities, but not for criticizing your disrespectful and counterproductive views. I suggest, rather than taking personal offense, you focus on refining your comprehension of the subjects you aspire to address.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: tushantin on August 12, 2011, 04:32:45 pm
Culture/religion/tradition are inseparable in many cases.
In many cases, but not every. But saying that they can't be separable is nothing but a blatant, superficial ignorance.

We would not have "go make me a sandwich/get back in the kitchen" jokes if it were not the sad reality of sexism.
Sigh. So the "British have bad teeth" jokes equally makes it real? On the contrary, they have the best teeth in the world. (http://www.economist.com/node/15060097?subjectid=7933596&story_id=15060097) Oh, and so for the blondes being dumb joke? That would make one racist and false. Come on, people make jokes for the weirdest reasons, and they don't have to be taken as "facts".

If you are brought up in a world in which gender roles constantly, daily reinforce an image of females being housewives,...
See, this is something weird about those views in the first place. True, there are several classes women in the world that are being oppressed, but you have this strange, superficial idea that every female working in domestic environment is living a miserable life. But take my mother, for instance, an ordinary housewife. It was a simple test I discreetly conducted on my family members for personal curiosity, and mom placed comment when her sister asked monetary questions out of the blue:

"We may not have all the money in the world, but we never took any debt either. Yes, we're still living a lower-middle-class lifestyle, yes, my husband sheds sweat and blood to bring morsel home. But you see, we're living a happy life. We have everything we need right here."

A housewife who isn't satisfied with her life and is forced to follow impossible traditions, that's oppression. A housewife living a happy life in the company of her family, tradition or no tradition, can hardly be oppression. See, if you nurture a young girl to be a neurosurgeon that's a different issue, but try enforcing your "Domestic chores blah blah" feminist attitude here and you'd be frowned upon as a pest even by the female community, all because many people don't want to be driven out of their fields, just as how you can't make an artist build spaceship, or a chemist to show his expertise in theology.

Yes, female's contribution to domestic welfare go ages back (as in, over Thirty Fucking Thousand years back), so it's no wonder that they follow the same roles since they evolved that way. But my point was earlier that they aren't stuck to that role like they were before, and in many cases today they're even masters of household (as in, Head of Family), declaring directions the family members ought to take. You're merely overestimating the numbers.

Chivalry is sexist and needs to be destroyed with prejudice. Its very core tenet is that women are part of a weak underclass, and thus need protecting from big, strong males. It is impossible for women to achieve autonomy and respect under such a system.
Right. Tell that to several thousands of Indian females who tie the sacred thread on their brothers' wrist, because nobody expects them to do it; the thread signifies their love for their brothers, an unbreakable bond. Oh, and did I mention the tradition was started by a woman? Extremist Feminists quickly assume that everything is the Male's fault; in this case, no offense but, that statement of yours becomes self-defeating (i.e., telling women what to do and what not to do).

Tsk tsk, Tush. You shouldn't ask questions you don't want answered.
I asked a question about Fate, I had that answered, and we're done without the need of an argument; those were your honest thoughts after all. But what I didn't ask was your offense on my humble sharing of a tradition I found amusing. Way to ruin someone's mood, Joe.

I appreciate that you are more willing to entertain intelligent discussion than many of your predecessors in Compendium days gone by, but we don't seem to make much progress in our discussions, do we?
Yeah, your mindset is rigid and narrow, bounded by delusions and refusal to see a bigger picture due to your own self-conceited interests in personal achievements. I've learned so much from you since I first registered at the Compendium, and even admired your views, always looking up to you as a wise bloke that could make the world a better place. But today's posts from you almost shattered all respect I had for you.

You can spin your sexist views as far as you like; it's a rare person who shows me something I haven't seen before in that regard.
With living a happy life besides several friends, most of whom being females that cherish my encouragement and enthusiasm, and gladly serving humanity through happy and harsh times and doing my best to spread empathy, I doubt I need your petty opinion on how sexist I am.

I will apologize for offending your sensibilities, but not for criticizing your disrespectful and counterproductive views. I suggest, rather than taking personal offense, you focus on refining your comprehension of the subjects you aspire to address.
Dude, as I said, please read the message thoroughly and think twice before accusing someone. The first post which you apparently criticized was not my personal view to begin with. Still, if you want to criticize then simply point out the follies and explain why and be accurate about it (you're a master in language, aren't you?), else keep your empty suggestions to yourself and be respectful; otherwise next time I'd be justified in asking you to kindly Fuck Off.

See, this is what I mean about your mentalities being imperfect and prejudiced intentions. You guys only see a part of the picture and quickly move to accusations (then again, it isn't your fault, as the English language is structured that way, and thus your subconscious follows) trying to justify your "beliefs" that some of you still don't call beliefs. You guys keep chanting Ignorance is Evil, but ignorance / half-assed research is exactly where you base your arguments from in the first place!

I'd actually go so far as to say that my father works the hardest in the family, even assisting with household chores day and night, though I still sympathize with mom most. But even if a husband dedicates himself to household just so his wife could go accomplish her dreams, such as being an airhostess, it's going to be ignored by the general public. Reason? Fucking Sensationalism! The problem with Extreme Feminism is that they take any goddamned situation and see it as an apocalypse. Take the farmers for instance: The females work at domestic environments and the feminists complain (and Lord J call me an idiot for some reason), but tell the genders to switch roles and let the women work hard in the farms, the feminists would still riot in the name of female oppression and extreme labor. So what the fuck are they to do? Sit all day playing marbles with kids? Oh, that's a good idea, isn't it? Ah wait, according to ZeaLitY, even that is wrong.

 :picardno

That's when we realize that instead of tackling realistic female oppression the Western Feminist movements seemed to be stuck in Survival Mode. It's ridiculous!

I refuse to answer any more posts in this thread unless an actual female, such as Saj or Syna, join in the convo and state her views.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: rushingwind on August 13, 2011, 03:01:45 am
Debate is not my strong suit, unless we're talking science. I don't command the linguistic mastery of the other brilliant individuals on this board, often making me shrink away from fierce debates that I might have a strong opinion about. But, I will do my best here with the time I have.

Tushantin, I love you to death. I think you're awesome and you bring a wonderful quality here. I hope you always speak your mind and keep sharpening and shaping your personal philosophy and your mind. But in this particular case, I also think you're wrong. While I don't pretend to be an authority on this topic, I only know what I have experienced first hand.

I was raised in a conservative, sexist environment. I am a classic example of a woman who, in Zeality's words, doesn't need the gun held up to her head to fit into a typical "female" role. There was no malice in my upbringing... it was all culture and religion. They'd say, "women don't do that," and so I wouldn't. Most of the time, I never had to be told, because I felt guilty or somehow disrespectful if I stepped outside of a gendernormative role. Not only that, but in time I began to police other women in this role. Who hasn't heard of gossiping women? How many times have I gossiped with other girls about, "Geez, she's so unlady like. She acts so inappropriately."

The ultimate danger of this system is that the very ones victimized by it become the ones that enforce it. By gossiping and feeling entitled to call other women out on their "inappropriate" behavior, we use peer pressure to make other women conform to a typical, female role. Here is the worst part: Things are a little bit different for me now... but really, only a little. I am a hard atheist. I am a feminist. I can stand back and stare at the circus from which I came and see it for the hurtful, awful system it is. And yet, a part of me is still stuck where I once was. I feel like I'm acting wrong, and others are quick to try and use that same peer pressure to try and make me conform. When someone says to me, "A lady should not act the way you're acting," the rational part of my brain rolls my eyes, while a lesser, more fearful part shrinks and becomes embarrassed. The conditioning is so deeply ingrained that even today, as far as I've come, I have trouble escaping it.

I thought for quite a while that I was immune to this old way of thinking, until I lost my hair. Very rapidly, I found myself stuck in a stressful situation. For a while, when I was totally bald, bare eyebrows and all, nothing much changed. A few people gave me well-wishes, thinking me to be a cancer patient. Admittedly, I wore hats and scarfs designed for bald women, which did nothing to help that perception. After my hair began to grow back, and it reached a certain length, the scarf wouldn't stay in place and hats were itchy and uncomfortable. I tried out a wig, which was so hot and itchy that my scalp broke out in a rash that I could see through my thin hair. So I made the uncomfortable choice to go without anything on my head at all. I had no idea what I was getting into.

I did not feel like a whole person. I "dolled" myself up a lot. I wore lots of jewelry and girly clothes. Even that was not enough to stop the insults I'd receive from others. You see, because I didn't quite fit into my culture's definition of a woman, that meant I was fair game for peer pressure and bullying. Even worse, though, was that I was unable to brush these comments off easily. Deep down, the pressure and the insults, as angry as they made me, chimed with my cultural and religious upbringing that told me, "A proper woman would cover her head. A proper woman would never let herself look like a man." I did everything I could to fit back into the typical female role.

All this, when I supposedly knew better? That is sexism at its finest. Sexism so deeply, powerfully programmed within me that I'd do anything to crawl back in my role, because surely, my culture would have me believe that I am not properly female if I don't conform, all while it whispers in my ear, "Oh no, no, we're not being sexist at all. Certainly not." What complete, utter nonsense.

I have great love for culture and history. Anyone who knows me knows that the loss of knowledge and culture throughout human history pains me greatly (such as the burning of the Library of Alexandria). Culture and religion can be colorful, meaningful, and in the past has provided people with an identity, with comfort, and with pride. I don't think these things should be lost to time. That loss of knowledge would be a tragedy.

In that vein, I have long thought that individual cultures should be preserved and protected above all. However, I'm no longer so sure... As much as I personally value the uniqueness of different cultures, humanity has come to a point where we can no longer ignore the injustices we commit to life, whether it's the female of our own species or other animals. For example, traditional Chinese medicine has a long, colorful history. But we have reached a point in our societal evolution where we can no longer condone the meaningless torture of animals (http://news.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/Asia/Story/A1Story20110805-292947.html) to prolong the practice. Someone (I don't recall who) said here on the Compendium that if this kind of stuff worked, it'd be called medicine, not alternative medicine. Such a claim can be made because we have reliable, verifiable ways of testing the effectiveness of this kind of stuff. It doesn't work. So preserve the memory of it, but discard the practice. And yet, doing so might rob many people of part of their identity. But which is worse... Cutting it out to the displeasure of many people, or allowing the practice to perpetuate because of some perceived beauty of the tradition? That only perpetuates needless suffering!

We have a terrible choice before us: Continue with the way things have always been, or embrace things the way they could be. Both are frightening options for people, but I think the one first one is more frightening.

Culture must change, or sexism will not end. We women who are indoctrinated and conditioned into our roles rarely, if ever, break free of them. Indeed, it's embarrassing for me to talk about it this way. I consider myself a rational, critical thinker. My worldview has shifted from one of religious mystery to a scientific skeptic. I do not accept claims without evidence, nor do I think mystery is a good thing. Though I may be a skeptic, I'm not a denialist or a contrarian. And yet, there is this insidious, deeply ingrained gender role within me that I grapple with constantly. Rationally, I know what's going on and how sexist the whole system is. Good luck getting my emotional side in line with it when I begin to feel embarrassed. Just like my religious deconversion was for so long, this is still a work in progress.

If society wasn't sexist at its most basic level, it wouldn't be this way. I wouldn't have to change my way of thinking at all! And yet, despite its cries to the contrary, society and culture tend to be sexist, and they quietly impose those sexist views on all of their children.

When I hear jokes along the lines of, "get back into the kitchen," I just feel sad. I feel sad for the men who say it and the women who laugh and go along with it. They don't understand the system they're perpetuating. They can't understand, because they were raised and programmed in such a way that it doesn't ever occur to them that they're being sexist. And if you were to try and explain it to them, they'd just laugh you off and think you're being silly.

This is exactly why we can't keep raising our children this way. Humanity can be better than this.



Quote
Yes, female's contribution to domestic welfare go ages back (as in, over Thirty Fucking Thousand years back), so it's no wonder that they follow the same roles since they evolved that way. But my point was earlier that they aren't stuck to that role like they were before, and in many cases today they're even masters of household (as in, Head of Family), declaring directions the family members ought to take. You're merely overestimating the numbers.

Yes, we are often quite stuck to those roles. The illusion of choice in this matter, is... well, just an illusion. Those who would break free do so often under dire circumstances. For example, I knew a girl who wanted to go into Physics. She went off to college, did very well her first year, and then her family refused to speak to her because she wasn't getting married and having children like a "proper" daughter should. She tried to continue, but was so upset by her family cutting her off that she began to perceive that she'd done wrong. Her guilt eventually caused her to switch her major to English, and she became a teacher. And she got married and had kids, and her family was happy. Except, she's not happy at all, but she still feels that it would be wrong to pursue a physics degree like she wants to, because her family (and now her husband, too) would not approve.

Technically, she had a choice. But culture and society have a lot of safeguards in place and actions they can take to get women back on the "correct" path. I know too many brilliant women who ended up stuck as housewives and never got careers in the maths and sciences that they so dearly loved.

Some women do break free, and for that I'm grateful. That means that there is hope, and that there is some progress being made. It's not all bad news.

When I was a child, I always wanted to be a scientist. My mom, however, thought that was not a good idea, and filled my head with all kinds of nonsense about how women can't do that kind of stuff, and how I'd be poor, all alone, and wouldn't ever find a job because women didn't do that kind of stuff... yada yada. Here I am in my adulthood again pursuing the sciences, and I've received some of the same criticism from well-meaning, but ignorant family members. I am fortunate enough to recognize this ingrained, society-created sexism for what it is, so I can work my way through it. Many women are not so lucky.

It is far worse for women in other parts of the world. Here, it's not socially acceptable to publicly demean women (therefore, we've managed to change the nature of sexism so that women accept it, without ever realizing it's sexist). In other places, however, it's perfectly acceptable and even the norm. You mentioned a society that kills female babies because of dowries... Yes. Sexism is bad, and cultural and societal norms can often perpetuate it.

It is not easy for me to say this, because I love the study of culture and society so. I wonder about all the Roman authors of whom not a word of their books has survived. I wonder about ancient Native American cultures that were decimated by Europeans. But that being said, we must do away with the customs and traditions that perpetuate sexism, specifically because they're so good at quietly perpetuating the problem!

I am optimistic. I believe, one day, we will solve this issue. Perhaps it won't be my way, who knows? It's a cold, dark, dreary world, and those of us capable of shining bright must do so, or nothing will ever change. That includes you, Tushantin! That includes every one of us capable of comprehending this issue, and those of us who understand other important issues.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: rushingwind on August 13, 2011, 04:01:03 am
I suppose that, in a nutshell, what I'm trying to say is that culture is sexist without realizing it, and because those of us within it don't realize it, we continue to perpetuate it. That's what makes it so dangerous, and so very difficult to eradicate. And even those of us who eventually realize it have trouble breaking completely free of the old ways of thinking.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Radical_Dreamer on August 13, 2011, 02:31:56 pm
Rushingwind, I realize this isn't the most concrete thing, but for what it's worth, most of my friends who are scientists or studying to be scientists are women. You aren't alone in this fight, and it gets won...over and over.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on August 13, 2011, 04:16:13 pm
Tush, part of the problems seems to come from how you and others perceive genders. Perhaps I am just overly sensitive to this, but even saying that males are physically stronger borders on sexism in the right circles, despite there being real physiological differences between the sexes that, speaking purely as a generality, would support such a claim. At least parts of Western culture are very anti-differences when it comes to men and women.  You, on the other hand, seem to be more willing to admit that there might be differences and thus are also willing to consider these differences might lead to practical applications. My objective here is to support the anti-differences perspective and to illustrate the inherent problem of a pro-differences stance.

First, allow me to offer this conceptual framework: sexism can both be proscriptive and prohibitive in nature.

To use RW's example (excellent post, by the way -- you are a much better writer than you give yourself credit for): telling a woman that she can't become a scientist is, I believe, clearly sexist and undesirable to everyone engaged in this discussion. Likewise, I think we'd all agree that it is sexist to tell a woman, out of hand, that she can't rock the bald look, or be a steelworker, or run a Fortune 500 company. All these are examples of what I am here terming prohibitive sexism. From your posts, Tush, it seems fairly clear that you reject prohibitive sexism just like anyone else. And thus, I believe, the point of tension. But before I address that, I should cover what proscriptive sexism might be.

If telling a woman that she can't be a scientist is prohibitive sexism, then telling a woman that she can be a housewife is proscriptive sexism. Truly speaking, a woman can be a housewife, so one might wonder how that is sexist. The problem is that such a statement is still limiting if it is the primary one that is heard. Saying what one can do turns into what one must do, and that is the problem. You said that in Sikh/Hindu culture men are considered the physical laborers while women are masters of domestic affairs, but that this isn't limiting. Unfortunately, while such a stance could theoretically not be sexist (I will get to that in a moment), in actual practice it has the result of limiting options for each gender. What if a particular woman likes physical activity very much? She goes out and tries to become a porter, let’s say, but every job turns her down because, hey, everyone knows that the men who applied for the position along with her are physically stronger. Such a culture might allow something to be conceptually possible, but in actual practice that possibility is suppressed. In the West we still have similar problems all over the place. Science is a fairly good example, again. It isn't just that one's family might say that women can't be scientists, other scientists say that too. They expect that a woman would want to have a family, would want to take maternity leave, would want to take care of children, and thus expecting women to do some things causes them to preclude them from other things.


Now I said that it might be possible, in a hypothetical model, for proscriptive roles for genders to not be sexist. That, though, is just because we can imagine that saying that people can do activity X does not necessitate that such a statement would discourage those people from an unmentioned activity Y. If women were told that they can be scientists, then that inherently dictate that they are also being subtly told that they can't be firefighters, nurses, or housewives. Indeed, it might even be possible for a few individuals to, in actual practice, hold to such an ideal. But, unfortunately, human society inherently does not function in such a way.

A general problem with allowing differences between the sexes influence social expectations is that it is unnecessary. Let us assume for a moment that women are more emotionally stable: is that not an ideal that both men and women should strive for? Instead of saying that a good woman is emotionally stable, why don't we just say that a good human is emotionally stable? Instead of saying that good men fulfill their responsibilities to their families, why not say that good humans fulfill those responsibilities? Sexual dimorphism is comparatively minor in humans: basically, the only thing that a man can do that a woman can't is donate sperm, and that is a very poor basis to build social expectations on. If there is a desirable trait in either gender that we, as a society, might wish to promote, then there is a desirable trait in humans that we would wish to promote.

Tush, you said that "each gender has a unique and important role to play towards the society, ...like two legs keeping us steady." The part that is important to the survival of a culture is what they define as unique and important roles, not which gender those roles are applied to. Would it radically undermine Sikh or Hindu culture to say, "being physically protective and being emotionally stable are two unique and important roles that keep society steady, like two legs"? If sexism were totally eradicated, then society would be free to promote the roles, rather than the genders, and anyone could fulfill either to the same stabilizing effect.

Someone (I don't recall who) said here on the Compendium that if this kind of stuff worked, it'd be called medicine, not alternative medicine.

I believe that was a Zealitism. Although to play the devil's advocate, that statement is not exactly true. "Medicine" and "alternative medicine" have historical roots and would often times be better termed as "Professionalized Medicine" and "Non-Professionalized Medicine," respectively. Professionalized Medicine is valued because it has an invested interest in producing real and reliable results, and it has a means of ensuring that all its members conform to these standards. Non-Professionalized medicine usually has poor or no abilities to ensure the quality of its practitioners. This is an issue of people, rather than of science (although science does eventually play a role in the professionalization process).

Chiropracty is a more socially acceptable alternative medicine, one that even proper medical practitioners might refer you to, but it still contains a lot of tomfoolery. Even a practitioner who provides legitimate treatments might also be a huckster trying to pawn off invalid hypotheses and ineffective products. However, even though legitimate benefits of the practice have been identified (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15550303), the field is itself still considered alternative medicine and the usable practices have not been incorporated into a different, more professionalized, medical field. In sort, some things in it DO work, but it is still called alternative medicine. That status remains unchanged because the field remains unprofessionalized.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: tushantin on August 13, 2011, 04:24:29 pm
RW, your post has brought new light to me, and now I finally understand why their understanding was rigid and intolerant; it wasn't a motive of aggression but means to suppress a social norm gone wrong. I still won't forgive some people's stupid habitual criticism of foreign culture without properly understanding said culture to begin with (it only makes them racist in this light), but at the same time I also sympathize their backgrounds now.

 :( I'm very sorry about your background. I've always thought that life in the USA was much advanced than here. Sure, you've got material quality of life there, but from what I've been hearing it seems that the general mindset of the average public is highly primitive than the modern states where I live, despite having less income / technology exposure. So much so that I pity the lifestyle of an average Joe and his restrictive intellectual and sensory capacity, and especially those highly educated and intelligent people such as you, who are hindered by other people with restrictive bias. Sure, places I've lived are culturally heavy, but these cultures adapt and evolve overtime; I've seen paralyzed folks being treated with respect, obese gentlemen achieve popularity with sheer skill, bald (or in some cases, mutilated faced) women living an ordinary life like any college folk. Even if a person has a single eye left in his/her skull we treat them as our equal, because it isn't the lack of beauty that is frowned upon here; what is frowned upon is disrespect towards another person, and the educated ones of us do our best to eradicate any and every form inhumanity. And I'm proud to live in such an advanced and open culture.

And I constantly remember those chants long gone, those chants that protested against uneducated, backward classes: throw away the masks of falsity! Grant the person a right to live! If our culture does not approve, then we will change it, because culture exists where people are and not the other way around. And today, the backwards are almost gone except in developing (or ignored) states where education is scarce, such as Rajasthan and Bihar.

So yeah, pride yourself in being a free bird! Don't like the wig? Throw it away. People disrespect you? Tell them to mind their own business. But you are you, a treasure-trove of knowledge and dreams; nothing can stop you from flying!

But what I still dislike is the generalization of social concepts rather than being able to distinguish between its elements. Are their minds really so primitive to throw away a basket of good apples just because a few turned out to be rotten? Where is their sense of value? Or is this the bane of living in a Capitalist nation?

I'm truly sorry for not being able to put more to the plate (I had so much to say), but unfortunately today isn't Friday.  :(


EDIT: Ah, ninja'd by Thought. Forgive me, mate. I'll read this now, but will get back to you and RW again later.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: tushantin on August 13, 2011, 04:45:42 pm
Tush, part of the problems seems to come from how you and others perceive genders.
Sigh. I've said this a dozen times to J, and must I say it again? Those weren't my personal views, for God's sake! I keep saying, those are considered cultural views when the tradition was actually made! And the philosophy behind the tradition has evolved far enough today, but neither of it equals my personal views or attitude towards it. Anywhos, I'll get back to replying your post eventually. Sorry.

EDIT: Why do I have a strange feeling that despite the abundance in logic it's actually the primitive notions in people's brains that pull the strings? Even when you're actually talking about views that may not be your own people immediately assume that you're siding with the enemy and wouldn't hesitate to accuse you. It's insane! Is this tribalistic thinking exactly what restricts people from seeing through another perspective? As if subconsciously or forcefully playing a psychology that thinking like them may turn you into the same person? Or that even considering the opposition's thoughts is a sin? Why?

And this is exactly what makes people fearful at the subconscious level, giving them a sense of betrayal. And they either strengthen or eliminate immediately, fearing it may cause some kind of damage. Either that, or they readily force people to convert into the same mindset as them.

.... There is a huge flaw in human thinking pattern, but it is also essential at the survival of intelligent lifeforms at a fundamental level. Thought, I thank you for that false accusation. I know this is out of topic, but this slight deduction will be important later for my research. Thanks again.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on August 13, 2011, 06:58:49 pm
Sigh. I've said this a dozen times...

Sorry about that. I saw that you clarified your position and I had thought I had gone back and likewise clarified my remark, but apparently I did not. But as to why you had to clarify your position in the first place:

... makes much sense to Sikhs and Hindus (if only because our minds and reason are shaped based on our language structure).

Us brothers take up arms to protect them...

You were expressing a perspective of a people group, you identified yourself as a member of that people group, and you identified yourself as someone who would take actions that conform to those perspectives.

Again, I apologize for not adjusting my statement appropriately. Hopefully you can see why people thought you were identifying with those views: even if it was not your intent, your phrasing seemed to clearly identify you as holding to them.

However, you will note that I did not say that I had thought I had removed my remark, only that I had thought I clarified it. The reason for this is that even if you do not hold the views which you were expressing, the manner in which you expressed them was still sufficient to justify the points which I was making. Perhaps this was not your intent, but you seemed to be respectful of the sexist perspective and you presented it in such a way as to indicate that you saw something admirable in it. To provide an example:

Each gender has a unique and important role to play towards the society, not necessarily limiting, like two legs keeping us steady.

As I discussed, unique roles are necessarily limiting. That you specifically tried to defend the position by claiming the opposite gives the impression that you support it. Perhaps you meant this as "people at the time would have said..." rather than "this is my own statement," but if so that was not born out in your actual statement. Indeed, your analogy of legs also implies that this situation is desirable (as being unsteady is something that tends to be undesirable). But again, perhaps you meant that this is what others would claim?

Another point that seemed to merit my original discussion is that, in all honesty, proscriptive sexism is something that is quiet enticing to individuals with a romantic senseability. I do hope you are not offended by this statement, but you do seem to be a rather romantic individual. Of everyone here, you are the one who I'd expect who would join in with Edgar Allan Poe as he asks science "Why preyest thou thus upon the poet's heart? ... How should he love thee? or deem thee wise? Who wouldst not leave him in his wandering, To seek for treasure in the jeweled skies". From the character you have displayed previously, you are the one I would expect to try to redeem the very dragon you fight. You are the one who, when you stumble across something old, seems the most likely to try to see worth in it. I do not doubt that you are staunchly against prohibitive sexism (I noted as much in my original post). But as noted, proscriptive sexism is something that is more enticing. It is the old romantic ideal of chivalry and courtly love that seems like it would be enticing to you. And thus, it seemed that establishing how proscriptive behaviors can still lead to sexism would be a useful discussion.

Anyhwho, I am quite apologetic if my post frustrated you. My intent was merely informative.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on August 13, 2011, 10:00:59 pm
Thank you, Thought. Your patience is exemplary. This takes some of the pressure off my own eventual reply to tush, which I also appreciate.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: tushantin on August 13, 2011, 11:48:40 pm
You were expressing a perspective of a people group, you identified yourself as a member of that people group, and you identified yourself as someone who would take actions that conform to those perspectives.

Again, I apologize for not adjusting my statement appropriately. Hopefully you can see why people thought you were identifying with those views: even if it was not your intent, your phrasing seemed to clearly identify you as holding to them.
Yeah, that happens a lot.  :( I don't think like you guys, I think like a hardcore artist. And everything I seem to say gets misinterpreted somehow or the other.

No probs, Thought! It was just a minor misunderstanding. If anything, you sparked a brainstorm in my head.  :D I'll most likely post the idea by Friday (and you guys are bound to hate me for it, though I still don't know why). Still, if I can get some useful input / observations this Friday it should be worth it. The topic pertains to lifeforms (not necessarily human), neurons and their relations to fundamental intelligence, culture, religion, government, structure of belief (and perhaps language / education), feminism / tribalism in general and its nature, etc. Can't wait (provided I can still retain my thoughts until then)! All I ask in return is people to not take sides, not let their prejudice sway them and definitely not accuse people. Thank you.

However, you will note that I did not say that I had thought I had removed my remark, only that I had thought I clarified it. The reason for this is that even if you do not hold the views which you were expressing, the manner in which you expressed them was still sufficient to justify the points which I was making. Perhaps this was not your intent, but you seemed to be respectful of the sexist perspective and you presented it in such a way as to indicate that you saw something admirable in it.
Ah, thank you for asking.  :) Let me clarify my intentions. As I said in the previous post (moments before I got lost in a whirlwind of ideas), these aren't my personal views, but those of a primitive culture (which I must point out, before anyone accuses again, has evolved since then). Of course I saw something admirable in it, and of course I support the tradition brought about by this idea (because it places an anchor from where the idea evolved today)! But I was merely supporting the tradition itself, not the idea, although the idea was at its core when it was formed and thus the necessity to place it before the person who was eager to know about it. But just because you consider a thought does not necessarily make them your thoughts, or views you conform with. An analogy: as a human, ponder accurately that you're a giraffe made to wear a space-suit; now restrain your intelligence (but not your imagination) temporarily to that of the Giraffe's. Only in this case, I felt like I was trying to look from the eyes of a Nazi soldier who swore to make the world a better place for his wife and children, just to observe his mindset, but only to be shot by a soldier of the Allied Nations for ever thinking about the Nazi mindset.

My own views regarding genders are vastly different, and my defense mode was the tradition solely, but not the theory. Thoughts and concepts, no matter how horrible and tribalistic, are my modes of reference to sharpen my own philosophy. I repeat: Just because you consider or support a thought does not mean you conform / abide by it, and does not mean you have similar views; your supporting of a thought can have reasons more than one. In this case, my preservation and defense of the anchor since when culture evolved.


As I discussed, unique roles are necessarily limiting. That you specifically tried to defend the position by claiming the opposite gives the impression that you support it. Perhaps you meant this as "people at the time would have said..." rather than "this is my own statement," but if so that was not born out in your actual statement. Indeed, your analogy of legs also implies that this situation is desirable (as being unsteady is something that tends to be undesirable). But again, perhaps you meant that this is what others would claim?
Yeah, sorry about that. Let me try explaining that (again, note these aren't my views, but what I've learned of the past): Since before the eradication of backward, orthodox traditions, female oppression was widespread in India even until the British era, when segregated kingdoms fell (although I must point that the backward classes were few and far between at that era compared to pre-fall of the Mughals). Two things changed that: 1) during the British Era it was civilized education and re-enforcement of law; 2) before the British era, one that worked effectively was the integration of Hindu culture and social empathy / human rights movements. The latter worked wonders, since in those days religion enforced and encouraged practical knowledge, including science, hunting and arts, and established a moral base.

Now you can agree that before the establishment the orthodox were demons of sexism (what with their female sacrifices, superstitions and shit). You're probably aware of the structure of polytheism in Hinduism, so let's say a neat transition took place; something taken from the orthodox so people's minds could broaden, and something that would eventually evolve into. Let's call this the Transition Era: here women were valued as much as the male and were given equal rights and privileges, and all customs converted, but the bias still remained. The philosophy was the Gurus and Pandits was such:

Each gender has a unique and important role to play towards the society, not necessarily limiting, like two legs keeping us steady.

While this statement may have offended the Compendiumites, let me tell you why I support it. Yes, the roles were the same gendernormative as we discussed, and the Gurus were aware of it, except they thought these role were pre-defined by their ancestors (like Lord/Sage Shiva and Parvati, Sita and Rama, Krishna, etc.; and weirdly enough, they were right about the ancestors, just incorrect about specific characters). But they also added the not limiting factor, because they valued both genders as equals, both equally capable, strong and cunning (their usual reference was of Lord Shiva and Parvati, but there may have been others). But the two legs reference has a much deeper philosophy.

Now let me simplify this philosophy. Males and Females, like Yin and Yang, were two sides of the same coin; two equal parts of a complete being, that one without the other simply cannot be. Each gender is like a leg attached to a body, and both equally important. Undermine any one of those legs, whether left or right, and you're crippled. But respect both and you will go far.


Another point that seemed to merit my original discussion is that,.....
Eh... I don't really know what you mean y that passage, but...

....but you do seem to be a rather romantic individual...

...but you do seem to be a rather romantic individual. Of everyone here, you are the one who I'd expect who would join in with Edgar Allan Poe as he asks science "Why preyest thou thus upon the poet's heart? ... How should he love thee? or deem thee wise? Who wouldst not leave him in his wandering, To seek for treasure in the jeweled skies". From the character you have displayed previously, you are the one I would expect to try to redeem the very dragon you fight. You are the one who, when you stumble across something old, seems the most likely to try to see worth in it.
:| You had me there... *twitch* by about a hundred percent that it's ironic I didn't figure this about myself. When did you exactly predict / deduce this about me?

And don't tell me being romantic is sexist?! :o Hell no, life would be boring without it! BORING I TELL YA!

Marriage Agency: "Okay, you two have been seeking partners. Do you two love each other?"
Man and Woman in unison: "No."
MA: "Good! Because that's sexist, and our government doesn't tolerate that. Please sign this contract here. Done? Good! You may kiss each other and reproduce!"

....*pukes*
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: tushantin on August 14, 2011, 01:22:54 am
Just wanted to point some things out as well:

What if a particular woman likes physical activity very much? She goes out and tries to become a porter, let’s say, but every job turns her down because, hey, everyone knows that the men who applied for the position along with her are physically stronger. Such a culture might allow something to be conceptually possible, but in actual practice that possibility is suppressed.
See, here there's a difference between how a culture might bias a view or what the actual strength requirements are for the job. As you point out the Everyone knows men are stronger you imply the limitations imposed by underdeveloped culture, and in this case it is clearly wrong. However, not going for assumptions, if a woman does apply for being a porter and her strength is tested, given the equality of genders, if she doesn't pass the strength requirement her failure is justified. Merely because she is a woman doesn't grant her special privilege as far as gender equality is concerned, and she would need to cope with the same average labor as her male coworkers, not less or more. But if a woman is physically active as you point out she also has the capability to surpass her male coworkers in strength.

Again, I'm stating from the POV of Gender Equality concept.

It isn't just that one's family might say that women can't be scientists, other scientists say that too. They expect that a woman would want to have a family, would want to take maternity leave, would want to take care of children, and thus expecting women to do some things causes them to preclude them from other things.
In a way, they are actually right (NO, before you guys bash me let me explain!). If you completely disregard the Gender Equality POV it makes sense that majority of women are bound with complex relationships of gendernormative roles as you've described, and most Scientists fear that women in general might be horrible at finishing deadlines or surmounting tedious research when they are constantly distracted with the domestic roles they usually play. Also, they seem to be convinced that women in general are emotional while males are analytic.

No, these aren't my views: this is exactly the kind of ruthless generalization habit I despise, and this kind of generalization gives birth to more forms of tribalism. But putting aside my hatred, let's return to being unbiased and understand the sexist POV in a new light (yes, temporarily wear that sexist lens so you can understand this next paragraph):

If most scientists are convinced that these differences may not be satisfactory to their working habits, and that somehow their sexism is justified, then they forget one factor that equally sexist factor that makes them inferior to feminine race: evolution. Throughout millennia while the males left for hunting, the females gathered for their social, domestic chores in groups to pick berries and fruits for the night. Thousands of years of experience has given them an ability that males lack, such as color recognition, and the ability to pick out toxins from edible substances quicker, which also makes them invaluable to spot elements / chemicals on sight. Also, the scientists worry about their inability to work with deadlines due to gendernormative distractions, but from a truly sexist eyes they forget that generations of practice has given women the ability to manage time much more conveniently than men, also making them the best organizers. In this case, sexist or not, women can be better scientists then men.

Taking off the sexist lens, I can say one thing: merely taking gendernormative roles into account doesn't give them the right to assume a person's character, man or woman. What they forget that even a woman is willing to compromise things just to fly once in the cerulean. They simply haven't tested her dream.

Quote
Now I said that it might be possible, in a hypothetical model, for proscriptive roles for genders to not be sexist. That, though, is just because we can imagine that saying that people can do activity X does not necessitate that such a statement would discourage those people from an unmentioned activity Y. If women were told that they can be scientists, then that inherently dictate that they are also being subtly told that they can't be firefighters, nurses, or housewives. Indeed, it might even be possible for a few individuals to, in actual practice, hold to such an ideal. But, unfortunately, human society inherently does not function in such a way.

See, this is hardly about sexism anymore, but needless complication of language. Yes, I love broad meaning to words, yes, I love reading between the lines, but this shit is ridiculous! I mean, in this case, no matter what you say you're bound to offend/oppress someone or the other. Tell them they're free to be a pilot? And suddenly the possibilities of unsaid words open up, either making them wonder whether they're restricted from being anything else, or simply pondering whether they were some kind of exception to the freedom everyone else has. And when you ask the person again, they'll say, "that's exactly what I mean; you're free to be a pilot if you want, and if you don't want to that's cool too."

There's some inherent flaws in our languages, and I want to fix it. I just don't know where to start...

Quote
A general problem with allowing differences between the sexes influence social expectations is that it is unnecessary...
Ah, that needless complications of language again. And suddenly, that argument long gone of "Be a man" floods into my mind. The problem remains deeply ingrained in the English language itself where genders automatically reprise their roles by default (in the case of "Be a man", it's courage and responsibility). Most feminists would take offense of the statement and ponder the unsaid words, "So what are we, women? Are you undermining the opposite gender?" But all the phrase's unsaid words actually mean is to not be a Rat who runs like a coward and squeaks like a wimp. The phrase may have similar origins to, "What are you, a man of a mouse?"

Again, this is an ancient English phrase I did not invent, where the role of men was assigned to be brave.

Quote
The part that is important to the survival of a culture is what they define as unique and important roles, not which gender those roles are applied to. Would it radically undermine Sikh or Hindu culture to say, "being physically protective and being emotionally stable are two unique and important roles that keep society steady, like two legs"?
Yes it would, because these roles, though gender normative, never pertained to the practices of their daily lives, abilities or inabilities of the genders. But what the roles did imply was the staggering difference in thought-patterns of genders, and the actions they individually provoke. An example of their belief back then was that while males tackled the world and made decisions, women were generally more intuitive and may pick out errors that her husband must have fled. Thus the phrase, "behind every successful man there's a nagging wife" (the nagging bit was a stereotype, but was left in for sexist comic relief; XD it's the women who loved the joke most). The statement also meant that without a beloved wife's support there's a good chance you may not travel as far as you could have (again, the two legs theory).

This was the basis of the idea that women were important (and in many cases "superior") because of the domestic powers they possessed, and functioned in the society with sheer intuition and a variety of knowledge. In some cultures, women were also viewed as Goddesses by their husbands, and their homes as temples. There's a Sikh proverb to thank for which says that they see heaven in the woman's eyes, for in social field they are all knowing. Even mothers were respected, considered to be the all wise, equivalent to "The Creator" or "God" in simple terms.

Argh! There is a far more complex mechanism that worked throughout many cultures here, especially ranging from Punjab, but we've got so friggin many it's hard for me to keep track. But I tell ya, with this kind of respect that every female gets, I doubt this kind of sexism is anything bad.

Okay, now that I got that out of the way, I'll eventually get back to RW too.  :wink:
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on August 14, 2011, 01:26:46 am
Quote
While this statement may have offended the Compendiumites, let me tell you why I support it. Yes, the roles were the same gendernormative as we discussed, and the Gurus were aware of it, except they thought these role were pre-defined by their ancestors (like Lord/Sage Shiva and Parvati, Sita and Rama, Krishna, etc.; and weirdly enough, they were right about the ancestors, just incorrect about specific characters). But they also added the not limiting factor, because they valued both genders as equals, both equally capable, strong and cunning (their usual reference was of Lord Shiva and Parvati, but there may have been others). But the two legs reference has a much deeper philosophy.

Enjoy it while it lasts, for if I come to power, I will utterly annihilate it and institute a system of complete freedom, where people can choose what roles they'd like to play without any prohibitive biology or cultural attitudes at work. Fuck fate.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on August 14, 2011, 01:53:37 am
@Z:
How would you implement your system? You should make a thread for that, to keep this one on-topic and also to give your views more substance. You already know that most people would find your statement unacceptably provocative. How would you accommodate that? What would your methods be?

@tush:
I may not get the chance to reply to all of these posts of yours in full detail; Syna is higher up the list right now as I've been weeks in getting back to her on the issues raised in the Veil thread. For the time being I want to register a complaint I have, which is that by my understanding many of your statements here have been contradictory. You write, for instance, of opposing an "idea" but supporting the "tradition" behind it. In one of your examples, you made an even more ambiguous comparison: "consider or support" versus "conform or abide." The only difference between supporting a practice and abiding by it is physical action--not conceptual acceptance. It seems as though we may have a serious breakdown in communication here, because my impression is that you are against sexism when it causes injustice but in favor of the underlying social institution of sexism...which doesn't make sense. Hence my suspicion that I am not understanding you correctly.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: tushantin on August 14, 2011, 02:58:17 am
Enjoy it while it lasts, for if I come to power, I will utterly annihilate it and institute a system of complete freedom, where people can choose what roles they'd like to play without any prohibitive biology or cultural attitudes at work. Fuck fate.
:lol: Well then, let's see you try. I'm interested in knowing how you're going to get about it. Then again, the question is, if you come to power. Another problem here: your enforcement of your belief onto another person/society, no matter how noble, only makes you a hypocrite because you've often accused of the opposing party to be doing the same: enforcing beliefs that might not be compatible with yours.

This isn't my anger speaking, but base logic. Earlier I apologized because your feminist views were noble and logical. Right now, you're reacting with blind prejudice, regardless of the details in my post. TBH, whatever your Radical Atheistic fanclub is planning, I want no part of it.

For the time being I want to register a complaint I have, which is that by my understanding many of your statements here have been contradictory. You write, for instance, of opposing an "idea" but supporting the "tradition" behind it. In one of your examples, you made an even more ambiguous comparison: "consider or support" versus "conform or abide." The only difference between supporting a practice and abiding by it is physical action--not conceptual acceptance. It seems as though we may have a serious breakdown in communication here, because my impression is that you are against sexism when it causes injustice but in favor of the underlying social institution of sexism...which doesn't make sense. Hence my suspicion that I am not understanding you correctly.
Yeah, I realized that (language barriers), but also because I don't conform with linguistic logic because it is heavily restricting, at least to me (some complex concepts being personal, others which I can't translate over from Hindi / Sindhi). I honestly don't know how to explain that to you, but here's what I can manage, but I'll give you the details this Friday (as I promised Thought):

Okay, what is the definition of Culture? The arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively. Basically culture exists where people do, but it gets a bad name for certain things people simply want to cling on to. The reality, however, is that Culture simply updates with time and delivers new concepts or polishes old laws that stabilize a society. But when a culture clings on to primitive, harmful traditions they are called "Backward Classes", and it is always essential to educate these classes to update themselves with a better society.

Also, it was not just the idea, but the idea back when that persisted on sexist aggression; something I do not support. But certain traditions that they were responsible for creating was something I support, not because they were compatible with my views, not because they enforced something harmful, but as an anchor point to the past reference for study and what those traditions they evolved into, and their philosophy behind it. Again, the tradition didn't bring the idea, it was the other way around. While back then Raksha Bandhan merely signified the bond of protection, today it has a broader meaning to it.

Quote
The only difference between supporting a practice and abiding by it is physical action--not conceptual acceptance.
Of course! Simple support for concept does not equal practicing it in general, but then there is a difference between actual "support" and "consideration". For instance, shift your perception to that of sailor. That's consideration. Feel sympathy towards that sailor while the ship drowns -- that's support. Go back to your initial POV and notice the sailor is actually the enemy and you follow orders to shoot him -- that's abiding / conforming. Go back to the sailor's POV and feel your enemy's pain and regrets that he will never see his children -- supporting.

Quote
...because my impression is that you are against sexism when it causes injustice but in favor of the underlying social institution of sexism
That's... again a misunderstanding here, I don't support the underlying institution, it's merely useful for study. But I do support a proper, updating culture in general. Most of those points I mentioned weren't even supportive but a means to place the cogs that can explain how a wheel turns. What I do support is innocent traditions, whether or not sprung from a sexist era, that play a major role in spreading empathy, social respect, human rights and tolerance.

Did that make sense to you? .... Yeah, me neither. I'll probably get back to you on this by Friday in detail.

Sidenote: BTW, remember the Bear Bile problem? ZeaLitY posted a comment there regarding financial gains for curing illness, and this ticked my mind somewhere, brainstorming concepts. One of those especially might either change the world and stabilize the situation in our world (yes, every problem), or might make for a good Fiction novel. I will detail about it this Friday.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on August 14, 2011, 04:15:12 am
Damn! It seems you're on my bid to take over the world. What horrors would unleash? I hope no one accidentally discovers my Secret Radical Seditious Extremist Blueprint for Optimum Civilization™!

(I hid it at http://www.viruscomix.com/page433.html )
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on August 14, 2011, 04:35:55 am
Ah, that's the one that got me started on Subnormality...
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: tushantin on August 14, 2011, 04:17:36 pm
Holy shit! Is that... Richard Dawkins?! xDDD


Just saw a movie with some friends and family, where we saw a divorce scene and someone commented on how horrible it was. I provided a responded that the choice was rational, and it's better to break up (provided you don't have children) than die everyday in an unhealthy relationship. But a female friend of mine (who joined in halfway) said, "Yes, so what of guys make guys make that stupid mistake? At least a woman should know to forgive and turn the situation."

I jokingly asked her, "Since when did you become sexist all of a sudden?" And she smiled and teased me back, "Since men were dumb. Us women can be better; just because men make stupid mistakes doesn't mean we also have to."

That's when I realized that she was the kind of women who'd grab a knife and make her husband dance to her whims (the theory was confirmed when I met her boyfriend).


If anyone's interested, the movie we were watching was Thank You (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thank_You_(2011_film)), one about infidelity in marriage where it is the women that suffer most.

After the movie, just for the heck of it, we took tests to see who among us was most likely to be disloyal towards our partners (then again, I don't even have a girlfriend), and when my turn came I openly admitted that I can't imagine myself living with just one woman, but if I did have external affairs I wouldn't lie either.

Which is strange, because neither can I bear to see girl's heart break...

What about you folks?


P.S.: That flute music was EPIC!
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Syna on September 05, 2011, 07:19:11 pm
I know I am late to the game, but I wanted to give some serious, serious props to RW for covering how deep, odious, and insidious internalized misogyny can be.

I'm a relatively liberated person, and unlike RW my behavior is very often non-stereotypically-feminine. From a very early age I openly rebelled against gender norms, and in a pretty hostile environment. Telling me I'm unladylike would invite riotous laughter and quite possibly a ruthless and aggressive philosophical vivisection. However, I know exactly what she means when she talks about that little voice, though mine is not that direct. It tends to take the form of powerful self-doubt and sabotage, and things like being deeply pleased when someone describes me as an exception to most women in terms of being intellectual or assertive or something.

I was extremely *proud* when someone told me I was a tomboy as a kid because I denigrated femininity. I dismissed the girls' activities and values because I feared being associated with traits that were inferior and weak. It's a very common tactic among females.

Also, while sexism is certainly a strongly prevailing meme in humanity, some anthropology that covers topics like hunter-gatherer and matrilineal societies will indicate that given the right conditions, alternatives have certainly presented themselves. I don't think we can ignore the fact that sexism has been so prevailing, but I also believe we need to be very cautious about turning directly to psychological explanations.

Women get pregnant. Men are typically stronger. Division of labor along the lines of the most clear and visible differences between people has often made a degree of sense. I don't doubt that there's a psychological component, but I suspect those three facts explain most of sexism.

Quote from: tushantin
If anyone's interested, the movie we were watching was Thank You, one about infidelity in marriage where it is the women that suffer most

Uhh, Tush.. have you read The Iliad? XD

If not, suffice to say, the legend of Helen of Troy is a powerful argument against this statement.

My personal experience would say the same. People react very strongly to a woman who is perceived as unfaithful. That kind of reaction would not occur if males didn't suffer as much -- it's just that historically, they've had more opportunities to be unfaithful. 

Anyway, it's a complex side-topic, but one would hope that as time goes on and we are less wrapped up in sexist tropes, people will begin to embrace non-standard models for pairbonding. Extramarital affairs may be the cause of a lot of awful heartbreak, but many societies have found ways to accommodate non-monogamy in relatively harmless ways.

(By the way, you should read "The Invisible Sex" by J. M. Adovasio. That example you gave of hunter-gatherers is outdated: the reality of hunter-gatherer role division is far more complex.)
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Acacia Sgt on September 06, 2011, 03:18:54 am
Usually I don't like to enter topics like this since it's not my thing and may not be up to the task. However, perhaps I could add my thoughts on the matter anyway, who knows...

I was extremely *proud* when someone told me I was a tomboy as a kid because I denigrated femininity. I dismissed the girls' activities and values because I feared being associated with traits that were inferior and weak. It's a very common tactic among females.  

I've always been in the thought that such views like this one are as sexist as the ones they're accusing of. Just maybe it's not so much the stereotypes themselves but what they are being perceived and applied as. You're basically also jumping into the 'femininity is inferior' bandwagon there. It makes you not much different. It's fine if you wanted to be like that by your choice. But at the same time, it's not fine that you're also adopting that ideology that your actions were suppose to oppose.

If only people would stop thinking of things as stereotypes as a natural bad thing, or accentuate and follow the negative aspects of them, or lining them up into 'this is better' or 'this is worse' or 'it should* be this way or that way', then perhaps things could start to go for the better.

*Key word here, as there is a big difference between 'can' and 'should'.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RealWomenNeverWearDresses (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RealWomenNeverWearDresses)

I don't care if it's TVTropes, it pretty much explains my point better than I at the moment. And I've had this line of thinking even before knowing of the site, so it's not like I gained it from there.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Syna on September 06, 2011, 10:58:59 am
I've always been in the thought that such views like this one are as sexist as the ones they're accusing of. Just maybe it's not so much the stereotypes themselves but what they are being perceived and applied as. You're basically also jumping into the 'femininity is inferior' bandwagon there. It makes you not much different. It's fine if you wanted to be like that by your choice. But at the same time, it's not fine that you're also adopting that ideology that your actions were suppose to oppose.

Right. That was exactly my point. I had a case of internalized misogyny. I was definitely not the sort of person who would ever willingly play house to begin with, but I would have been much more at peace with that if I hadn't been exposed to sexist ideas and, out of anxiety over the fact I didn't particularly fit in any group on the playground, justified the fact I was more interested in male activities by equating femininity with being inferior.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on September 06, 2011, 08:20:12 pm
It's worth reiterating that, while neither sex (nor any trans or intersex) should be barred from social activities or behavioral outlets available to the other, the institution of gender was deliberately built for the "feminine" to be inferior. Gender corrupts females into domestic organs for the bearing and rearing of children, servants for the performance of menial labor, and obedient to their male overseers. Count the doubloons of humanistic social endeavor available under the framework of masculinity, and under that of femininity, and see for yourself the two are not even remotely equal. Were it not for the blindness of societies when it comes to recognizing the importance of rearing children, and the coincidental fact that most domestic activities have the potential to be enjoyable, females would have almost nothing.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: tushantin on September 06, 2011, 08:49:09 pm
Were it not for the blindness of societies when it comes to recognizing the importance of rearing children, and the coincidental fact that most domestic activities have the potential to be enjoyable, females would have almost nothing.
Just a note: you're heavily misinformed. Society isn't really blind to the importance of rearing a child. Problem with feminism is that if the male care for the women, feminists think they're undermining the gender, and when the males ignore women's labor, feminists think they're blind to the importance. It's a frustrating cycle that most... gahh, what's the word... people like to dance around trying to count winning pointless battles to a petty war.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on September 06, 2011, 09:03:43 pm
Just a note: you're heavily misinformed.

No, I am not. You are just particularly stubborn--which I can almost admire because I recognize where that comes from! However, I have very little patience for your selective focus on opposing the proponents of sexual equality, rather than trying to promote sexual equality in your own way. It smells too much like the tactics of sexists.

You have a lot to learn and a lot of personal prides to overcome before you will ever have the opportunity to legitimately tell me that I am heavily misinformed on any matter of sexual equality I undertake to discuss. Approaching me with that kind of a confrontation in the meantime is pointless and self-defeating, not to mention a distraction from your own studies and a burden on whatever time I can afford to spend to correct you.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: tushantin on September 06, 2011, 09:29:30 pm
Just a note: you're heavily misinformed.

No, I am not. You are just particularly stubborn--which I can almost admire because I recognize where that comes from! However, I have very little patience for your selective focus on opposing the proponents of sexual equality, rather than trying to promote sexual equality in your own way. It smells too much like the tactics of sexists.
Sigh. That's the problem with people like you humans: pointless generalization that blinds you from achieving absolute truth. For some reason, if a person points out something wrong in your ideology you immediately assume -- wait, did I say assume? -- I mean, you immediately label the person as an opposition or a foe. I've noticed these patterns emerge in various discussions and arguments, regardless of my points, and even you aren't excluded, Lord J. But here's something interesting to note: these generalizations, especially in mode of arguments, actually end up amplifying tribalism factors by ten-fold, which completely defeats the purpose of ridding yourselves of discrimination.

I digress; right now, I'm not even concerned about offenses by either you or me, nor am I concerned about sexists and feminists. Instead, I worry, and I worry about wretched captivity of thoughts. Of course, not just yours.

Anywhos, back to the topic. If you're so concerned about "smells too much like sexist", then believe me, I speak in the very language you folks do here (not the sexist bit, but the general-and-over moral government and judgement).

Also, my pride or yours? All I stated was an honest, straight-forward response from what I observed. Also, that was neither an invitation to a confrontation nor challenge this time, but a simple opinion on where you're being mislead. If you really want to promote gender equality then fix what's wrong with your reasoning and try again, because I'm all for that promotion.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on September 07, 2011, 01:49:50 am
Tushantin, I could certainly do a better job of interacting with you here. My own impatience is to blame for that. The rest you will have to amend yourself. I take no responsibility for your ignorance on these gravest of matters or the cocksurety with which you adhere to your hearsay. You are in the company of multiple people who have a great deal to offer you, and you in return have much to offer of yourself, and yet you speak absurdly on issues you clearly understand little about, and remain steadfast when confronted with anything other than abject congeniality.

Most people who aren't broken of will act as though they are justified in whatever view they care to hold. Unquestioning, uncritical, self-validation. It's a form of faith. It poisons the cause of our Civilization, which is precisely to escape from that indefensible stronghold of personal infallibility. You speak with such poise at times when you question the nature of the world and wonder what the consequences of your existence and behaviors shall be, yet your alternations between reasonable inquisitiveness and sheer mookery strain my already deficient patience to a place where I honestly can't find the energy to participate in the conversations we ought to be having.

Any underlying valid observations you might be making--and I can potentially see where you are coming from--are lost in the errancy of your positions. Societies do undervalue the importance of education. If they did not, we would not be where we are. Feminists are not the garbage you paint them out to be. I don't pluck these observations out of the air. I have learned them. While I don't expect you to take me at my word, I know for myself the difference between most valid and invalid comments on subjects like these. I don't engage on subjects I don't understand very well, and I am telling you that you have an awful lot to learn and will benefit immensely from giving up your flippant disregard of good ideas simply because they do not fit your preexisting beliefs. Persist, and you lose your relevance as an agent of progress. You want to be treated like a schmott guy, you gotta earn it.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: tushantin on September 07, 2011, 08:16:15 am
Meh, your response was predictable. Anywhos, here goes:

Tushantin, I could certainly do a better job of interacting with you here. My own impatience is to blame for that. The rest you will have to amend yourself. I take no responsibility for your ignorance on these gravest of matters or the cocksurety with which you adhere to your hearsay. You are in the company of multiple people who have a great deal to offer you, and you in return have much to offer of yourself, and yet you speak absurdly on issues you clearly understand little about, and remain steadfast when confronted with anything other than abject congeniality.
There is a lot of insights you folks offer, and I read them frequently. But that "I take no responsibility for your ignorance" statement itself laughable, because I never asked for your support. To top it, you let your "black or white" bias creep into almost every important discussion which simply ruins the potential of perfecting ideas you staunchly support. My point for the initial statement -- and as a brother, no less -- was that if you're a feminist then find flaws in your reasoning and fix them to keep them headstrong instead of ignore them and go about accusing the fleeting wind. The statement you're trying to defend is laughably superficial.

Most people who aren't broken of will act as though they are justified in whatever view they care to hold. Unquestioning, uncritical, self-validation. It's a form of faith. It poisons the cause of our Civilization, which is precisely to escape from that indefensible stronghold of personal infallibility.
Seriously, man. You ought to take your own advise from time to time.  :? You often told me to take criticism as an opportunity to refine my own thoughts, and I have often, but I certainly don't see you doing it; can't believe a simple, open opinion got you worked up so much. So much that I feel the necessity to throw the word hypocrite at you.

You speak with such poise at times when you question the nature of the world and wonder what the consequences of your existence and behaviors shall be, yet your alternations between reasonable inquisitiveness and sheer mookery strain my already deficient patience to a place where I honestly can't find the energy to participate in the conversations we ought to be having.
Yeah, I'm a mook (trying to become a Super-Mook). And so are you. And so is everybody here. And so are the people governing us. Ah, fine, if you think my participation ticks you off, so be it. Apparently, you're not in the right frame of mind to interpret my initial positive opinion or even consider it; very well, I'll cease from replying to crucial topics.

...are lost in the errancy of your positions.
Errancy. *twitches* Errancy.

Feminists are not the garbage you paint them out to be.
My intention wasn't to paint Feminists as garbage (I could have clarified that initially, but I'm trying to keep the phase of language that you people are familiar with); TBH I support them, and often participate in rallies that help cultural evolution that give genders equal rights. But alas, you wouldn't see what I mean, because: remember what I said about the inability to see beyond Black or White? Even you aren't excluded to the rule.

I don't pluck these observations out of the air. I have learned them. While I don't expect you to take me at my word, I know for myself the difference between most valid and invalid comments on subjects like these.
(Falls over laughing)

...I am telling you that you have an awful lot to learn and will benefit immensely from giving up your flippant disregard of good ideas simply because they do not fit your preexisting beliefs. Persist, and you lose your relevance as an agent of progress. You want to be treated like a schmott guy, you gotta earn it.
Firstly, I ask you: who are you to judge what I believe or what I want to be treated like? Can you elaborate on what I actually believe? If so, I'm waiting.

Secondly, I realize I have a lot to learn. Thirdly, I don't disregard good ideas (I'm not such a mook), rather I find flaws in it simply to transform them into better ideas, and that helps me progress faster than an ordinary fellow -- I don't settle with things that just sound good on paper; that's a philosophy I borrowed from a friend, an artist from the Compendium and took it to a whole new level. But your persistent beliefs seem to cloud you from your judgement, trying to paint the opposition in a color and yourself as free of bounds -- that kind of delusion will always drag you back from proper civil, empathetic progress.

Anywhos, as I promised, I'll stay away from discussions like this. Sorry for wasting your time; you're on your own, Josh.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on September 07, 2011, 03:23:31 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation

The answers to some questions are most certainly black or white.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on September 07, 2011, 05:33:41 pm
Responding to one of your old posts, Tush, was on my list of things to do, but it seems that perhaps I should bump up its priority.

But just because you consider a thought does not necessarily make them your thoughts, or views you conform with.

First, yeah, this Thought belong to someone else, so nyah :P

Second, joking aside, if you can think a thought, then can adopt the behaviors that the thought promotes. Thinking about it, then, opens up a potential decision point. Even if you think about an important a hundred times and each time continue to come down on the proper side, others would be remiss if they did not offer arguments and exhortations to encourage that again the right path is chosen. Even if nothing else, it provides information for a potential third party who is not engaged in the processes but who is viewing.

However, to be clear, being able to understand a different thought pattern and world view than your own is a critical ability to have. Being unable to do so dooms a person to ultimate irrelevance: if one can't understand the actual reasons that others have for their differing world views, if you can't understand how these might be persuasive, then you can't convince them otherwise. On one hand, it is dangerous to be able to understand the allure of an idea because, when walking among so many thoughts, there are more opportunities to fall into one. However, the individual who can move around thoughts with ease is also at an advantage because they are less likely to be consumed by whichever one they happen to stumble upon.

Now let me simplify this philosophy. Males and Females, like Yin and Yang, were two sides of the same coin; two equal parts of a complete being, that one without the other simply cannot be. Each gender is like a leg attached to a body, and both equally important. Undermine any one of those legs, whether left or right, and you're crippled. But respect both and you will go far.

While I find such a perspective appealing, it is inherently dangerous. It separates males and females into different conceptual categories, although it offers the panacea that they are still related. On a rational level, this makes a degree of sense since there are physiological differences between them. However, the first step towards oppression is alienation. You might be able to legitimately hold this perspective without it degenerating into oppression, but humanity at large has shown that it cannot: separate but equal is not a stable state.

:| You had me there... *twitch* by about a hundred percent that it's ironic I didn't figure this about myself. When did you exactly predict / deduce this about me?

And don't tell me being romantic is sexist?!

Sorry, I should have been more careful: I meant to say that you are a Romantic (you might be a romantic too, but these are different concepts). That is, you ascribe to Romanticism: despite Z's focus on the Springtime of Youth, you hold to passion and emotion more than he does, at least in your postings here. Similarly, just judging from our postings, you the same would be true if I compared you to Josh, RD, RW, Saj, myself, or anyone else that I can think of off the top of my head. It would be too far to say that you wish mystery to remain in the world, but I think it would be fair to say that you like the mystique in the world.

Now Romanticism isn't itself necessarily sexist, but many dangerous concepts have an air of Romanticism about them. It is both Romantic and romantic to say that males and female complement each other and that together they are more than the sum of the individual parts. Sounds very lovely, doesn't it? Ah, but the logical extension of that, then, is that males and males and female and female wont complement each other the same way: eggs and cheese complement each other nicely when put together into an omelet, but eggs and eggs don't make the same thing, nor does cheese and cheese. Heterosexual couples are thus held as the superior combination, which in turn makes homosexual couples the inferior one. And hey, returning to the omelet analogy, you still have a meal if all you have is an egg, so does that mean eggs are superior to cheeses? Each ingredient has its own properties and it is so easy to start evaluating those properties.

I do not in the least think that you were trying to make a disparaging analogy about homosexuals, but these are the shadows that flutter around such thoughts, just outside the field of vision. Certainly you can understand that, when you approach the edge of this cliff to look down into the abyss, others will cry out "don't fall off!" Or, in some cases case, "only mooks approach the cliff!"
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on September 09, 2011, 08:54:59 pm
r/feminisms/ is eating itself right now because some of the moderators are removing trans-related articles on the basis that they're bashing transphobic radical feminists. (Historically, second wave radical feminists believed gender was a 100% social construction, and felt transwomen were not "real" women; transitioning and gender identity has since been totally proven by science.)  /transgender/ is understandably pissed as hell. I'm completely against removing the articles, but I had to channel my imperious scientific positivism into something more palatable for the inclusiveness and diplomacy that movements require. I thought I'd share my argument here:

I vote in favor of not removing trans posts at all, for these reasons:

A New Paradigm: Inclusiveness is important to the movement, so that it can act as a coherent, politically powerful force. It's also important to avoid dehumanization. I understand the need to be diplomatic and involve others, such as women who may culturally endorse female circumcision (or who have different religious beliefs), or radical feminists who may be transphobic. But there is also value in building new paradigms and being progressive, as to not make the movement simply a consensus of tradition. This should include embracing truth and scientific discovery, and seeking to minimize bigotry within the group.

A Proven Scientific Phenomenon: Transitioning falls squarely under scientific truth and a subject of intragroup bigotry. It is an accepted biological phenomenon of differing brain and gender morphology. It's much like homosexuality. While it's still inviting trouble to be so openly intolerant of religion, transphobia should absolutely not be tolerated. Its proven science puts transphobics in the same lot as religious fundamentalists who claim being gay is a choice. I've read that most of these phobics are Second Wavers who still cling to the disproven idea that gender is a 100% social construction. While it may be anywhere from 98% to 99% of a social construction, that transitioning 1% has, at the very least, been claimed and demonstrated to be biologically true.

Oppression Olympics: I find the concept that transwomen still enjoy privilege or haven't suffered the full oppression of the female condition to be laughable. Transpeople are virtually the most marginalized and hated on earth, and a savagely frequent subject of hate crimes. Transwomen surrender their male privilege and must deal with patriarchy, and then must further deal with transphobia and even accusations that they aren't real women by feminists.

For these reasons, I would like /feminisms/ to represent progress in the movement and a forward-pulling influence. We should promote scientific truth and reduce bigotry. There is a point at which voices and opinions become completely illegitimate and without basis—it's akin to the definition of "hate speech" and the need for laws curtailing it. Given the scientific truth of transitioning and the undisputedly real, true phenomena of gender identities for transpeople, I think transphobia is certainly in that category.

Quote
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on September 09, 2011, 09:14:55 pm
Trans issues and sexual equality issues are mostly unrelated, but it's inappropriate and unproductive for a handful of purists to play such an exclusionary game.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on September 09, 2011, 11:40:45 pm
http://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2011/09/06/who-are-the-males-who-sneak-into-michigan-womens-music-festival/

Seems this is the other side of the story; trigger for transphobia. My prior argument still stands, but I'm saddened by the stupid quagmire that exists here.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on September 10, 2011, 02:58:08 am
My biggest complaint with all legitimate activist movements is that many within them tend to take themselves too seriously, adopt an exclusionary mindset, and place themselves in unwinnable social positions where somebody is inevitably getting hurt. (Coming from me that may sound rich, but if I seem that way it nevertheless is primarily and sometimes exclusively the observer's error, as my conflict lines tend to be very matter-of-fact when I'm engaged in real activism.) The result is that one must treat extremely carefully in activist circles. Otherwise it's "privilege" this and "insensitive" that...

So friggin' beneath people to be the way they are, so often. The weak strive to be weaker...
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: tushantin on September 10, 2011, 03:36:47 am
@ZeaLitY: Hate to break it to you but being gay is a personal/social choice, but so is falling in love (even though you feel your heart randomly picks your partner for you). Regardless, there's a whole bunch of stuff that influences decisions, including hormones and altering physical structure, so your point stands.

So yes, you have my vote. As much as I feel uncomfortable supporting transgenders and homosexuals (RL incident, trust me, but I mean no disrespect) I'm also in favor of not removing trans posts. I also vote for cessation of hostilities and oppression towards transgenders and homosexuals.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: tushantin on September 10, 2011, 07:18:45 am
Saj, I won't debate on this and I admit your point is valid, but you misinterpret what I mean here. So let try to bring some clarity:

Hate to break it to you, but that is not a valid reason for being uncomfortable supporting homosexuals or trans* people.
First of all, though emotions pertain to "choice" they often disregard reason, and if someone's sexuality directly results in another's emotional disturbance then, naturally, one would feel uncomfortable with them as whole (well, usually anyway). But I never said I hated them, because I realize that the community doesn't deserve the consequences brought about by an individual's decision. They are not to blame for my discomfort; the problem is mine solely.

To not support an entire community based on the actions of a few is highly illogical and it IS disrespectful.
Exactly. If you read my previous post carefully then you'd know that despite my discomfort I support the community and their rights, and am against the codes that oppress them.

Remember, I am one that never discriminates on general classes (which is why I often include words like "A lot of realists do this" instead of "realists do this" to indicate flawed individuals taking roots from something rather than the roots themselves being flawed), and my philosophy is strictly against it, especially because generalization and tribalistic attitude brings out moral corruption and introduces grander levels, such as racism and sexism.

It's been rough lately, lots of flashbacks, heart-issues, etc.  I don't think that's a cop-out, I am just very tired lately and do not really have the energy to debate. I just felt I needed to bring the above two points to light.
:(

I'm not so sure what to say to that, but I pray you're taking care of yourself or at least Dee's taking care of you. Here's sincerely hoping you recover soon, regardless if it seems like a fleeting dream with no logical grounds, but whatever it takes to help you get healthier and livelier.

And trust me, I'll make sure to not fall into the very flaws I fear.  :) This Tushant won't be an asshole to anyone who doesn't deserve it, and I promise you that.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Sajainta on September 10, 2011, 08:20:34 am
That makes more sense.  Thank you for clarifying.  And you calling my boyfriend Dee made me smile.  ^_^

I'm still curious as to why you think homosexuality is a personal / social choice.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: tushantin on September 11, 2011, 07:41:11 am
O_O"

*panics, looks around for refuge*

*hides behind a pillar* MERCY!!
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Syna on September 12, 2011, 05:41:46 pm
Quote from: Lord J Esq
Count the doubloons of humanistic social endeavor available under the framework of masculinity, and under that of femininity, and see for yourself the two are not even remotely equal.

Hmm. Having recently read a compelling case for families that maintain a home economy - based on economics and issues regarding sustainability and the environment - I'm not *quite* sure I agree, but a) my opinions are only just forming and b) I have a suspicion that I'm missing an underlying premise. I'll describe my initial response and see if that contributes anything to the conversation.

While there's certainly much less of a variety of endeavors historically available to females, homemaking and child-rearing seem like entirely noble activities for either sex, particularly when paired with a sense of civicmindedness. Though you couldn't overstate my problems with suburban Christian culture if you tried, in the end my mom's ideal life is something I can distantly admire: she wanted to raise her kids well and in a safe environment, maintain a thriving home economy, and be an active and charitable participant in her community. From what I can tell, this is a fairly traditional ideal; most of the conservative women I've been acquainted with endorse it.

So although I absolutely agree that gender was built to saddle females with the "inferior" occupations, I don't think those occupations are actually inferior -- in ideal circumstances, anyway. (I am rather skeptical that a career as a suburban housewife is helping humanity in any significant sense, lol.) Or, hmm, are you referring to something else?

Quote from: Lord J Esq
Trans issues and sexual equality issues are mostly unrelated, but it's inappropriate and unproductive for a handful of purists to play such an exclusionary game.

That's my feeling on the matter. What can you possibly gain by excluding transwomen from feminist events and women-only spaces? Transwomen did grow up with male privilege, and in this there is a significant difference between transwomen and ciswomen; but I'm hard pressed to see how this difference could result in any justification to prevent transpeople from participating in anything. I'm sure some transwomen are misogynistic, but the problem there is... well... you have a misogynist individual on your hands. God knows ciswomen can be misogynistic too. Kick them out on the street and move on!

Quote from: tushantin
Hate to break it to you but being gay is a personal/social choice, but so is falling in love (even though you feel your heart randomly picks your partner for you).

I'd like to hear you describe what "choice" is, tush. I know you study psychology. If you have the time, describe how you've come to conceptualize it, and how you arrived at the counterintuitive conclusion that events like discovering you're gay or falling in love are the result of a choice. (Maybe it's more like "countercultural" than "counterintuitive", but you see what I'm getting at.)

Because I know the stories of a number of gay people quite intimately, and I don't think it could be rightfully said that any of them made a choice as we colloquially understand the word. I do know for a fact that some gays have made a choice, as we understand it -- or a choice to act on potentialities, more accurately -- but I don't believe that's common. I particularly don't believe that's common with transpeople. But perhaps you have a more creative interpretation of what choice constitutes.  
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on October 06, 2011, 05:58:04 pm
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2011-10-ultrasounds-worsen-asia-women-shortage.html

Quote
Parents knowing the sex of their foetus has left Asia short of 117 million women, mostly in China & India, according to a UN report out today.

That figure used to be 40 million. Fucking asshole patriarchal societies. I hope they enjoy having a bunch of sexually frustrated, dateless men on the loose! I hear that does wonders for civilization.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: tushantin on October 06, 2011, 06:43:14 pm
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2011-10-ultrasounds-worsen-asia-women-shortage.html

Quote
Parents knowing the sex of their foetus has left Asia short of 117 million women, mostly in China & India, according to a UN report out today.

That figure used to be 40 million. Fucking asshole patriarchal societies. I hope they enjoy having a bunch of sexually frustrated, dateless men on the loose! I hear that does wonders for civilization.
Yeah. Dunno about China, but I worry about Rajasthan. Ain't no proper education there, and even if there is the biggest "fear" for families is dowry that actually leads to such horrors. When it comes to marriages, the Groom's side of the families demand impossible fortune, and it's crazy! Crazy, I tell ya!  :o

"Which one doc? A girl? OH GOD, WHY DO YOU DO THIS TO US?! A girl will be a burden, and at marriage... they groom's side will eat us alive! Girls are always a curse!"

 :picardno Insanity, I tell ya...
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on October 06, 2011, 07:13:47 pm
Quote
Parents knowing the sex of their foetus has left Asia short of 117 million women, mostly in China & India, according to a UN report out today.

That figure used to be 40 million. Fucking asshole patriarchal societies. I hope they enjoy having a bunch of sexually frustrated, dateless men on the loose! I hear that does wonders for civilization.

It's one form of the ultimate expression of sexism, and all the uglier because it subverts female reproductive rights--twists them, rather than revoking them completely as we are wont to do here.

Were it not for sexism, people could plan the sex of their children as a broader part of family planning based on other preferences, and it would work out by population size that there'd still be roughly 50 percent of each sex, including trans babies. But with sexism, it's very difficult to perceive the value of sex selection in a child amid the horrors of a society's writhing attempt to exterminate females.

China is going to change because that country is evolving culturally to a more sane place--although it will remain behind Western standards for the foreseeable future. India, I'm less optimistic about.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: alfadorredux on October 06, 2011, 07:28:20 pm
Still, it doesn't take a genius to see that shortage of females = shortage of grandchildren. I agree that this is ugly, but the ratios have to swing back in the next generation, or these countries are going to be depopulated big-time.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on October 06, 2011, 07:33:52 pm
No they're not. Rather, they're not going to be depopulated because of gynocide. China and India are both growing in population at dangerous, unsustainable rates. (The danger stems from their absolute size.)

China, at least, is finally leveling off. "One child" didn't work...but industrialization is working.

Here are the population curves. (http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=l&strail=false&nselm=h&met_y=sp_pop_totl&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:CHN:IND:USA&ifdim=country&tstart=-291495600000&tend=1286341200000&hl=en&dl=en&uniSize=0.035&iconSize=0.5&icfg)

Edited for clarity.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: alfadorredux on October 06, 2011, 07:58:19 pm
I acknowledge that those countries' populations are still growing right now, but I suspect it's going to take decades more for the consequences of the situation to play out completely. (And I also agree that industrialization--or increasing the standard of living in general--seems to be the most effective way of decreasing birth rates.)
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on October 06, 2011, 08:03:18 pm
You're assuming that this hasn't already been underway for decades, which it has. You're also neglecting to consider that the populations of those countries--especially India--skew very young and wouldn't take a generation to manifest a gynocidal population falloff.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on October 09, 2011, 05:04:51 am
Male privilege, as I understand it, exists only in the negative. It's not that males are privileged, per se. It's that females are anti-privileged. Here's a very good illustration

http://www.sinfest.net/comikaze/comics/2011-10-09.gif
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Mr Bekkler on October 09, 2011, 02:04:45 pm
Male privilege, as I understand it, exists only in the negative. It's not that males are privileged, per se. It's that females are anti-privileged. Here's a very good illustration

http://www.sinfest.net/comikaze/comics/2011-10-09.gif
That WAS good.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on October 10, 2011, 10:25:37 pm
Dr. Pepper Ten (http://www.latimes.com/health/boostershots/la-heb-dr-pepper-diet-ten-diet-soda-men-20111010,0,4510187.story)

"It's not for women."

The article mentions that part of this male-focused advertising campaign involves a Facebook page with apps that female users can't play or see, involving shooting things like high heels and lipstick.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Syna on October 10, 2011, 11:54:41 pm
The classic definition of "be a man." Sigh.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on October 11, 2011, 12:20:16 am
Let's build a new Panama canal, and use the marketing team who developed that as slave labor.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on October 24, 2011, 03:17:32 am
http://xal.li/eri/?p=697

What an ugly post. It completely misses the point of why abortion should be fully legal and accessible. It's not a "horrible procedure," any more than having a dentist drill into your tooth to fix a cavity is a horrible procedure. It's a procedure with a very specific objective in mind, and if you need or want that objective for yourself--specifically, if you want to not be pregnant and eventually give birth to a child for which you will be responsible--then abortion is the only ethical choice. It's also the only ethical choice in a variety of other scenarios too numerous to list concisely here. Yet the author of that disgusting piece says "I’d get rid of the bulk of abortions, if I could..."

That's the kind of thinking that ruins the lives of adults and children alike, and it gives fodder to the Jesus freaks on the right who want to fully outlaw abortion. How absolutely despicable. But what I really hate is how many "pro-choice" people take that view. The conservatives have dominated this issue so thoroughly that many people who stand for choice don't really. I don't share company with people who exult in that kind of ignorance.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on November 06, 2011, 09:08:21 pm
"A Woman's Opinion Is the Miniskirt of the Internet" (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/laurie-penny-a-womans-opinion-is-the-miniskirt-of-the-internet-6256946.html)

I can attest to the severity and ubiquity of this problem of misogyny. I encounter it on most news and political websites. My only response is that we will have to criminalize this behavior to curtail it, as the large cultural growth needed to solve the problem organically cannot presently proceed without structural support.

I would be prepared to go so far as to support a federal constitutional amendment defining a new limit on free speech, together with a significant legal deterrent of fines, loss of status, and if necessary even jail time, along with a robust rehabilitative effort. For the nucleus of people who don't just do this to harass, but really mean it, I support capital punishment as the next step if rehabilitative efforts prove unsuccessful. It may not seem so, but I don't support the death penalty for much. This is one.

Among many other side effects of this misogyny, is a significant conversion rate of white females to Islam (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/women--islam-the-rise-and-rise-of-the-convert-6258015.html). Poor fools, driven to madness by a society that offers them nothing better than the lunacy of modern Earth's most dangerous religion.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: tushantin on November 07, 2011, 05:02:51 am
Yes, that is a problem. But Josh, criminalizing the behavior is hardly progress -- they did it in my neck of the woods several years back, mostly culturally, and it wasn't pretty. It only tilts the balance in the favor of females, especially those who intend to use it for selfish causes than social equality. If we're striving for equality then "criminalizing" misogyny would only promote abuse of the legal system. No, there has to be a better way.

Before you accuse me outright, as with your attitude towards anyone who disagrees with you, allow me to point that I'm against misogyny as much as you. I have the same goals. Finding the "right" method is what matters.

P.S.: British "Muslim" women. o_o" Never thought I'd see that day.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on November 07, 2011, 06:15:03 am
Yes, that is a problem. But Josh, criminalizing the behavior is hardly progress -- they did it in my neck of the woods several years back, mostly culturally, and it wasn't pretty. It only tilts the balance in the favor of females, especially those who intend to use it for selfish causes than social equality.

You either aren't aware or don't care that some of the things you say are way, way outside the realm of what is acceptable.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: tushantin on November 07, 2011, 06:17:54 am
Yes, that is a problem. But Josh, criminalizing the behavior is hardly progress -- they did it in my neck of the woods several years back, mostly culturally, and it wasn't pretty. It only tilts the balance in the favor of females, especially those who intend to use it for selfish causes than social equality.

You either aren't aware or don't care that some of the things you say are way, way outside the realm of what is acceptable.
You are either unaware or simply don't care of either the consequences of what you propose or the intentions behind those who disagree with you. About disagreeing with you, read the second passage of my previous post.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on November 07, 2011, 06:25:17 am
Every time you show up, it's either to kiss up to someone or to inadvertently make a fool out of yourself with preposterous assertions of whose ramifications you have no grasp. You may claim to be against sexism, but with your level of ignorance you are no more against it than a proton could be, because you honestly have no clue.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: tushantin on November 07, 2011, 06:52:45 am
Every time you show up, it's either to kiss up to someone or to inadvertently make a fool out of yourself with preposterous assertions of whose ramifications you have no grasp. You may claim to be against sexism, but with your level of ignorance you are no more against it than a proton could be, because you honestly have no clue.
And everytime you respond it's out of sheer frustration, intolerance, or simply ignorance and immature behavior towards those who simply want to have a good, intelligent conversation.

Want an example of your immaturity? That "criminalizing misogyny" you talked about, yeah out of noble intentions, but they have a term for that. It's called "Knee-Jerk Law" theory. It's when you see something wrong happening and scream "We need to have a law against that" like a child, without fully understanding the consequences of either your statement or if such a proposal is even acted upon without careful consideration. Chill, Josh, you're letting your emotions run wild, because in this case it's you who's making a fool of yourself.

Also, pardon me for responding to you respectfully in my previous posts. I've forgotten that I don't respect you at all.

And by the way, what do you mean by "kiss up to someone"? Are you telling me that people don't deserve praises for their deeds or words? You may not be worthy of such praise, but that doesn't mean no one else is.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on November 07, 2011, 07:26:14 am
Do you really think that I don't know what I am talking about on this particular issue? I mean, even if I can assume you do think you know what you are talking about...do you actually possess what it takes to think that I have no ground to stand on?

Honest question.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on November 07, 2011, 09:10:18 am
Putting aside tushantin, I just read a (year-old) essay about the sexism problem with the story of Metroid: Other M (http://moonbase.rydia.net/mental/blog/gaming/metroid-other-m-the-elephant/article.html).

I haven't played Other M, so this essay was a very disappointing read. It's a good essay, though, and important to read. Most people aren't nearly aware of abusive relationship dynamics as they ought to be.

The essay's one flaw is that there's a point where the author writes "Sexist is a loaded word, and one used inappropriately far too often," which I expect is a bet-hedge written by an author concerned with charges of being "too feminist" or some such baloney. As a friend defiantly noted, "sexist" is a word that is inappropriately not used nearly as often as it should be.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: tushantin on November 07, 2011, 11:01:45 am
Do you really think that I don't know what I am talking about on this particular issue? I mean, even if I can assume you do think you know what you are talking about...do you actually possess what it takes to think that I have no ground to stand on?

Honest question.
A lot of people ask "Honest Questions", Josh, but are almost never prepared for a truthful answer. So here's my honest question to you: Can you handle it?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on November 07, 2011, 04:36:30 pm
J, if I could steal your attention from tushantin for a bit, I want to challenge you on something.

Quote from: Lord J
For the nucleus of people who don't just do this to harass, but really mean it, I support capital punishment as the next step if rehabilitative efforts prove unsuccessful. It may not seem so, but I don't support the death penalty for much. This is one.

I can't tell if you're indulging in Zealitarian hyperbole here, but if not, how do you advocate putting people to death for holding an opinion as opposed to people who murder, rape, or violently assault others? How do you say that the latter, with all of the consequences thereof, don't deserve this punishment but that the former does? Can you really say that being a sexist is worse than being a violent criminal? And if so, how on earth do you justify that?

To avoid being a "concern troll," I'll be blunt with my intentions: Not only do I disagree with what you've said, I think it's so reckless and out-of-this-world that you've either lost your damn mind or you've got some really good explanation for it.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on November 07, 2011, 04:53:47 pm
http://xal.li/eri/?p=697

What an ugly post. It completely misses the point of why abortion should be fully legal and accessible.

Josh, in reading that article, your own post seems to be utterly indefensible. While the author doesn't directly discuss why abortion should be fully legal and accessible, that is not the topic of the article. It is notable that despite not addressing it directly, the author still clearly understands those reasons and supports them. This can be gathered from the rest of his sentence, which you took out of context, and the rest of the article: that the author would eliminate abortion by eliminating the need for abortions, not the procedure itself.

This is, in short, an argument for preventative care.

The author is urging anti-abortion groups to spend their time and efforts promoting contraceptive use and research, combating rape and other sex crimes, and in being caring and supportive rather than judgmental and hateful. In general, the author is urging those who oppose abortion to do their damnedest to make our world on in which no woman gets an abortion for the simple reason that no woman would ever get pregnant without wanting to be pregnant, that no woman woman who wanted to be pregnant would ever find herself lacking family and social support, and that no pregnancy would have complications that would commend the procedure.

From the article, there seems to be nothing particularly different between the author's stance and, say, someone saying that they would get rid of heart surgery by eliminating the causes of heart disease.

Please, do explain your disagreement with the article. As it is, it seems that you are holding that even if society could be changed so that no woman was ever raped, you would oppose that change just so that abortions could still be performed. From what I know of your character, however, it is unimaginable that you would hold such a position. Thus, again my request: please do explain.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on November 07, 2011, 07:39:44 pm
J, if I could steal your attention from tushantin for a bit, I want to challenge you on something.

Quote from: Lord J
For the nucleus of people who don't just do this to harass, but really mean it, I support capital punishment as the next step if rehabilitative efforts prove unsuccessful. It may not seem so, but I don't support the death penalty for much. This is one.

I can't tell if you're indulging in Zealitarian hyperbole here, but if not, how do you advocate putting people to death for holding an opinion as opposed to people who murder, rape, or violently assault others? How do you say that the latter, with all of the consequences thereof, don't deserve this punishment but that the former does? Can you really say that being a sexist is worse than being a violent criminal? And if so, how on earth do you justify that?

To understand any support for the death penalty, you need to understand the road that travels there. I assume you read the "A Woman’s Opinion Is the Miniskirt of the Internet" (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/laurie-penny-a-womans-opinion-is-the-miniskirt-of-the-internet-6256946.html), but if not then go back and read it now. What the columnist is writing about is a pervasive culture on the Internet where female contributors to the public dialogue are routinely insulted, professionally and personally, and threatened with just about everything you can think of, including rape and death.

The reality of this harassment is not something I intend to debate. Everyone who spends time on the Internet reading the words of other members of the public knows that this problem exists. They may not all think of it as a “problem,” or realize it is pervasive, but you have to at least acknowledge that this is a real problem and not something made up by, say, feminists or liberals. If you don’t acknowledge that, then we are at the end of the discussion.

The consequences of this harassment are fourfold. First, it stifles female cultural participation essentially everywhere it is allowed to continue. Second, it reinforces a very ugly sexist dynamic between males and females, with males affirmed in writing horrible things to females, and females resigned to accept it for lack of support to do otherwise. Third, it contributes to a culture of actual physical harassment, abuse, and worse. Fourth, it deprives females of power by inclining large segments of both sexes to dismiss female power (or, more properly, power held by females) as illegitimate.

You probably don’t understand, given your background, the extent of loss and waste created by a sexist climate. But you only need to reflect upon the pages of this very Fuck Sexism thread to have a taste of it. Or you need only stop and appreciate that (in all probability) females are seriously underrepresented on your favorite parts of the Internet. I don’t say that you “probably don’t understand” to demean you, but to describe you. Most people honestly don’t understand this, or are only vaguely aware of it. You come from a conservative Christian background which is at the heart of promoting such ignorance, and it will take you a generous period of dedicated effort to appreciate it for yourself.

On the Compendium, we don’t tolerate sexism. Far from having to ban people, the problem doesn’t come up very often—or, perhaps more accurately, sexism is not an accepted facet of our community. I think we owe this not to some upstanding quality in the character of all Chrono series fans, but to our community intolerance. I think the people who would otherwise write sexist comments see that the culture here doesn’t permit it, and keep their mouths shut. Most of those probably lose interest and leave the site. We are somewhat unusual here because of our anti-sexist policy and, more importantly, our community enforcement of it. These days a number of Compendiumtes contribute to that shield of egalitarianism, but I remember when it was just me, and I suppose my most important legacy to this website is that I am the main personality behind it. Females are underrepresented on the Compendium, but those who come are not going to be pushed away by a climate of comments telling them that their only value here is to be a sex object or GTFO.

When it comes to sites like this, most have a sexist atmosphere except for those which are led by females and/or feminists, or those which have a small, close-knit community consisting of prominent females and/or feminists. What if you were a female and your experiences on a website consisted of a steady stream of denigration? What desire would you have, and what hope, that your thoughts should come to reside in the minds of others by participating in conversation and making points therein? Your participation in the community may well be irrelevant, because you would have been judged worthless. Don’t say that it doesn’t happen, or that I am exaggerating it. It happens every single day, all over.

Shutting people out of society, or making them suffer if they want to participate, and dismissing the value of their participation if they go ahead with it, all on account of something as irrelevant as sex, is a serious crime. It’s not a crime under the law, yet, but it is one of the grosser ethical failures of any society which permits or embraces it. It is an ethical failure in two ways. First, it is a logical fallacy to treat people differently on the basis of a trait that doesn’t pertain to the effects of the different treatment. (Example: “The student who has the most freckles will fail the class!”) Second, the behaviors which follow from that fallacy are destructive. (Example: “A woman who speaks out on the Internet is asking to be raped.”)

Combine destruction with fallacy and what do you get? You get gross ethical failure.

If there is a clear and persistent injustice, as necessarily implied by any gross ethical failure, then we arrive at the point where I can propose controlling the injustice by criminalizing behavior. You latched right onto my support of the death penalty, but we’re not nearly there yet. Let me repeat what I wrote earlier:

Quote from: Lord J Esq
I would be prepared to go so far as to support a federal constitutional amendment defining a new limit on free speech, together with a significant legal deterrent of fines, loss of status, and if necessary even jail time, along with a robust rehabilitative effort. For the nucleus of people who don't just do this to harass, but really mean it, I support capital punishment as the next step if rehabilitative efforts prove unsuccessful.

I am fascinated that you latched onto the death penalty part, when for me the much more radical statement was that I would be prepared to support a federal constitutional amendment defining a new limit on free speech. That’s an extremely serious position, and a very difficult one for me because I consider free speech to be one of the essential ingredients in a free society. Killing people for crimes committed is a trivial argument to make compared to silencing people for the sake of the public welfare.

Where do females go on the Internet? Do you know the answer to that question? Females certainly use the Internet, notwithstanding the joke that the Internet doesn’t have any females. But if they’re not on the parts of the Internet you use yourself, then where are they?

They are in the places where they are not subjected to an endless barrage of hate and abuse.

This is important. It means that, when the culture of misogynistic sexism is not permitted, more females will participate. That’s simple logic. People are likelier to go where they are welcome. This gives us a target to focus on. Here’s the imperative which follows: Websites need to discourage a sexist climate.

Some websites do it voluntarily. Hurrah for the invisible hand of the free market! On other websites, the matter doesn’t really come up one way or another, so that’s a wash. But as to those which maintain a sexist climate and seem to approve of it, what do we do?

Well, recall that I had spoken earlier about things like comments on news websites. Oftentimes, the website is a junction between a business and its user base. The Los Angeles Times is not a paragon of misogyny, but many of the public comments by people who visit its website are exceedingly sexist, plain and simple. The LA Times has made the choice to accommodate a wider range of voices at the expense of fostering a healthy conversational climate.

I point this out to illustrate the following: If we were to, say, ban sexist comments as hate speech (which is not what I am proposing), the LA Times would not be particularly hurt. They might lose some voices, but they would foster a richer conversational atmosphere, in which a persistent and vibrant community would very likely coalesce.

And that’s how it would be for most of the affected parties of such a law. Most would lose nothing, except for the right to say things that they probably wouldn’t have personally said anyway. The people who stand to lose the most from a ban on sexist comments are the ones who have the most stake in promulgating those comments. The provocateurs and lovers of sexism. This is important because any ban on speech must be highly targeted and specific. Indiscriminate blanket bans are extremely dangerous.

What I actually do propose is that we begin with hate crimes law. As defined by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c103:1:./temp/~c103t9LDct:e927518:) (I can’t vouch that that is a permalink):

Quote
hate crime means a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person.”

As you can see, it already includes a provision for sex—or “gender” as they put it, which is incorrect. Anyhow, I can’t help but observe, with a touch of bitterness, that this law was passed under the Democratic Congress and signed by President Clinton, way back in 1994. Later that year the Democrats were crushed in the elections, and the Republicans subsequently ruled Congress until 2007. From them, we didn’t get good legislation like healthcare reform or hate crimes laws. We got shit about outlawing abortion and paying tax dollars for Jesus parents to send their kids to Jesus schools. But I digress...

Clearly, this provision of the law is not enforced. Hate crimes prosecutions don’t occur very often because the burden of proof is so high (“beyond a reasonable doubt”), the existing law itself is unclear, and society just doesn’t seem to have much interest in cutting sexism. All the law really serves to do is define what a hate crime is, and specify that conviction of a hate crime will incur a higher penalty.

I consider it uncontroversial that the “gross ethical failure” I am talking about here, where sexist comments damage female participation on the Internet, etc., qualifies as a hate crimes matter. What we need, then, is a new law that both criminalizes offending sexist language and classifies it as hate crime. This is one of those times when the  government will have to lead the public, and get ahead of public opinion with far-reaching progressive legislation. I don’t know whether it would be better to amend the existing law or start all over. Either way, what I support is a legal provision that reads something like this:

[[Language or Imagery]] << on >> [[Digital Media, especially Websites]] << that >> ((Targets)) [[Real Persons]] << with >> [[Abuse, Threats, or Harassment]] << on the basis of >> [[Sex]] ((Is)) {{Hate Crime}}.

Forgive my fanciful formatting. I’m not a lawyer and obviously can’t vouch that my prosaic phrasing would reflect my intention, so I created a very simple and obvious description of what I mean:

Language or imagery on digital media, especially websites, that targets real persons with abuse, threats, or harassment on the basis of sex is a hate crime.

The only reason I talked about a federal constitutional amendment is that the law I propose may be unconstitutional because of the First Amendment protection on speech. In that case, it would take another constitutional amendment to specify that hate speech is not protected. That’s the only reason I would be interested in amending the Constitution in this case. (Separately, but relatedly, I support the Equal Rights Amendment.)

It would be important for any law to distinguish between the discussion of sexist comments, the opposition thereto, the fictional depiction thereof, and the actual criminal behavior of victimizing people. We must avoid or at least minimize the creation of any unintended hardships upon anyone.

Anyhow, the takeaway is that I support outlawing some forms of hate speech.

Now, the penalty. Let me repeat myself again:

Quote from: Lord J Esq
I would be prepared to go so far as to support a federal constitutional amendment defining a new limit on free speech, together with a significant legal deterrent of fines, loss of status, and if necessary even jail time, along with a robust rehabilitative effort. For the nucleus of people who don't just do this to harass, but really mean it, I support capital punishment as the next step if rehabilitative efforts prove unsuccessful.

I spoke of a “significant legal deterrent of fines, loss of status, and if necessary even jail time, along with a robust rehabilitative effort.” That’s what I envision the primary penalty set should entail.

It may also be appropriate to pass a law penalizing website operators for failing to curtail sexist activity. That would relieve some of the compliance workload, and, as a side benefit, it would encourage website operators to refuse to ignore the issue and actively make a choice to support sexual equality.

Most sexist comments are borne of ignorance rather than malice. Those should typically be met with the suspension of posting privileges by the website operators or their agents. In the case of particularly serious comments, the victim(s) would be free to choose to press charges against the person who posted them.

This raises the question of whether it would be necessary to implement a better infrastructure for law enforcement to identify anonymous or pseudonymous individuals. Most people aren’t as anonymous online as they would like to think, and would be identified relatively easily. In other situations, the right to privacy will conflict with the right to sexual equality, and we may need a law to draw the line.

Once identified and charged, guilty defendants would typically be fined (if it would not impose an undue hardship) a restitution to the victim, through wage garnishment if necessary, as well as sentenced to counseling (at their own expense if feasible) and community service, and threatened with jail time for a repeat offense. Innocent defendants would have their cases dismissed or be acquitted.

Repeat offenders would be jailed, sent in for counseling, and made to pay a more serious restitution. I am wary of jail time, particularly for something like this (as jail culture is incredibly sexist), but people take jail seriously and there might be some merit to that.

Because the law as I envision it would not single out male-against-female acts of sexism, everyone would have to start being more mindful of discriminating against everyone else on the basis of sex. This would, on the one hand, be relatively easy. Most people who make sexist comments are aware of what they are doing, as evidenced by the prevalence of sentiments like “I know this isn’t politically correct, but....” On the other hand, it would force a lot of social evolution. Misandrists in the feminist movement, for instance, would have to retool their approach to social justice. Elsewhere on the Internet, entire websites would suddenly become illegal as people like Pat Robertson would find themselves operating outside the law on a near-daily basis. All in all, I think these changes and hardships would be for the better.

Now, at last, we get to the issue which struck you dumb, being my support of the death penalty in limited circumstances.

Quote from: Lord J Esq
For the nucleus of people who don't just do this to harass, but really mean it, I support capital punishment as the next step if rehabilitative efforts prove unsuccessful.

In case you simply misunderstood me, I am not suggesting that I support the death penalty as the endgame punishment for all sexist hate speech on the Internet, but instead for a smaller group of people whose hate speech is matched with a genuinely sick personality. These are the people who are physically dangerous, who have committed sexual abuse already or are likely to do so when presented with the opportunity; and the people who research the private information of their victims with the intention of causing bodily or property harm; and the people who are mentally ill and incapable of exercising the judgment to constrain their hateful attitudes; and the people who so virulently detest or demean people of one sex (it’s usually males hating females, but other combinations apply) that their hatred or condescension clouds their judgment even if they remain otherwise rational.

People like that are sick. They are a tragedy; their lives are often a partial or total waste. But, more importantly, they are an existential danger to society. Jail is not the appropriate place for them. A mental hospital, or a psychologist’s office is where they belong.

If curing or controlling their sickness is impossible, then they need to be killed.

I won’t walk away from that, or weaken it with qualifiers, or say it out of the corner of my mouth while looking down at the floor. People like that, if they cannot be helped, are too dangerous to be allowed to live. I have read too many stories, and met too many people, who have been the victims of such monsters, to permit myself the indulgent luxury of thinking that a more peaceful solution would be effective or just.

To avoid being a "concern troll," I'll be blunt with my intentions: Not only do I disagree with what you've said, I think it's so reckless and out-of-this-world that you've either lost your damn mind or you've got some really good explanation for it.

There you have it.

I am sad to say it, but there are only three kinds of reaction to my comment in favor of criminalizing sexism. There are the philosophers, who agree because their principles line up with it. There are the females and their friends and allies, who agree on account of having suffered the effect of sexism personally, or have witnessed it affect people close to them. And there are the people who disagree and call me a crazy or a radical. That is the nature of fighting an entrenched prejudice. Most people who aren't specifically aware of the evil, don't perceive it at all. People tend not to pay much attention to the air we breathe. It's everywhere, but it's invisible, and, precisely because we breathe it so continuously, we just don't think about it. So it is with sexism.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on November 07, 2011, 07:43:26 pm
http://xal.li/eri/?p=697

What an ugly post. It completely misses the point of why abortion should be fully legal and accessible.

Josh, in reading that article, your own post seems to be utterly indefensible. While the author doesn't directly discuss why abortion should be fully legal and accessible, that is not the topic of the article. It is notable that despite not addressing it directly, the author still clearly understands those reasons and supports them. This can be gathered from the rest of his sentence, which you took out of context, and the rest of the article: that the author would eliminate abortion by eliminating the need for abortions, not the procedure itself.

This is, in short, an argument for preventative care.

The author is urging anti-abortion groups to spend their time and efforts promoting contraceptive use and research, combating rape and other sex crimes, and in being caring and supportive rather than judgmental and hateful. In general, the author is urging those who oppose abortion to do their damnedest to make our world on in which no woman gets an abortion for the simple reason that no woman would ever get pregnant without wanting to be pregnant, that no woman woman who wanted to be pregnant would ever find herself lacking family and social support, and that no pregnancy would have complications that would commend the procedure.

From the article, there seems to be nothing particularly different between the author's stance and, say, someone saying that they would get rid of heart surgery by eliminating the causes of heart disease.

Please, do explain your disagreement with the article. As it is, it seems that you are holding that even if society could be changed so that no woman was ever raped, you would oppose that change just so that abortions could still be performed. From what I know of your character, however, it is unimaginable that you would hold such a position. Thus, again my request: please do explain.

You will have to considerably clarify your objections and concerns before I can offer a response. As it is, I find your remarks baffling.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on November 07, 2011, 08:34:30 pm
You will have to considerably clarify your objections and concerns before I can offer a response. As it is, I find your remarks baffling.

Your bafflement is baffling, but I shall try to be as direct and blunt as possible. The author of the article essentially claimed that he wanted to eliminate unwanted pregnancies and only through those means would abortions be eliminated. You claimed that his article was ugly, that the author missed the point, and you general disparaged their position. Since a desire to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies is only commendable, you objection to the article appears to be bat-shit crazy.

I cannot imagine how you can object to statements like:

Quote
I’d abolish rape — and date-rape too.

Quote
I’d agitate for any publicly funded research to make contraception cheap and easy and 100% effective and available to anyone who isn’t ready to be a father or mother.

Quote
Contraception should be the kind of thing you can do for both genders...

Quote
I’d also like to dump money into research to minimize all of those preventable chemical and environmental and genetic factors that would cause debilitating birth defects and decrease the quality of life of any potential child.

Quote
I’d also advocate for a bit more fairness and latitude for women who would have to leave work for a chunk of time to deal with all the peculiarities of giving birth and supporting and caring for a new infant. Now that every household has to have two earners busting hump full-time in order to support any children at all, that kind of help has to be available.

Quote
If you really are as anti-abortion as you say you are, I heartily recommend you actively assist in the development of any and every alternative to abortion that could ever be possible. And then, after however long it takes for them to become available, you’ll see abortions dwindle down to nothing and fade away. Until then, you have no right to outlaw whatever procedure is necessary to prevent at least two lives from becoming a living hell.

Did you link to the wrong article? Were you only referencing the tone of the article and not its content? Did you not read the article in its entirety? It feels like I must either be going crazy, or you must.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on November 07, 2011, 10:38:34 pm
All right, I think I am beginning to understand where your objection is coming from. We are reading the same words (http://xal.li/eri/?p=697) but making two very different interpretations. Indulge me in the simple exercise of slicing and dicing the article into its two halves, the half I find objectionable and the half I do not.

Here is the objectionable half:

Quote
You know what? I’m not pro-abortion, and I don’t know anyone who is.

Abortion isn’t a recreational activity or a hobby. I don’t think there’s a single woman on earth who would ever say to a lover, “You know what? Knock me up. I haven’t had a good abortion in at least six months.”

I think abortion is a horrible procedure. So does everyone forced to resort to it. I’d love to make elective abortions — not done for the sake of preserving the health of the mother — a thing of the past. So would everyone.

I’d get rid of the bulk of abortions, if I could...

Quote
I’d also love to pour some money into research to find ways to make embryos and first-trimester fetuses harvestable so they can be implanted in the wombs of people who can’t have their own babies...

Quote
And then, after however long it takes for them to become available, you’ll see abortions dwindle down to nothing and fade away.






And here is the other half:

Quote
...sex education from an early age and do away with the unconscionable prudery that keeps sex from being a valid topic of discussion between parents and teachers and children. I’d abolish rape — and date-rape too. I’d agitate for any publicly funded research to make contraception cheap and easy and 100% effective and available to anyone who isn’t ready to be a father or mother. (While I’m at it, I’d advocate busting ass to eradicate STDs the way we finally ditched polio and small pox.) Contraception should be the kind of thing you can do, for both genders, in those times when people are thinking clearly and not forced to try to think of it in the heat of the moment.

Oh, and I’d sure as hell get rid of that domestic abuse thing where sometimes women are beaten for getting pregnant.

Quote
I would include in that set MEN who are so all-fired convinced no single potential human life should be wasted, so they could take one for the team and carry a fetus to term themselves.

I’d also advocate for a bit more fairness and latitude for women who would have to leave work for a chunk of time to deal with all the peculiarities of giving birth and supporting and caring for a new infant. Now that every household has to have two earners busting hump full-time in order to support any children at all, that kind of help has to be available.

I’d also like to dump money into research to minimize all of those preventable chemical and environmental and genetic factors that would cause debilitating birth defects and decrease the quality of life of any potential child.

We could have been working on all of that stuff for the past sixty or seventy years if people had really been interested in eradicating the bulk of abortions, and frankly I find it horrifically hypocritical that the pro-life (except for, you know, the death penalty and wars and stuff) contingent hasn’t been voting to fund and support EVERY POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE to elective abortion possible.

Anyway, after all of that, the need for elective abortions would be fairly frickin’ minimal.

BUT EVEN SO I’d prefer the option for elective abortion remain easily available to anyone who wants it just in case any of the rest of the available alternatives can’t be stretched to fit the bill. Life is complex and you can’t count on some charitable person or organization to step in and help if you need it BECAUSE YOU BASTARDS JUST AREN’T CHARITABLE ENOUGH YET TO RULE OUT THIS PARTICULAR OPTION. You’ll help a family member, if you can, if you have the resources — if you don’t disown them or beat them or emotionally abuse them instead. Maybe you’ll even help a close friend or a church member. But you really haven’t shown that you’ll step in and help a complete stranger, someone from a different culture or race, and your screwed-up priorities on science and research and medicine and education has actively DISCOURAGED the development of viable alternatives.

If you really are as anti-abortion as you say you are, I heartily recommend you actively assist in the development of any and every alternative to abortion that could ever be possible.

Quote
Until then, you have no right to outlaw whatever procedure is necessary to prevent at least two lives from becoming a living hell.







I find most of the article unobjectionable. Indeed, I outright agree with most of it. Your confusion stems from your mistaken perception that I object to any of the above statements in the half of the article to which in fact I do not object.

Now that we’ve cleared that up, let’s consider why I find the first half of the article to be so vehemently objectionable that I would not only disown the entire article, but also denounce those who invoke it as representative of their own position. Indeed, that article was first brought to my attention when someone in my Google+ circles posted that link and it showed up in my Google+ stream. I was furious. This person had already expressed a number of objectionable views, so my patience with him was thin. This was the last straw, a truly odious display of ignorance. I wrote a version of the comment that I ended up posting here (to which you objected today), cut him out of my circles, and told him I won’t keep company with people like that.

I...heh...I am ever hopeful that my actions should never require an ensuing explanation to the conscientious and learnéd, but I have learned to live with the disappointment. You are, if I may guess, quite still confused at why I would react so vehemently to this. Yes? Yes...

Here’s why.

Consider first the legal question of the strategy of asserting those positions. My approach to the assertion of abortion rights consists of the following two strategic elements:

1. The natural right to self-determination grants females the corollary right to an abortion at any point during pregnancy because of the risks and responsibilities—medical, economic, and social—of completing a pregnancy as well as of raising a child or submitting it for adoption. Partially this right is intrinsic, what orthodox philosophy calls “natural,” just like the right to self-determination. Partly this right is civil, however, as a special consequence of the considerable prejudice against females—a speciary legacy—which conspires to make pregnancy and motherhood much more dangerous, difficult, or deleterious for both her and the child, and potentially other people closely involved—but first and foremost the pregnant female herself.

2. Our physical nature provides that an unborn child does not possess personhood at any stage. Personhood, not “life” or “humanity,” is the relevant criterion at issue when it comes to asserting any special rights of the unborn. The absence of personhood is the absence of legal standing. One cannot murder a non-person, nor is the killing of a non-person inherently wrong like murder is.

These two strategic components in defense of abortion rights are independent and self-sufficient, meaning that either protection will allow for full abortion rights even if the other protection is not present.

Most members of the pro-choice faction, however, do not take either of these positions. Due to the overwhelming dominance by conservatives in framing the issue as a matter of the rights of the unborn, it has become popularly infeasible to support unrestricted legal abortion rights. Essentially, most people on both sides of the argument actually believe that abortion comes at the expense of an unborn person.

There are three popular pro-choice strategic arguments. Each of them is seriously or fatally flawed:

1. Abortion is a private medical decision to be limited to a pregnant female and her doctor. This strategy ignores the ethical implications of the question by asserting that the public at large has no standing to take a view. This is the only populist pro-choice view that permits full legal abortion. The privacy argument fails because the charge of anti-abortionists is murder, and the charge is superficially plausible enough that society must respond to it. What follows is the discovery that there is no actual murder occurring. This, the privacy argument is half-baked, and can be easily grown into a much stronger argument. I also tend to frown on the privacy argument when people assert it. For instance, the gay marriage movement has sometimes framed the issue as a private matter between consenting adults, something not for the state to interfere with. Yet that’s not true, and at best it precludes laws from banning gay marriage. Meanwhile, it transpires that the ethical argument in favor of state-sanctioned gay marriage is very strong, and soon there will be laws on the books all over the nation specifically guaranteeing people’s right to it—a much better place to be in.

2. The right to personhood by the unborn child sets in after conception but before the child is born. This strategy pragmatically attempts to serve everyone by asserting the right to an abortion for part of the pregnancy, but asserting personhood rights for the fetus for the remainder of the pregnancy. The logic behind it uses irrelevant and often arbitrary physical factors such as heartbeat, the ability to feel pain, “viability,” the ability to smile, the presence of certain detectable brain activity, and various “human” behaviors like kicking. This argument is simply not defensible.

3. Both the unborn child and the pregnant female have competing rights, and, where the female’s rights win out, abortion is legal, and, where they do not, it is not. This argument essentially concedes the conservative position that a fertilized egg is a fetus, and the subsequent wrangling becomes a question of the degree of prohibition: Abortion should be generally illegal, but with exceptions. All pro-choice people allow exceptions for the life of the mother (by definition). Most allow for cases of rape or incest. Some allow for the physical health of the mother. Fewer allow for economic hardship. Fewer still allow for the mother’s psychological health, including as may result from pregnancy at a very young age. And quite few indeed allow for family planning—even though this is the number one reason people get abortions. One problem with this argument is that it is highly vulnerable to erosion. I remember John McCain saying during one of the presidential debates that people used the “health” of the mother as a blanket excuse for abortions. Inevitably, the middle ground slips because the conservatives are so relentless. That is what has been happening ever since the Supreme Court rulings that established abortion rights federally. But an even more serious flaw with this argument is in the logic itself. It isn’t correct to concede the conservative argument. Except for the case of the life of the mother, there is logical basis to outlaw some abortions but not others, as the conservative viewpoint is that the fetus is competing for its very existence. Only the life of the mother could trump that, and even that is a logical ambiguity that people tend not to explore. (This is no coincidence. Much of our history shows that society favored the baby over the mother if one had to die. I suspect that if abortion were otherwise fully outlawed, it would not be long before even the mother’s life would be a controversial exception—and for some people it already is.)

None of these arguments, alone or together, can stand under its own weight. The real-world outcome of these positions is the elimination of abortion rights for some people all of the time and all other people some of the time.

Do I need to remind you what the consequences are of the widespread elimination of abortion rights? This isn’t some trivial thing we’re talking about, Thought. This is extremely serious. People’s lives are actively injured, or ruined, whenever a female wishes to terminate a pregnancy but is unable to do so.

Let’s revisit the half of the article I object to, and I’ll offer a Joshalonian interpretation as we go.

Quote
You know what? I’m not pro-abortion, and I don’t know anyone who is.

Effective Meaning: “To justify my support for abortion rights, first I am ruling out the legitimacy of the pro-abortion position.”

Quote
Abortion isn’t a recreational activity or a hobby. I don’t think there’s a single woman on earth who would ever say to a lover, “You know what? Knock me up. I haven’t had a good abortion in at least six months.”

Effective Meaning: “I presume to judge that there are numerous instances where abortion would be unacceptable, and would attempt to discredit anyone who might defend it in those instances. More to the point, I reject the claim that females have the right to assert control over their bodies in the absence of what I consider to be an adequate reason.”

Quote
I think abortion is a horrible procedure.

Effective Meaning: “I agree with the conservative claim that abortion is a horrible procedure. By extension, I think it is a tragedy when females resort to controlling their own bodies, even when they do have cause.”

Quote
So does everyone forced to resort to it.

Effective Meaning: “I speak for the entire pro-choice movement when I say that our position is ugly to look at and difficult to justify.”

Quote
I’d love to make elective abortions — not done for the sake of preserving the health of the mother — a thing of the past.

Effective Meaning: “I want to eliminate most abortions, because they are ‘horrible.’”

Quote
So would everyone.

Effective Meaning: “And again I speak for everyone in the pro-choice movement when I say that.”

Quote
I’d get rid of the bulk of abortions, if I could...

Effective Meaning: “My support for female reproductive rights is largely defined by my opposition to it.”

Quote
I’d also love to pour some money into research to find ways to make embryos and first-trimester fetuses harvestable so they can be implanted in the wombs of people who can’t have their own babies...

Effective Meaning: “Females should consent to having their bodies invaded and their fetuses stripped out of them before resorting to an abortion. Did I mention I’m pro-choice?”

Quote
And then, after however long it takes for them to become available, you’ll see abortions dwindle down to nothing and fade away.

Effective Meaning: “Abortion is horrible and I hope it goes away.”









Well, Thought...with allies like these, who needs enemies! You have an important decision to make here. Such an attitude as that of the author of this article, no matter how provisionally supportive of abortion rights it may be, is worse than unacceptable. It harms the entire movement, and by extension the sexual equality movement.

Abortion is not horrible. It can be a physical ordeal, like getting a cavity filled, but it is one of the major prerequisites to female emancipation in the world. I’m all for people who don’t want to be pregnant not getting pregnant in the first place, but this is the real world, and in the real world people sometimes get pregnant even when they do everything right—let alone when they do not!

Safe, legal abortion is a major breakthrough...something to be cherished.

The collective social affirmation that females have a right to decide whether or not to give birth—whether that entails abstinence, contraception, or abortion—is an even more major breakthrough...something to be celebrated!

The privacy argument does have one enduring merit. If we accept people’s right to an abortion, it’s not our place to tell strangers that their reasons for having an abortion are good or bad.

Let me express that pragmatically for you. I do not necessarily want to see the abortion rate go up or down or stay the same. I want the people who want to have abortions to be able to get them, and I want people who don’t want to get pregnant in the first place to have a better chance of not getting pregnant in the first place.

I don't want some yahoo who mostly buys into the right-wing view to dare speak for the pro-choice movement whose primary concern is to let people speak for themselves. And I don't want you to fail to appreciate just how detestable I find such sentiments to be. Given the real-world ramifications of pregnancy and motherhood, in this lovely sexist world of ours, it is beyond the pale to organize a pro-choice argument by alienating the very females we are supposedly trying to empower. To do so is to give our fundamentalist enemies the keys to the castle.

Your decision here is to choose whether you find that objectionable. I assure you, sir...there is a correct answer. Even if you feel inclined toward the correct answer now, however, I counsel reflection and contemplation. The fact that you could have read that article and gleaned genuinely no idea of why I find it so terrible is a reminder to me that you have come from a very different past, and may still greatly profit from the exposure to progressive viewpoints. Take some time to savor the process of making that decision, because it is a very important one. We're not playing for beans here. This is quite literally life and death. Only the most perfect discipline is acceptable for someone of your caliber.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: tushantin on November 08, 2011, 01:15:18 am
I am sad to say it, but there are only three kinds of reaction to my comment in favor of criminalizing sexism. There are the philosophers, who agree because their principles line up with it. There are the females and their friends and allies, who agree on account of having suffered the effect of sexism personally, or have witnessed it affect people close to them. And there are the people who disagree and call me a crazy or a radical. That is the nature of fighting an entrenched prejudice. Most people who aren't specifically aware of the evil, don't perceive it at all. People tend not to pay much attention to the air we breathe. It's everywhere, but it's invisible, and, precisely because we breathe it so continuously, we just don't think about it. So it is with sexism.
Pardon my intervention, and I'm going to be blunt here. I'm a philosopher, and I do not agree with you despite my principles lining up with it, and that is because as a human being you can be ill-consequential and/or wrong. People are not going to join the "Josh Fanclub" simply because they conform with your sentiments, and there will be those who disagree with you, because chances are that the majority see where you're going wrong. You aren't the only one witnessing evil, but apparently you have little experience in actively fighting it.

Taking on a predator tooth and nail is one thing, but actions determined out of prejudiced and reckless behavior such as yours only serve to make social and political situations worse (for note, observe your politicians) especially when the enemy is an abstract human nature. I have explained time and again that the journey is more important than the destination, and that there are methods to everything. But you focus on sentiments alone rather than ways to combat them based on narrow-minded perspective and without substantial info. Your ideal is noble, but your methods would only replace an existing evil with a totalitarian human fallacy, something that the society will take advantage of and rebuild it into a greater evil, something that will again remove precious "Agency" from the commoners (see the shortcomings of Capitalism). You don't kill a snake by stomping on a snake viciously and vehemently, and that's logic. Are you even aware of the Salt theory?

I understand that you're sickened with the sexist and hate crimes, and almost everyone in the Compendium is because we's developed an incredible, mature culture here. But as I've said before, Josh, relax and don't get so self-destructive. Think twice before you make preposterous assertions, and especially think before you toss a barb at a potential ally and especially when they don't mean any ills towards you.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on November 08, 2011, 02:32:28 am
Aren't you adorable. Lecturing me on a subject where not only am I probably the forum's most well-studied devotee, but a subject also where you yourself have poor comprehension and a poor behavior record. I suppose the only superlative to that would be for you to lecture me on my English.

There was nothing out of place with my statement to Truthordeal. There was nothing to reasonably contend. I know your kind. The United States has a strong anti-intellectual movement of people who possess enormously passionate beliefs in blatant contravention of all the requirements of logical consistency and factual validation. It's impossible to have a conversation with them, because they assert without justification and absolutely, steadfastly refuse to participate in proper argument. You are that. Initially I did not see it because of our cultural differences. Now I find it disgustingly clear.

I have always had a policy of correcting the more egregious statements which appear on this board--for the benefit of the community more so than that of the mook who wrote them. I will correct yours as necessary. In the meanwhile, if the worst I should have to expect from you is having my own personal court jester to spoof me, I suppose I should count myself lucky.

But how unfortunate a waste. You have already crossed the line with more than one person here, and have learned nothing from your ignorance. You have squandered both my patience and my efforts of goodwill. I'm well aware the futility of a pissing match, but I find it cathartic to confide that I don't like you one bit, Mr. Tushantin. I suggest you play carefully when making toys out of subjects like this one that are so important to our human endeavor.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: tushantin on November 08, 2011, 03:35:22 am
Aren't you adorable. Lecturing me on a subject where not only am I probably the forum's most well-studied devotee, but a subject also where you yourself have poor comprehension and a poor behavior record. I suppose the only superlative to that would be for you to lecture me on my English.
Ah, see? That's what I was talking about. You like painting yourself with purple colors and presenting yourself as "Magnanimous", but your own responses in context prove contradictory.

I didn't mean to offend you on my previous posts, but in this case allow me to point this out for you: you're a pathetic hypocrite. Beyond that, I refuse to use my venom more than necessary or waste my bullets on you, nor do I have any intention to socially undermine you. So too do I advise you to reserve your venom for more practical scenarios like actually doing something about sexism rather than try prove yourself self-righteous "Holier Than Thou" individual on public forums. There's no point bringing business or political battles home, because you're trying to build support, not enemies.

I know your kind.
Oh, so you're going to start a Religious Movement now? How quaint! Apparently Josh loves to lead people through their sentiments without valuing a person's justifications, and when someone disagrees with Ol' Josh he'd call it "Blasphemy". That's very adorable! What are you going to name it?

You have squandered both my patience and my efforts of goodwill. I'm well aware the futility of a pissing match, but I find it cathartic to confide that I don't like you one bit, Mr. Tushantin. I suggest you play carefully when making toys out of subjects like this one that are so important to our human endeavor.
Ah, 'Goodwill', you say? Allow me to point you to a post (http://www.chronocompendium.com/Forums/index.php/topic,7769.msg210905.html#msg210905) which contained nothing but an honest, personal opinion based on experience. What did you respond with? Whatever it was, it wasn't out of 'Goodwill', that's for sure (http://www.chronocompendium.com/Forums/index.php/topic,7769.msg210908.html#msg210908). Anyone can have 'Goodwill', Josh, but what are you going to do with it? How are you going to help others fulfill theirs? How are you going to accomplish it yourself? Let me point that the moment you responded to me you tried to squander my goodwill towards discussing social equality, and such acts from you would be categorized as "hateful", and if a person intends to use "hate" towards potential allies and oppositions then it's incredibly difficult for you to or established that 'Goodwill', or near-impossible must I say. And if it's that impossible then it's hardly a realistic method. Empathy cannot be harnessed with apathetic behavior. Need I correct you more?

I don't know why you think I'm out to get you, Josh, because everytime you respond to me or others with differing opinions it's out of spite and grudge of some kind. However, I do sense some fear in you. That fear turns wrath, and perhaps that is responsible for you aggressive behavior, especially towards those who disagree with you. Are you that frightened, Josh? Do you really feel that insecure?
 
And I suggest you to tread carefully with these subjects. We've already seen the many in the media that abuse human systems to promote their flawed ideals, despite their intentions. If you love to criticize so much then it would do you well to consider criticisms directed towards you. Don't be so afraid, Josh, I have no ills against you; if anything, I worry you'd self-destruct. You're with friends here, mate, so why get so upset?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on November 08, 2011, 04:16:16 am
And now, back to the topic of sexism...
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on November 08, 2011, 06:32:34 am
I hope this isn't de-railing J's re-railing, but I'd like to revisit that reactionary law or set of laws in India that tushantin mentioned yesterday. (And by "reactionary" I don't mean to give it a negative connotation out of hand -- I assume it was passed literally in reaction to a concern). tushantin, can we get any more details on that, or an article or anything? It sounds like it would make an interesting case study to examine; it might be especially useful to get some opinions from both the law's supporters and detractors, because that'll help give the rest of us more insight into the matter.


In a law class I was taught to look at the death penalty kind of inversely, and it's interesting to apply that to the discussion here: in some respects assigning the death penalty is not a measure of our brutality, but a measure of the order in which we prioritize things. For J to say that he supports the death penalty for a recidivist hater is a pretty clear statement that sexual equality is his #1 issue, or shares that rank with anything else he'd apply the death penalty to. Which is perfectly consistent with his philosophy as much as he's shared it so far.

This begs the question: for those of us who don't support the death penalty under the circumstances J has outlined, what does it say about us and our own priorities? And what happens if we don't allow ourselves the death penalty at all -- are we still capable of showing J's level of dedication to the stamping out of sexism? My own gut reaction is that my preference would be to put shock collars on such people and force them to contribute to the creation of anti-sexism PSAs. That I'd still seek to squeeze some utility out of the situation rather than stamp them out entirely means I'm still taken with the notion that hate speech is less a danger to society than physical violence. I'll have to ponder on this some more.

Remember everyone, tomorrow is election day in the US! In Mississippi, a huge blow could be dealt (http://news.yahoo.com/why-mississippis-personhood-law-could-outlaw-birth-control-212609540.html) to reproductive rights.  
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: tushantin on November 08, 2011, 12:43:10 pm
I hope this isn't de-railing J's re-railing, but I'd like to revisit that reactionary law or set of laws in India that tushantin mentioned yesterday.
I don't think the law was "reactionary", nor was it "radical" -- rather somewhere in between, a progress change based on moral literacy. Although, I'd love to expound on the theory if it can help you folks in any way (with the resentment towards my honest opinion earlier in this thread, I withheld the details out of logical assumption that nobody needed it).

tushantin, can we get any more details on that, or an article or anything? It sounds like it would make an interesting case study to examine; it might be especially useful to get some opinions from both the law's supporters and detractors, because that'll help give the rest of us more insight into the matter.
You're right, that opinions from both the supporters and detractors are necessary to gain insight before predicting the direction of socio-political push.

And thanks for asking! I'll try writing a detailed post probably by tonight, or perhaps by morn or noon tomorrow. Nevertheless, I would like to inform that it wasn't until 6 months ago that I began using Google Reader, and before that usually relied on Newspapers, Radio, alternative media, Literature, word of mouth, and actually witnessing change in my neighborhood with my own eyes, so finding such articles regarding the progressive movements will be difficult. I'll try, though.

Also, from a general Indian to the Americans, good luck on the Mississippi incident and for the elections.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on November 08, 2011, 01:15:42 pm
Thank you for your time, J.

The reason I harped on the death penalty portion is because it was the most bewildering. Being a rabid free-speech advocate, I've come across the concept of hate speech laws and I understand that. I get why people would want to criminalize certain types of speech. Heck, I slip into that mindset every now and then because its easy to want to punish particularly disgusting figures. But the idea of executing people is usually only brought up in a fit of rage or in a joking manner. Zeality's fond of telling people to die or go to hell, but you tend to be very reserved about that sort of thing. This, along with the fact that you don't approve of capital punishment in general, shocked me. Me being the rabid free-speech advocate, I found your idea of criminalizing speech anathema at first. Bewilderment + anathema = "Are you out of your damn mind?" So, there you have it.

That being said, I've read your reasoning and I think you may be on to something as far as New Media is concerned. I have no doubt that if one of the people mentioned in the article were to go up to that woman on the street and tell her they'd rape her and the like, they would be arrested. That's what's called verbal assault, and its punishment is everything you mentioned. This should also be the case on the Internet. But it isn't, due to that veil of anonymity. I think if you got rid of that(or at least the legal protections thereof), or invented a device that allows you to punch people over the Internet, this problem would die down on its own.

The capital punishment thing makes sense as well; the people you've described would probably be "bad" enough on their own to commit capital offenses anyway. If I supported capital punishment at all, I might agree with you. But I don't, and I think there are better ways to get to your desired end. Maybe FW's shock collars. If it works for dogs, it could work for beasts of that nature.

Now if we were talking about a man standing in the middle of Times Square holding up a sign or speaking through a megaphone, saying something like "All women should be in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant," I'd say no, that's protected speech. I cannot justify imprisoning them and not someone like you who says things that would disgust most "normal" people. And to cut off speech like that is tyrannical, and tyranny is bad. I realize who I'm up against, and that I'd have better luck swimming the English channel with a lead weight. I'd take the challenge, but unfortunately I don't have the time or energy to obstinantly argue like I used to. I'll have to save that for a future contention. So for the time being, you can call me a mook and a useful idiot and we can part on that.

Quote from: FaustWolf
for J to say that he supports the death penalty for a recidivist hater is a pretty clear statement that sexual equality is his #1 issue, or shares that rank with anything else he'd apply the death penalty to. Which is perfectly consistent with his philosophy as much as he's shared it so far.

This begs the question: for those of us who don't support the death penalty under the circumstances J has outlined, what does it say about us and our own priorities?

This should come as a surprise to no one, but sexual equality is not my number one priority. Education is, and there's no room for capital punishment in education. Unless the kid just gets really really annoying.

tush, any record of it and its results would be great. Even if it's just a wikipedia article.

Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on November 08, 2011, 02:25:38 pm
Josh, I beg your indulgence as I take my time considering if it is worthwhile to respond to you. You are, unfortunately, in error: your end result is oppressive to women and your means are straight from a Christian Fundamentalist's playbook. In fairness, your stance is unquestionably a continent's worth better than the anti-choice stance, which greatly diminishes the urgency of correcting you. Also in fairness, my own stance, though more correct than yours, is still incomplete and, as such, dangerous. This greatly increasing the dangers of correcting you. And, in all honest, I am tired: such a post (and the inevitable follow up) would be an energy intensive activity. So, again, I must beg your indulgence as I delay.

If I ultimately decide it is worthwhile, I would propose that these posts:
http://www.chronocompendium.com/Forums/index.php/topic,7769.msg210382.html#msg210382
http://www.chronocompendium.com/Forums/index.php/topic,7769.msg210937.html#msg210937
http://www.chronocompendium.com/Forums/index.php/topic,7769.msg210943.html#msg210943
http://www.chronocompendium.com/Forums/index.php/topic,7769.msg210946.html#msg210946
http://www.chronocompendium.com/Forums/index.php/topic,7769.msg210947.html#msg210947
http://www.chronocompendium.com/Forums/index.php/topic,7769.msg210997.html#msg210997
be moved to the Abortion thread: http://www.chronocompendium.com/Forums/index.php/topic,7945.0.html
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Kodokami on November 08, 2011, 02:34:14 pm
Josh, I've spent much time laboring on your message here (http://www.chronocompendium.com/Forums/index.php/topic,7769.msg210947.html#msg210947), so I hope I've come to an understanding on your viewpoint. There were, however, I few things I found disconcerting, or at least objectionable.

Quote from: Lord J Esq
2. Our physical nature provides that an unborn child does not possess personhood at any stage. Personhood, not “life” or “humanity,” is the relevant criterion at issue when it comes to asserting any special rights of the unborn. The absence of personhood is the absence of legal standing. One cannot murder a non-person, nor is the killing of a non-person inherently wrong like murder is.
First, can you give your definition of personhood? I think it would help me understand why the lack of personhood would justify the killing of an unborn child, and why this--

Quote
1. ... The privacy argument fails because the charge of anti-abortionists is murder, and the charge is superficially plausible enough that society must respond to it. What follows is the discovery that there is no actual murder occurring. This, the privacy argument is half-baked, and can be easily grown into a much stronger argument.
is correct.

Quote
2. The right to personhood by the unborn child sets in after conception but before the child is born. This strategy pragmatically attempts to serve everyone by asserting the right to an abortion for part of the pregnancy, but asserting personhood rights for the fetus for the remainder of the pregnancy. The logic behind it uses irrelevant and often arbitrary physical factors such as heartbeat, the ability to feel pain, “viability,” the ability to smile, the presence of certain detectable brain activity, and various “human” behaviors like kicking. This argument is simply not defensible.
I assume this relates with the personhood element as well, so, under your definition of personhood, why are these factors irrelevant and arbitrary?

I also had some objections with your interpretations of the author's words in that article. He obviously uses some broad generalizations, and there may indeed be an overarching intent of sexism, but a few of your interpretations seem far fetched, such as this--

Quote
Quote
I think abortion is a horrible procedure.

Effective Meaning: “I agree with the conservative claim that abortion is a horrible procedure. By extension, I think it is a tragedy when females resort to controlling their own bodies, even when they do have cause.”
Which I could also see as "I think abortion is a horrible procedure [because it kills an unborn child]."
and this--

Quote
Quote
Abortion isn’t a recreational activity or a hobby. I don’t think there’s a single woman on earth who would ever say to a lover, “You know what? Knock me up. I haven’t had a good abortion in at least six months.”

Effective Meaning: “I presume to judge that there are numerous instances where abortion would be unacceptable, and would attempt to discredit anyone who might defend it in those instances. More to the point, I reject the claim that females have the right to assert control over their bodies in the absence of what I consider to be an adequate reason.
which must include some point I'm missing here, because I cannot fathom how you made this interpretation from those words.

So, there's my two cents.

EDIT: Feel free to have this moved to the Abortion thread, as it falls into the list Thought just added.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on November 08, 2011, 03:31:30 pm
you're a pathetic hypocrite.

And what have you done lately for the cause of social justice? I've actually volunteered for an abortion assistance fund. I've got the "blood" of unborn children on my hands! Hahahaha. And I also have the salvation of several mothers who a) most of which already had children, b) were in dire financial straits that would have been broken completely by another child, and c) some of which had medical problems or were too young to have a safe childbirth.

I suppose we should have rather seen those mothers become seriously ill or have their entire families plunged into total economic poverty? Good thing killing a few non-sentient, unconscious cells avoided these scenarios.

Quote
Now if we were talking about a man standing in the middle of Times Square holding up a sign or speaking through a megaphone, saying something like "All women should be in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant," I'd say no, that's protected speech.

The free speech issue can be governed by science. Many people love to hate on transpeople and make jokes about "she's really a man", etc., when proven science has demonstrated different brain and body gender. The science has been proven, which makes the "really a man" position not any kind of speech or tenable position of argument -- it all becomes hate speech at that point. The same goes for telling women to be in the kitchen, barefoot, and pregnant. Equality is self-evident without even needing the trivial idea that science has demonstrated men and women are both "human". There is nothing in that speech that needs protection. It's nothing but hatred, harassment, and assault. Destroy it with impunity.

Quote
Which I could also see as "I think abortion is a horrible procedure [because it kills an unborn child]."

But why is it horrible to kill an unborn child? The "child" part of it is a romantic metaphor for potential, because there is nothing human in a fetus. It's a biological template, and a collection of cells that might turn out to be a person. There is no awareness, sentience, consciousness, or knowledge; there isn't even the small sentience that animals have. There is nothing, like a tree or a plant; just cells dividing, with no mind. Conservatives love to point out how the "heart is beating!!!", but we can take recently deceased people and make their hearts beat, too. We can make artificial hearts beat and stick them inside of a toolshed. "YOu can't demolish it!! The heart's beating!"

What makes us quintessentially human is our minds; our sentience; our consciousness. There is none of that in a fetus. There's barely any of it in a baby, but at that point, they are no longer dependent on the mother or a potential threat to her health or well-being, and are now afforded the full rights of a citizen. More importantly, they're awake. They're a child, not a mass of cells.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on November 08, 2011, 04:26:54 pm
You are, unfortunately, in error: your end result is oppressive to women and your means are straight from a Christian Fundamentalist's playbook.

A provocative teaser! Very well, then. Take your time and make your reply. But you have made such charges before, only to fall short. I shall only accept the perfect proof!

~~~ ~~~ ~~~
you're a pathetic hypocrite.

And what have you done lately for the cause of social justice?

That's quite a worthy question for a thread like this one. For someone with sexist views like tushantin, who revels in his ignorance and even has the audacity to charge sexism of people who are working toward sexual equality, I think it is appropriate to criticize his own apparent lack of support for sexual equality. It isn't required of course that one be an activist toward the furtherance of sexual equality in order to be a Compendiumite of good standing, but, given his problems here, I think we should ask that tushantin give us an explanation of what he has done in his own life to pursue sexual equality, or any other form of social justice for that matter. I, for one, expect we are dealing with a fraud.

~~~ ~~~ ~~~
Responses to Kodokami and Truthordeal forthcoming.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: tushantin on November 08, 2011, 05:20:36 pm
@Josh: Apparently you really like a "pissing match" like a nut-job who's too drunk at a bar, and for some reason or the other your either afraid of something or have some kind of an imaginary grudge against me. Simply because you've lost the battle you decide to act like a troll instead. I can take on and prove your hypocrisy time and again, but frankly a guy like you who constantly screams "Blasphemy" like a Fundamentalist is ill-consequential until you get your act together. For now, I can only advise you to refrain from confronting me like a paranoid maniac to spare both your precious time and mine, at least until you're in a right mindset.

@Everyone else: I was also hoping that I'd simply write fragments on Evernote to reserve my response for later, one that I owe both FaustWolf and Truthordeal, but apparently, Josh's childish foolhardy knows no bounds. The next part of my post regarding progressive change will appear tomorrow for that sake.

@ZeaLitY: Breaks my heart, Z. I really didn't expect that from you, especially from someone who I looked up to. Especially from someone who initially inspired me when I registered into the forums. Very well, then, here we go with this charade.

And what have you done lately for the cause of social justice?
Ah, let's see. I saved a girl from a potential rapist and psychopath, and for a short time became her guardian. I anonymously wrote articles about corrupt occupations that destroy civil liberty, putting myself at danger of retribution (@FaustWolf: Remember a similar instance from a manuscript I gave you? Yes, that happened; the guy's been stripped of his badge). I wrote and published cartoon satires in selective magazines to help in children's moral education in some schools for free. I opposed sexism at an office at the risk of losing an almost qualified job and career head-start, even though that sexism would have diminished on its own due to Feminism strength at a capital level (did I mention I didn't get the potentially high-paying job?). I, along with several other poets, helped stop unnecessary wars between castes and helped promote love. I helped encourage people to stand against domestic abuse, proving that public unity gathers strength. I also helped in petitioning in raising awareness and standing courageously against dowry.

To be honest, I'm incredibly lucky to not be a target of corrupt cops or non-conformers seeking vengeance, and I certainly hope to keep a low profile so as to not endanger my family with my activism. On that note, I also intend on taking this activism beyond in media range, and especially literacy for those who don't have Agency. Anything else, Your Highness?

I've actually volunteered for an abortion assistance fund.
That's a good thing indeed, and I applaud you on your job well done. However...

But why is it horrible to kill an unborn child? The "child" part of it is a romantic metaphor for potential, because there is nothing human in a fetus. It's a biological template, and a collection of cells that might turn out to be a person. There is no awareness, sentience, consciousness, or knowledge; there isn't even the small sentience that animals have. There is nothing, like a tree or a plant; just cells dividing, with no mind. Conservatives love to point out how the "heart is beating!!!", but we can take recently deceased people and make their hearts beat, too. We can make artificial hearts beat and stick them inside of a toolshed. "YOu can't demolish it!! The heart's beating!"
Yeah. Tell that to the millions of parents who go undergo sex-selective abortions. (http://www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org/blog/?p=360) They'd be incredibly happy to hear what you just said.

Quote from: Article
Make no mistake. China’s One Child Policy is enforced through forced abortion, forced sterilization and infanticide. Women are dragged out of their homes, strapped to tables, and forced to abort babies they want, up to the ninth month of pregnancy. Women sometimes die during these violent procedures. The One Child Policy is China’s war on women. Adopting it world wide would hurl women’s rights back to the dark ages.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on November 08, 2011, 05:25:34 pm
But you have made such charges before, only to fall short.

You are mistaking "you not admitting your wrong" with "me falling short." :P

But again to emphasize, I am still debating with myself as to if it is worthwhile. I'll keep you posted, certainly.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on November 08, 2011, 05:39:08 pm
Thank you for your time, J.

You are welcome.

The reason I harped on the death penalty portion is because it was the most bewildering. Being a rabid free-speech advocate, I've come across the concept of hate speech laws and I understand that. I get why people would want to criminalize certain types of speech. Heck, I slip into that mindset every now and then because its easy to want to punish particularly disgusting figures.

I know I’ve said it already, but it’s worth repeating that I am extremely wary of limitations on speech. I am opposed to them on principle, and I only make exceptions when I think the reasons are sterling.

The great political ideal of a conscientious philosopher is to resolve injustices without creating new ones. It’s easy to look at the crime of hate speech and say, well, let’s ban that. The problem is that it introduces a new injustice by curtailing the freedom of speech. The crime is very severe and the costs of the obvious solution are very severe. There are only three answers to that: Find another solution, accept with the current solution, or use pinpoint-accuracy to tailor the current solution from a general one into a highly specific one. Which of these is best depends on the circumstances.

I honestly can’t think of another effective short-term solution. In the long term we can fight this with education, but while people are suffering now we need to do something about it now—and, indeed, our educational efforts can’t proceed until we began to clear the way for people to change their minds about some of the incredibly horrible sexist attitudes they hold.

That leaves a choice between the general ban on sexist hate speech and a highly specific one. The lawyers would have useful information to contribute; I’d be prepared to entertain either possibility. But my own ethics say to go with the general ban. Sexist hate speech is very destructive, and it occurs in so many forms and through so many media that I don’t know how a specific solution would work without being a laboriously extensive enumeration of the blanket provisions of the general solution.

Zeality's fond of telling people to die or go to hell, but you tend to be very reserved about that sort of thing. This, along with the fact that you don't approve of capital punishment in general, shocked me.

For clarity, I actually do approve of capital punishment in general. Passionately, in fact. What perhaps differs, and have you the contrary impression of me, is that I am very discriminating in where I think the capital punishment is appropriate to apply.

People, for the most part, should not be killed. Even if they’re losers, wretches, fools, mooks...even Republicans! Seriously. Killing people is something we should all try and avoid.

When I go and read the comments on news websites (and elsewhere!) people are so quick to call for death. And they’re not half-joking about it like ZeaLitY is. Some are thumping their chests. Others are just venting their fury.

I should note that many of the people whom others call for to be killed are the very same victims of sexist hate speech we have been talking about.

In short, it’s not uncommon for people to call for death. Many will do so quite readily. One of my measures of whether to respect a person is a judgment that I make as to how that person would behave in a mob situation with no accountability. Because, in those situations, the vast majority of the human population becomes killers. Indeed, this is a big part of why I almost never respect people who are not intelligent and strong-willed, because only intelligence and a strong will, or else an abiding sense of decency (which is really just a facet of intelligence), can stop a person from becoming a killer in circumstances like that.

So, yes. I do tend to be very reserved about calling for the death penalty. And all the more so because I usually would insist on a fair trial first. People like Glenn Beck, who, in the pursuit of money, have destabilized the nation and given cover to the plundering actions of robber-barons and vinegar to the paranoia of religious extremists, ought to be put on trial for sedition.

Sedition brings about an interesting aside: Sedition laws are another form of constraint on free speech, and this nation has used them liberally in the past. Even though I support a new sedition law (as none of the previous ones have been done correctly), it too is a rare instance of an exception to my overwhelming support for free speech.

But I wouldn’t want to see Beck put to death on my charges. I’d want to see a court of law do it.

Anyhow...yes. As a philosopher who tackles the entire spectrum of human existence, I don’t mind dealing with difficult subjects, and I have learned quite easily that capital punishment is a penalty which must be reserved only for what narrow instances in which it is appropriate. Indeed, I only recommend the death penalty for a very narrow subset of the offenders who make this completely odious hate speech which I utterly detest.

That's what's called verbal assault, and its punishment is everything you mentioned. This should also be the case on the Internet. But it isn't, due to that veil of anonymity. I think if you got rid of that(or at least the legal protections thereof), or invented a device that allows you to punch people over the Internet, this problem would die down on its own.

You’re right, and there’s a whole other topic of discussion in that. Perhaps we can return to it in another thread.

The capital punishment thing makes sense as well; the people you've described would probably be "bad" enough on their own to commit capital offenses anyway.

One important detail: Many people who have not yet committed what is already counted as a capital offense nevertheless have the mentality to do so. One of the challenges facing a better justice system is to reach these people before they can destroy lives (including their own!).

If I supported capital punishment at all, I might agree with you. But I don't, and I think there are better ways to get to your desired end. Maybe FW's shock collars. If it works for dogs, it could work for beasts of that nature.

I didn’t know he had proposed that.

I find most severe forms of punishment to be akin to torture, which is indefensible, or else the result of an indefensible act of vengeance built into the system. Life in prison without parole is cruel, at least for humans. Shock collars are cruel, at least for humans. The death penalty has no cruelty to it, if the death is swiftly administered. There is no vengeance, either—at least not at the institutional level. A dead person is gone. They cannot endure further suffering. So I turn your viewpoint upside down. The death penalty is a more humane form of high punishment.

Now if we were talking about a man standing in the middle of Times Square holding up a sign or speaking through a megaphone, saying something like "All women should be in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant," I'd say no, that's protected speech.

Yes, we have that now. I probably wouldn’t support banning that. For one thing, it might require another constitutional amendment. For another, marches and protests are a way for people to voice their frustrations. They are not crimes against specific people.

I cannot justify imprisoning them and not someone like you who says things that would disgust most "normal" people.

Ah, yes, but normal people are broadly unfounded in their views whereas I am well-reasoned and justice cares about that sort of thing. =)

And to cut off speech like that is tyrannical, and tyranny is bad. I realize who I'm up against, and that I'd have better luck swimming the English channel with a lead weight. I'd take the challenge, but unfortunately I don't have the time or energy to obstinantly argue like I used to. I'll have to save that for a future contention. So for the time being, you can call me a mook and a useful idiot and we can part on that.

I tentatively agreed with you before (re)reading this paragraph. =)

Mook! Ne’er-do-well! Ninnyhammer!

There. All’s right with the world.

Quote from: FaustWolf
for J to say that he supports the death penalty for a recidivist hater is a pretty clear statement that sexual equality is his #1 issue, or shares that rank with anything else he'd apply the death penalty to. Which is perfectly consistent with his philosophy as much as he's shared it so far.

This begs the question: for those of us who don't support the death penalty under the circumstances J has outlined, what does it say about us and our own priorities?

This should come as a surprise to no one, but sexual equality is not my number one priority. Education is, and there's no room for capital punishment in education. Unless the kid just gets really really annoying.

Education is probably my top priority too. I think we differ in the scope of its application.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on November 08, 2011, 05:46:35 pm
@Josh: Apparently you really like a "pissing match" like a nut-job who's too drunk at a bar, and for some reason or the other your either afraid of something or have some kind of an imaginary grudge against me. Simply because you've lost the battle you decide to act like a troll instead. I can take on and prove your hypocrisy time and again, but frankly a guy like you who constantly screams "Blasphemy" like a Fundamentalist is ill-consequential until you get your act together. For now, I can only advise you to refrain from confronting me like a paranoid maniac to spare both your precious time and mine, at least until you're in a right mindset.

Apparently parodical mimicry is your only trick. But this one was so far over the top you made me laugh! If a jester is what you want to be, then I think you need to be even more outrageous. Come on...you equated ZeaLitY with mass murderer. What do I get?

And what have you done lately for the cause of social justice?
Ah, let's see. I saved a girl from a potential rapist and psychopath, and for a short time became her guardian. I anonymously wrote articles about corrupt occupations that destroy civil liberty, putting myself at danger of retribution (@FaustWolf: Remember a similar instance from a manuscript I gave you? Yes, that happened; the guy's been stripped of his badge). I wrote and published cartoon satires in selective magazines to help in children's moral education in some schools for free. I opposed sexism at an office at the risk of losing an almost qualified job and career head-start, even though that sexism would have diminished on its own due to Feminism strength at a capital level (did I mention I didn't get the potentially high-paying job?). I, along with several other poets, helped stop unnecessary wars between castes and helped promote love. I helped encourage people to stand against domestic abuse, proving that public unity gathers strength. I also helped in petitioning in raising awareness and standing courageously against dowry.

To be honest, I'm incredibly lucky to not be a target of corrupt cops or non-conformers seeking vengeance, and I certainly hope to keep a low profile so as to not endanger my family with my activism. On that note, I also intend on taking this activism beyond in media range, and especially literacy for those who don't have Agency. Anything else, Your Highness?

If you've done all that, and if you're not embellishing or misrepresenting it, then that's really quite laudable! I just don't understand why that positive picture you've painted doesn't jive with the way you conduct yourself here.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on November 08, 2011, 06:14:29 pm
Quote from: Lord J Esq
2. Our physical nature provides that an unborn child does not possess personhood at any stage. Personhood, not “life” or “humanity,” is the relevant criterion at issue when it comes to asserting any special rights of the unborn. The absence of personhood is the absence of legal standing. One cannot murder a non-person, nor is the killing of a non-person inherently wrong like murder is.
First, can you give your definition of personhood? I think it would help me understand why the lack of personhood would justify the killing of an unborn child...

That’s an excellent question! I am still working on a philosophical-grade definition. Such a definition will entail these elements:

1. Sapience
2. Agency
3. Volition

It will also probably entail other elements, and the arrangement will be very important, as my definition of personhood will be transspeciary. (It will apply to more than just Homo Sapiens.)

For the time being, I must provide you with satisfaction to your query in a roundabout way. Putting aside all anthropomorphizing of babies, and looking purely at the development of their brain, the traits by which personhood are neurologically supplied do not begin to coalesce until well after birth.

This fast-fetched link provides a basic outline of what I am talking about. (http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/yf/famsci/fs609w.htm) You can probably find better resources with a more dedicated search effort.

Consider what it is about adults (and older children) that make them “person-like” to you. What behaviors, what mental processes, if absent, would seriously unsettle you?

To anticipate any potential lines of inquiry in this direction, my definition of personhood will also accommodate people who have suffered debilitating illnesses and have lost some or all of their cognitive capacity. I suspect, though I have not yet determined it, that we cannot count “vegetables” and some of the most severely mentally impaired as “persons.” (On the other hand, personhood is not the only legal status which can be afforded to an individual, nor have I given these matters decisive consideration, so, before tush comes out from his cuckoo clock and compares me to Hitler, let me caution folks not to assume I am implying anything.)

...and why this--

Quote
1. ... The privacy argument fails because the charge of anti-abortionists is murder, and the charge is superficially plausible enough that society must respond to it. What follows is the discovery that there is no actual murder occurring. This, the privacy argument is half-baked, and can be easily grown into a much stronger argument.
is correct.

Ah. Yes, as you’ve deduced, it would be “correct” because a non-person cannot be murdered, by my definition of “murder.” The legal definition of murder does not make this distinction, simply preferring “human being,” which partly explains why the anti-choice movement focuses on the gibberish question of whether an unborn human child is human. (Of course it is.) This represents a flaw in the legal definition of murder, so I prefer mine.

Quote
2. The right to personhood by the unborn child sets in after conception but before the child is born. This strategy pragmatically attempts to serve everyone by asserting the right to an abortion for part of the pregnancy, but asserting personhood rights for the fetus for the remainder of the pregnancy. The logic behind it uses irrelevant and often arbitrary physical factors such as heartbeat, the ability to feel pain, “viability,” the ability to smile, the presence of certain detectable brain activity, and various “human” behaviors like kicking. This argument is simply not defensible.
I assume this relates with the personhood element as well, so, under your definition of personhood, why are these factors irrelevant and arbitrary?

Yes. I think now you can see how.

I also had some objections with your interpretations of the author's words in that article. He obviously uses some broad generalizations, and there may indeed be an overarching intent of sexism, but a few of your interpretations seem far fetched, such as this--

Quote
Quote
I think abortion is a horrible procedure.

Effective Meaning: “I agree with the conservative claim that abortion is a horrible procedure. By extension, I think it is a tragedy when females resort to controlling their own bodies, even when they do have cause.”
Which I could also see as "I think abortion is a horrible procedure [because it kills an unborn child]."

Your interpretation is applicable, but it is not mutually exclusive with the one I gave. If you look at this from an analytical standpoint, and try to wring out the meaning from his words, it might occur to you that he was accounting for those who supposedly would assert that abortion is a good procedure. The most likely reason people might assert that it is a good procedure is that it entails “females resorting to controlling their own bodies, with cause.” Hence, the “Effective Meaning.”

Quote
Quote
Abortion isn’t a recreational activity or a hobby. I don’t think there’s a single woman on earth who would ever say to a lover, “You know what? Knock me up. I haven’t had a good abortion in at least six months.”

Effective Meaning: “I presume to judge that there are numerous instances where abortion would be unacceptable, and would attempt to discredit anyone who might defend it in those instances. More to the point, I reject the claim that females have the right to assert control over their bodies in the absence of what I consider to be an adequate reason.
which must include some point I'm missing here, because I cannot fathom how you made this interpretation from those words.

Ah! I spend a lot of time thinking about the Effective Meaning of that particular passage. I eventually realized that he was passing a judgment on people, implying that some reasons for getting an abortion are not valid. (He later used this as a basis for insisting that other reasons are valid, pitting the “valid” and “invalid” reasons against each other to articulate his case for limited abortion rights at the expense of full abortion rights.)

I made reference to this later in my post, when I condemned people who would presume to assert when other people’s abortions are well-reasoned or ill-reasoned. That judgment isn’t a stranger’s to make. And, although I did not say it, I would fully support a person’s right to an abortion even if her reason were his straw man of “Knock me up. I haven’t had a good abortion in at least six months.”

Oh, but that reminds me. I think I tried not to make this mistake in my previous post, but I have made it here. I don’t actually know that the author of that article is male.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on November 08, 2011, 10:55:09 pm
With stories like this of lifelong sexual harassment from many quarters (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/11/08/1034319/-Ive-Been-Sexually-Harassed?detail=hide), I have to wonder once again just how many of the total population are sexual harassers, and, more seriously, sexual assault perpetrators. It's creepy, and disheartening. also disheartening is the question of how many of the total populations are sexual harassment and sexual assault victims. And how many are both criminal and victim.

I'm not one to buy into conspiracy theories and superstitions, but it takes genuine effort for me to resist the notion that many of the people with whom I have interacted, who profess sexist views and an ignorance of or malice toward others on the basis of sex, are or will become sex criminals.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: tushantin on November 09, 2011, 03:19:20 am
Josh, in respect to Katie's feelings I pledge that this will be my final response to you, at least for now, and even then I refuse to use any venomous bullets I have against you because you seldom know what you're talking about or have any ground whatsoever. This results in your insecurities and you lash out, accuse and humiliate disagreeing individuals out of spite, simply because your "ideas" aren't as important as you "winning an argument", even if it means playing unfair. You were anti-pathetically responsible for disparaging a lot of potential thinkers and humanitarians, driving them away from the benefits of a respectful, intellectual conversation. But I object to you hurting anyone else or driving them away, be it Katie and/or Red.

You're only a little more than "rust" in the "Cogs" of community, rendering it unstable. You can continue to accuse people or begrudge people as you please, but your words will mean nothing to them. However, I'm afraid I cannot do much about your insecurities, paranoia, vainglory, antipathy and insanity -- take it up with your father.

That said, I remind you that your proposals are questionable because they pose oppression threat towards females and the end result would eliminate the remaining "crucial Agency", while at the same time promote abuse of law. That kind of injustice, especially from you, cannot be tolerated.

Come on...you equated ZeaLitY with mass murderer.
And you're pretty fond of accusing people without substantial reason, because when did I equate Z with mass murder? You accused Alfy for his innocent post, you accused me of being "frustrated" with you when I wasn't, you accused Bekkler and Krispin for their honest opinions, and you accused GenesisOne from time to time. If your outlandish accusations speak one thing, it's that you're losing your grip, Josh, and you feel incredibly insecure about it.

What I find strange is that your delusional accusations towards people are actually personal manifestations of the way you think. You think I'm out to get you, and you accuse me of doing so. You make straw dolls of people and throw darts at them, and you accuse Alfy for doing so. You hate it when people ask you to stay silent, but you go telling Katie to Shut Up. You almost always use cult tactics to play your game rather than stand with reason as your foundation, and suddenly you have a problem with "Religion". You tell people that "Antagonism" makes a human better and that you're frustrated with people who aren't open to criticism, and you never seem to follow your advice. You never follow up your arguments with foolproof evidence, but when others do (such as Thought and Truthordeal in this case) despite having reason at their side you dismiss their arguments as if you're the judge. And if people point you wrong, even reasonably so, you immaturely laud yourself and force your college degree down their throats as if you're infallible. Either you're insane, heavily self-delusional, or are simply born hypocrite, and it's people like you who make your own nation so hollow.

Oh, and one more thing. In the past few posts you've been increasingly belligerent, contemptuous, and abusive towards me. Based on your original post, having a wrongful opinion about a woman would be considered abuse and thus a "hate crime", and thus should be followed with "a significant legal deterrent of fines, loss of status, and if necessary even jail time, along with a robust rehabilitative effort". Considering you've done worse in the past few days, and against someone from another race, it would account for "racial abuse" and indefinitely brand you as a "White Supremacist". What compensation do I get from you? Would you send yourself to prison?

I just don't understand why that positive picture you've painted doesn't jive with the way you conduct yourself here.
My "conduction" is not for you to judge, because you're clearly in need of therapy -- you're going insane. My own representation is for others to judge based on how they know me, and they clearly know me more than you ever will. That is all I care about.

And with that, I rest my case. My response and list of articles to FW and Truthordeal when I'm able.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Sajainta on November 09, 2011, 05:37:30 am
Quote from: Sylvia Plath
Being born a woman is an awful tragedy… Yes, my consuming desire to mingle with road crews, sailors and soldiers, bar room regulars - to be a part of a scene, anonymous, listening, recording - all is spoiled by the fact that I am a girl, a female always in danger of assault and battery. My consuming interest in men and their lives is often misconstrued as a desire to seduce them, or as an invitation to intimacy. Yet, God, I want to talk to everybody I can as deeply as I can. I want to be able to sleep in an open field, to travel west, to walk freely at night…
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on November 10, 2011, 06:32:23 pm
Alright, I suppose that if I’m going to respond to your post, Josh, I should get down to it.

But let me warn others. What is to follow is a fairly long analysis that relies greatly on precision. It is not an analysis of why it is perfectly proper for a woman to control her reproduction through the use of abortion. This post takes that as an accepted fact. This post also takes it as accepted fact that it is proper for no restrictions to apply when a woman makes her choice regarding reproduction. If you, the reader, do not likewise take these two things a priori, then I cannot see how you will avoid at some point misunderstand something that is about to be said. This post is largely concerned with, as Josh phrased it, the "perfect discipline."

You are, if I may guess, quite still confused at why I would react so vehemently to this. Yes?

Not so much. At this point in your response, it became clear that you are not so much pro-choice as you are pro-abortion. The rest of your post confirmed this. I debated if I should respond, as indicated earlier. Let us take that as an inauspicious opening and move on.

To reiterate my original (and very bold) claims, your stance is effectively oppressive to women, and your justification for the position is quite similar to the stance that Christian Fundamentalists take in regards to science. These specifically seem to flow from you being pro-abortion instead of pro-choice.

First, I suppose I must define the difference between these two terms. They are closely enough related that considering them distinct might seem silly to others, and if you had appreciated the difference between the terms, you wouldn’t have slipped between them so often in your criticism of the article you had linked to.

To be clear, in our present world, to be pro-choice means that one must advocate for the free and easy access to abortions for those who need them.

That, however, does not result in one being “pro-abortion.” As you have pointed out yourself, Josh, abortion is not horrible: it is a medical procedure that has a specific aim and attempts to produce that aim in a manner that is as straightforward and simple as possible. The procedure of abortion is no more “horrible” than, say, chemotherapy. The procedure is, effectively, a tool. It is not horrible, yes, but it is not inherently good either. It is specifically the context in which the procedure is performed that it can be either supported by those who are pro-choice, or opposed by those who are pro-choice.

Consider what it means to be pro-choice compared to pro-abortion. A pro-choicer can always be pro-choice, no matter the situation, since a woman always has the right to control her own reproduction. Indeed, pro-choice is a valid position in part because it is not a sexist concept: no matter the situation, a human has the right to control his or her own reproduction. It is a right that all humans have and that the pro-choice movement is attempting to secure to the fullest possible extent for women.

In contrast, what does it mean to be pro-abortion? Why, it means that you’ll support abortion. Nothing is said of the context in which the procedure is performed. Nothing is said of the rights of the woman, or the rights of humans. Tush mentioned it, but since you’ve been ignoring him, perhaps you missed this: forced abortions occur. Someone who is pro-choice thus cannot be abstractly pro-abortion: if we support a woman’s right to control her reproduction, then we must support a woman’s access to an abortion if she so chooses to have one, and we must oppose abortions being forced on those who do not desire them.

In sort, the proper pro-choice stance regarding abortion is that we should support abortion insofar as it is used to ensure the rights that are at the heart of the pro-choice movement, oppose it insofar as it is used to oppress those rights, and say nothing insofar as it does neither. Or, more generally speaking, be “pro” for that which is good, “anti” for that which is bad, and neither for that which is neither. Abortion as an abstract procedure is inherently neither.

Consider, then, your own words in opposition to the author’s statement that he is not pro-abortion. The effective meaning of your opposition is that the pro-choice movement’s primary goal is to promote abortion, even when it is in opposition to a woman’s right to choose. That is what a pro-abortion stance necessitates, and that is why the author rejects it, and that is why you should reject a blind pro-abortion stance. Even if all you say is that forced abortions are not tolerable, you are then admitting that abortion is only tolerable within the context of the situation.

This is mostly an error of primacy, but while you may feel that I am harping on you for simply misspeaking (it is ridiculous to suppose that by being pro-abortion ahead of being pro-choice that you’ll start supporting forced abortions), your criticism of anyone who does not give blanket support to a medical procedure has other layers of error.

Your next error is somewhat philosophical in nature, since it gets at the nature of free choice.

Choice must be front and center for the pro-choice camp. The debate is not as to if abortion will be allowed or outlawed. That is only a corollary, the manifestation of the ideologies that are at war. The real issue is if women will be allowed to express their right to control their reproduction or not.

To make a free choice, one must have access to honest information. Additionally, while it is admitted that one cannot know all potentially relevant factors to a conundrum before him or her, free choice also relies on having as full and complete of information as possible. The reason for this is that malicious characters can use partial information and false information to get an individual to make the “choice” that the malicious character wants them to make. Such behavior injures and suppresses the right of the individual to make a free choice.

The necessity of full and honest information is particularly important in medical procedures, where it takes the name of “Informed Consent.” While patients should indeed listen to the recommendations of their doctors, a doctor must still explain the situation to a patient and be complete honest with all unpleasant details. If there is only a 10% chance that you’ll survive an operation, the doctor is morally obligated to tell you this. If there is a chance that there is a 0.2% chance that you’ll feel queasy for an hour after a medical procedure, the doctor is still morally obligated to tell you that. Patients must be fully informed of their options, the risks associated with each, and the potential outcomes.

The significance of this bit of abstractness in the present discussion is that, in order to be actually pro-choice, one must not only work to maintain a woman’s access to an abortion, if she so chooses to obtain one, but one must also work to ensure that those who are faced with such a choice have access to as honest and as full of information as is possible.

Your error, then, is in not supporting that goal. Indeed, you are opposed to that goal!

2. The right to personhood by the unborn child sets in after conception but before the child is born. This strategy pragmatically attempts to serve everyone by asserting the right to an abortion for part of the pregnancy, but asserting personhood rights for the fetus for the remainder of the pregnancy. The logic behind it uses irrelevant and often arbitrary physical factors such as heartbeat, the ability to feel pain, “viability,” the ability to smile, the presence of certain detectable brain activity, and various “human” behaviors like kicking. This argument is simply not defensible.

Your stated justification for rejecting the position that personhood sets in after conception but before birth is that such a position is not defensible. That is a worthwhile consideration, to be sure, but that is not sufficient to reject such a position. Indefensible or not, if it is true, then it must be held to! To do otherwise is to present a false face to the people making the choices to have abortions, and thus it is to manipulate their choices and undermine their rights.

It is not just that you are saying that this is untrue. You go beyond that to affirm a falsehood as well:

2. Our physical nature provides that an unborn child does not possess personhood at any stage. Personhood, not “life” or “humanity,” is the relevant criterion at issue when it comes to asserting any special rights of the unborn. The absence of personhood is the absence of legal standing. One cannot murder a non-person, nor is the killing of a non-person inherently wrong like murder is.

To be very clear, I am not saying that your falsehoods are contained in the claim that personhood does not begin at conception, nor is your falsehood contained in the claim that personhood begins at birth. Rather, the falsehood comes is asserting as truth that which you do not know to be true.

This is of utmost importance, so I will repeat it: Your error is in making a definitive judgment on a topic that you lack any concrete evidence for. The lie is making a moral quandary appear resolved and simple.

There is as of yet no known specific point in human biological development that grants personhood. We can’t say that on X day after fertilization the thing becomes a person. Since we do not know, we cannot say. Your stance, however, doesn’t even claim that personhood occurs on X day after fertilization. Your stance doesn’t even try to approach rationality: for you, personhood isn’t linked to scientifically observable development but rather physical location.

Since there is no objective observable point where personhood begins, we must refrain from making arguments based on personhood. And, furthermore, we must not pretend that we know that which we do not know. To do so has the potential of negatively influencing a person’s choice and thereby it has the potential to undermine the very rights that are at the heart of the pro-choice movement. Anti-choice advocates spout off the lie that they know when personhood begins. They do not, but neither do we, and therefore we must avoid engaging in anti-choice behaviors.

As I originally noted, my own stance in this regard is incomplete, and thus dangerous. Here we are, then, at the precipice. Even though it is a far more defensible position to say that personhood begins at birth, we must reject it since we cannot truck with misrepresenting the state of our understanding. But where to go from there? I have nothing to offer further along these lines, I have no new citadel to urge you to set up your defenses at, no explanation as to how, exactly, it might be that a woman can still have an abortion when it is unknown as to if the thing inside her has rights of its own. However, so little work has been done in this avenue that I will not yet claim that it is impossible. What I can and will do -- and what I here urge you to do -- is to pursue truth first, a human’s right to choose second, and abortion only as a third. Discarding the fancy that personhood begins at birth puts us on a difficult, perhaps impossible, path. The defense of the position, though, has blinded you as to the soundness (or lack thereof) of the position. Defense of abortion is only our primary concern if abortion itself is our primary concern. If our primary concern is freedom of choice, then we must discard even easily defended positions if they are false. That you judge the matter in terms of defensibility rather than accuracy is part of why you made your error, Josh.

Up until now, I have primarily discussed why your position is ultimately in error and leads to infringements upon the right to freely choose. As I originally noted, even in its error it is still vastly superior to the anti-choice position. If after this explanation you still persist in your error, that will be unfortunate (certainly your mind would be of great use in establishing a defensible yet honest stance) but hardly the worst case scenario: there are far larger and more important enemies to spend my time combating. However, I had two criticisms of your post. The first, that your stance is oppressive, has been explained. The second, that you use Christian Fundamentalist tactics, is next.

Simply put, you are engaging in the same unthinking aversion to compromise that fundamentalists take in relation to science. “Oh, if we admit that any part of our position might be wrong, everything will crumble, people will lose faith, and it will be the end of everything!” The problem with the fundamentalist position, and why I oppose it within Christianity, is that it is doomed to fail. If you package your entire belief system as a single unchangeable world view, then rejection of part of it becomes rejection of all of it. In Fundamentalist circles this leads to a crisis of faith when a Christian finally realizes that something that they always believed is wrong. Specifically, Evolution. They go to college, discover all the evidence supporting Evolution, and they can’t wrap their minds around the fact that there is nothing in Evolution that is in opposition to Christianity. But because they’ve been told again and again that Evolution is inherently anti-Christian, they must either reject scientific data or they must reject religion for what are ultimately mistaken reasons.

Insisting that a complex world view is all or nothing results in a terrible choice. You objection to the author of the article, Josh, is clearly the result of him not adhering to what you perceive as the only legitimate world view. Since you perceiving him erring in anything, even though it is minor, you perceive him as no longer being part of the “faithful.” The problem is, he isn’t the only one. People have and will continue to recognize the lie in your position, but this isn’t a crisis unless you make it one. If people must remain perfectly in-line with your established doctrine to be considered on your side, then you will find that there is a steady flow of those who, though they want to support the pro-choice position, cannot do so if that means adhering to falsehood. Should you construct such a world view in which if people don’t agree with you they then feel like they have to become pro-life?

Within the pro-choice movement, there needs to be room for people who say that personhood begins at conception but that abortion can still be acceptable. There also needs to be room for people who say that personhood begins well after birth and that abortion can still be acceptable. What is critical, what is central to being pro-choice, is if people maintain that women have the right to determine their reproduction.

At this point you are probably thinking that these have been interesting but ultimately unconvincing arguments (particularly, I suspect, on the less  important topic of your scare tactics). Allow me to make another stab at displaying how your perspective is pro-abortion instead of pro-choice and how that perspective is flawed. These are essentially supplemental considerations that weren’t warranted by my above arguments but which I am here making in an effort to get past your normal hesitations.

Quote
Abortion isn’t a recreational activity or a hobby. I don’t think there’s a single woman on earth who would ever say to a lover, “You know what? Knock me up. I haven’t had a good abortion in at least six months.”

 “I presume to judge that there are numerous instances where abortion would be unacceptable, and would attempt to discredit anyone who might defend it in those instances. More to the point, I reject the claim that females have the right to assert control over their bodies in the absence of what I consider to be an adequate reason.”

The effective meaning of your effective meaning is quite clear: you hold that there are no instances where abortion would be unacceptable. This is easily disproven since forced abortions are not acceptable. This, however, gets at the underlying principle of the pro-choice movement: abortions are a tool for preserving the woman’s health and her right to control her reproduction. We can thus infer from such a position that any use of abortion that does not stem either from a medically justifiable reason or a woman’s choice is then not acceptable. Since choice-making is central, we can indeed postulate a good many situations where a woman might ask for an abortion but be denied one based on the grounds of impaired decision making capabilities. This would include coercion (that is, forced abortions), of course, but also other states. I doubt all forms of insanity would sufficiently impair an individual’s ability to make a choice, and thus impair their access to abortion services, but I do not know enough about mental disorders to give a blanket statement that there are none.

For the specific example, that of recreational abortion, I suspect, though do not assert, that such an individual would be in need of therapy, even if they were still with it enough to make a choice.

Quote
I’d get rid of the bulk of abortions, if I could...

 “My support for female reproductive rights is largely defined by my opposition to it.”

Here you are slipping between what it means to be pro-abortion and what it means to be pro-choice. The actual meaning of the author’s statement is that his support for abortion is limited to his support of reproductive rights: insofar as those rights do not require abortion, he has no opinion for it. It is, in essence, a tool for him to use when needed and put aside when not.

In contrast, the effective meaning of your statement is that your support of abortion exceeds your support of reproduction rights.

Quote
I’d also love to pour some money into research to find ways to make embryos and first-trimester fetuses harvestable so they can be implanted in the wombs of people who can’t have their own babies...

“Females should consent to having their bodies invaded and their fetuses stripped out of them before resorting to an abortion. Did I mention I’m pro-choice?”

I return to the article to make sure of this, but the author at no point advocates that woman should pursue this option before resorting to an abortion. That is entirely you.

If one considers the implications of the author’s statement, one will see how it is more “pro-choice” than your rejection of it. Specifically, the author is proposing a new option for women. Expanding their choice, as it were. Currently, if a woman is pregnant, she has two options: keep being pregnant and carry the child to term, or have an abortion. Transferring the fetus would allow a woman to avoid having an abortion while also ceasing to be pregnant. Is that option a bad thing? Certainly not. Like an abortion itself, it would be a medical procedure, good when used for good, bad when not. It is, admittedly, a ridiculously fantastical supposition, and even if a procedure was developed it still might not produce the results that the author is looking for, but the sentiment behind it is clearly pro-choice.

Likewise, the sentiment behind your statement is clearly pro-abortion. It alienates those women who believe that their fetus is a person, and thus do not want to get an abortion, yet do not wish to carry the creature to term. If an option can be developed for them that does not hamper the freedom of other women who disagree, why reject it? The only potential reason is because such an option would probably be promoted over abortion. Pro-lifers already support adoption over abortion, and this procedure would be quite similar in concept to adoption. The number of abortions would probably decline, then. If we care for choice, the author’s pie-in-the-sky sentiments are acceptable. It is only if we care about abortion over choice that those sentiments become troublesome.

[
Quote
And then, after however long it takes for them to become available, you’ll see abortions dwindle down to nothing and fade away.

 “Abortion is horrible and I hope it goes away.”

As has already been discussed, anyone who promotes equality should hope that the events which cause unwanted pregnancies would go away. This would, indeed, necessitate the hope that one day abortions would go away as well, due to lack of demand. That is only an undesirable hope if one supports abortions in opposition to choice. Abortion is a tool: pick it up when it is needed, set it down when it is not.

The author’s sentiment here is also directed at “pro-lifers.” Is urging “pro-lifers” to stop the causes of unwanted pregnancies condemnable? Hardly so!

Your general justification for your position is that it is improper to shift from your position. Never show weakness in the face of an enemy, and all that. To do so would be to slide down a slippery slope until reproduction rights have been eliminated. Alas, slopes have two sides! By avoiding slipping down one, you are slipping down the other. To be pro-choice we must be rational and honest. Your position is neither, and thus is not a valid pro-choice position, regardless of what other merits it might have.

You were right in that there is a choice, and there is a right answer. Unfortunately, you’ve made the wrong choice. Luckily there is nothing preventing you from making the admittedly minor yet necessary course correction. If you don’t, well, little to no actual harm will come from it. But, well, only the most perfect discipline is acceptable for someone of your caliber.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on November 10, 2011, 08:03:50 pm
My goodness, Thought! What a thoughtful disquisition. You have my gratitude for it. Now, I have a question for you. Did you write that solely to bring your concern to my attention, or would you desire a reply? I shall gladly provide one in full, but it would be a significant effort for me and with my other priorities being what they are I won't make this effort unless you would prefer it. The synopsis, if it matters to your decision, is that we agree in a large part on principles, that my primary disagreement is due to your misunderstanding of my own position, and that, as a consequence, most of your remarks are, while appropriate, not relevant to me. There are, however, other areas where you have made conceptual errors as well as interpretive ones, and thus are outright wrong in your arguments, and of course I would address these errors too. Some of them are quite serious, and if you decline a longer reply I might write a shorter one where I focus just on those, as it is imperative to me that people support abortion rights for the most correct reasons--which you presently do not, or partially do not. I will say, to be charitable, that your faulty interpretations of my position are probably not entirely your own fault. I could have communicated myself more clearly, and it is apparent to me that some of my language tripped you up and led you to mistaken conclusions. Any long-form reply I make would hopefully address some of those problems too.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on November 10, 2011, 08:33:07 pm
Since we both have other priorities, any response should probably be shorter than not. Now, as to your particularly interesting question: why did I write that? The answer is that it was for the general benefit of those who happen to spend the somewhat substantial amount of time to read it. While I wrote it to you, it wasn't exactly for you.

I would welcome correction of serious errors, although I suspect I know where you think those errors are and thus suspect that your efforts would mostly be a rehashing of our older discussion on this topic, which can still be found in the Abortion thread. In that likelihood, a simple link to those posts would probably be easier than the back and forth that would most likely ensue. Of course, my suspicions may well be wrong! And yes, I expected that you'd disagree with my perception of your stance. After all, you define yourself to large degree by your political stances. Such a reaction is to be expected from finding out that your stances aren't what you thought they were.

And for the benefit of our viewers, if any, allow me to establish that I am intentionally attempting to interact with you in these posts in a particularly Joshonian style, in case there was any curiosity in that regard.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: tushantin on November 12, 2011, 12:53:16 pm
I was actually saving this comment for my upcoming posts in this thread, but I felt a pang of guilt because the post was already too long. This needs to be addressed, now or never.

Quote from: Sylvia Plath
Being born a woman is an awful tragedy… Yes, my consuming desire to mingle with road crews, sailors and soldiers, bar room regulars - to be a part of a scene, anonymous, listening, recording - all is spoiled by the fact that I am a girl, a female always in danger of assault and battery. My consuming interest in men and their lives is often misconstrued as a desire to seduce them, or as an invitation to intimacy. Yet, God, I want to talk to everybody I can as deeply as I can. I want to be able to sleep in an open field, to travel west, to walk freely at night…
And that shall be the song that I write. That will be the sentiment I will work for. They say that due to Patriarchy a woman's voice is rarely heard, but when you do hear her out, it dissipates all illusion in sight and all locked doors in the universe shall open up.

Thank you, Saj. That voice empowers me further to destroy sexism once and for all.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on November 12, 2011, 01:56:37 pm
A review of the sexism at GenCon (http://gomakemeasandwich.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/photos-from-gencon-2011-part-1-of-2/).

It should be of no surprise to most that gaming culture (be it pen&paper, boardgames, card games, or video games) likes to objectify women.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on November 15, 2011, 02:07:20 pm
And for the benefit of our viewers, if any, allow me to establish that I am intentionally attempting to interact with you in these posts in a particularly Joshonian style, in case there was any curiosity in that regard.

Of course, inherent in the Joshalonian position is a careful and considered truthfulness. =)

While you are an intellectual and far worthier critic than the mooks who occasionally buzz around here, I wouldn't say you have quite earned the entitlement to Joshalonian Style. But! For the benefit of the gallery, my further abbreviated corrections to your thoughtful criticisms will appear in this thread as soon as my time permits.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Kodokami on November 15, 2011, 03:16:03 pm
Now, as to your particularly interesting question: why did I write that? The answer is that it was for the general benefit of those who happen to spend the somewhat substantial amount of time to read it.
...my further abbreviated corrections to your thoughtful criticisms will appear in this thread as soon as my time permits.

I, for one, have been enjoying these good reads, and am looking forward to seeing Josh's reply to Thought's very persuasive argument. Until then, I'll be looking in the Abortion thread for the previous discussions on this.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on November 15, 2011, 09:11:05 pm
Thanks, Kodokami. Let me know if you can't find what I was referencing and I'll pull the link for you.

... I wouldn't say you have quite earned the entitlement to Joshalonian Style.

Ah, then you've mistaken what your unique style is. I refer you back to your thread where this was discussed in depth. To use previously established terminology, I am attempting to affect a somewhat more "dominant" stance (certainly, this is not nearly so dominant as your own, but it is quite in contrast to my natural style, so that is to be expected). In part this is because we often communicate to others in a style that they would do well to communicate to us in: perhaps if I so affect, you might so learn. Since there is that hope, there is justification for my doing so. Though rest assured, I have no intention or inclination of procuring it for general use.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on November 15, 2011, 11:52:27 pm
I know what you meant, you ham!
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on November 15, 2011, 11:58:15 pm
Shall I call you a turkey and we start thanksgiving early?
EDIT: Oh, and I must insist on being a honey-glazed ham. I do have my standards, after all.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on November 16, 2011, 12:28:16 am
Very well, you honeyed ham, so long as I get to be a free range turkey. But who's going to be the cranberry sauce?!!
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on November 16, 2011, 02:38:44 am
Tush, clearly, because he's so saucy ;)
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: tushantin on November 16, 2011, 04:05:24 am
 :lol: Guys, I'd hate to interrupt your romance, but I need to point something out.

This probably isn't an appropriate thread but, Josh, I'd like to bust your "Free Range" myth.

http://www.peacefulprairie.org/freerange1.html
http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/free-range-organic-meat-myth.aspx

While the latter link is an attempt to convert people to vegan, statements in there are sort of true. Beyond that, I'll say nothing, and will leave you to contemplate. G'day.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on November 16, 2011, 04:16:27 am
What on Earth are you talking about? First, your resource is highly suspect and industry practices vary considerably between producers. But, second, I said "free range" to play off of Thought's "honeyed." He lays on the honey rather thickly, and I tend to have a pretty free range.

You should not venture to be pompous when you know not whereof you speak.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: tushantin on November 16, 2011, 04:24:10 am
Aww, that's sweet of you. Good Day to you too.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Katie Skyye on November 16, 2011, 12:00:38 pm
 :picardno

I'm not sure if either Thought or Josh is actually going to post a reply at this point. Maybe I'll head over to the abortion thread, as well.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: tushantin on November 16, 2011, 01:21:25 pm
I'm not sure if either Thought or Josh is actually going to post a reply at this point.
XD You underestimate the sauciness of Cranberry Sauce, Honey-glazed Hams and Free Range Turkeys (the latter uncooked).

@Everyone: I apologize for my delays with my response to Misogyny laws and better solutions to abolish sexism, but the post got so huge I decided to split them into two and simplify them several times, and the first one (which has plenty to do with abolition but little to do with misogyny) treaded beyond the realm of the Sexism thread (for a reason), and hence I'm preparing a revision for a brand new thread entirely. I could post the first half now, but was advised to follow up on the second almost immediately for better picture.

Posts coming soon. Hopefully it'll be helpful in any way.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on November 16, 2011, 08:44:50 pm
I'm not sure if either Thought or Josh is actually going to post a reply at this point.

I intend to reply to Thought as advertised when my time permits, tushantic flashes in the pan notwithstanding, but it may be a few days due to other constraints on my time. Was there something else you had wanted me to address, too? I don't recall intending to reply to anything else.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on November 16, 2011, 11:32:10 pm
In the meantime...

I don't hold conventional views about Israel--although they are not so unconventional among people with an ethnic Jewish background, nor, more pertinently, among the abler-minded humanists of the world--and some of you may know that I don't make it easy for people, especially fellow liberals, to repeat the popular broad-sweeping criticisms of Israel here. For the most part, Israel is one of the better countries in the world, at least by the measures I like to use.

But Israel has a big demographic problem. The most religiously extreme Jews in the country, called, in English parlance, the ultra-Orthodox, are prolific breeders in a country that otherwise has a modest population growth. Over the past generation, extremist Judaism has come more and more to dominate Israeli politics, until now at last it is beginning to come into direct conflict with convictions that are much more important to me than the welfare of any nation-state. This LA Times article is notable for two reasons:

LA Times: As Ultra-Orthodox Flex Muscle, Israel Feminists See a Backsliding (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-israel-women-20111113,0,7356238.story)

First, the campaign for sexual equality is farther along in Israel than in most other countries, but Orthodox Judaism (and particularly its extremist variants) are not much better in their views of females than the Christianity and Islam it engendered.

Second, Los Angeles has probably the second-largest Jewish population in the "diaspora" (i.e., Jews who don't live in Israel) besides New York City. The LA Times rarely reports on these kinds of stories in a haphazard or sensational way. I've had my own run-ins with the ultra-Orthodox, and I can vouch for the fact that this story illustrates one of the greatest threats facing Israel today. Israel will never degenerate into such evils as what modern Islam has done with the world, but Israel's ultra-Orthodox right-wingers have the potential to be every bit as ruinous to Israeli society and to the regional welfare as our own Christian fundamentalists do.

The worst part is that there's no way out unless the rest of Israel starts a breeding race (which it will never win, and which no country ought to be doing in a time of global overpopulation) or the children of the ultra-Orthodox disavow their parents' religious extremism (which is difficult because of the isolation from wider society that the ultra-Orthodox impose on their children).
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on November 17, 2011, 07:20:58 pm
I'm not sure if either Thought or Josh is actually going to post a reply at this point. Maybe I'll head over to the abortion thread, as well.

Currently I am not aware of anything to reply to, although if I missed something (or if you'd like Thought's thoughts something in particular), please let me know.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Katie Skyye on November 18, 2011, 01:35:10 pm
I'm not sure if either Thought or Josh is actually going to post a reply at this point. Maybe I'll head over to the abortion thread, as well.

Currently I am not aware of anything to reply to, although if I missed something (or if you'd like Thought's thoughts something in particular), please let me know.

That's the most I've ever been quoted, ever, I think. Gonna quote myself for good measure. I was mainly commenting on the fact that Thought had said something about a well-thought-out response, but wasn't sure if he'd have time to write it, and then it turned into a discusssion of Joshonian/Joshalonian style. :P It amused me.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on November 18, 2011, 02:13:21 pm
I'm not sure if either Thought or Josh is actually going to post a reply at this point. Maybe I'll head over to the abortion thread, as well.

That's the most I've ever been quoted, ever, I think. Gonna quote myself for good measure. I was mainly commenting on the fact that Thought had said something about a well-thought-out response, but wasn't sure if he'd have time to write it, and then it turned into a discusssion of Joshonian/Joshalonian style. :P It amused me.

Once more, for good measure. But anywho, the response you mentioned that I mentioned can be found here: http://www.chronocompendium.com/Forums/index.php/topic,7769.msg211110.html#msg211110
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: tushantin on November 18, 2011, 03:00:14 pm
@Truthordeal, FW and anyone curious: I posted your response regarding misogyny in this post.  (http://www.chronocompendium.com/Forums/index.php/topic,9588.msg211350.html#msg211350)
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on November 18, 2011, 04:15:24 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaFVr_cJJIY#t=55m49s

Quote
Because I'm a man, and she must respect.

(http://static.moviefanatic.com/images/gallery/mickey-rourke-as-hyperion_612x404.png)

Kill him.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on November 27, 2011, 08:27:56 pm
All right, this post is a reply to Thought’s thoughtful (heh) critique of my position on abortion. Interested parties may review that exchange beginning on Page 70 (http://www.chronocompendium.com/Forums/index.php/topic,7769.1035.html) of the Fuck Sexism Thread, continuing until Thought’s reply on Page 72. This post is addressed to Thought but is intended primarily for the benefit of the gallery, since Thought’s reply came mainly as an effort to add a perspective which he thought would be helpful.

At this point in your response, it became clear that you are not so much pro-choice as you are pro-abortion. The rest of your post confirmed this. I debated if I should respond, as indicated earlier.

That is incorrect, and I will be correcting some of your mistakes which follow from this original one. For now, suffice it to observe that the insinuation of being “pro-abortion” rather than “pro-choice” carries a negative connotation with it—it is very nearly a straw man, not an emotional one but an academic one—and although if forced to do so I would defend against that veiled denigration I find it unnecessary to do so here because I am simply not pro-abortion when we contrast that construction with the option of pro-choice. I am in favor of abortion at will as a means for people to control their circumstances and not be subjected against their will or by coercion to an age-old prejudice which disempowers and punishes both females and unwanted children, directly, and those around them indirectly.

In contrast, what does it mean to be pro-abortion? Why, it means that you’ll support abortion. Nothing is said of the context in which the procedure is performed. Nothing is said of the rights of the woman, or the rights of humans. Tush mentioned it, but since you’ve been ignoring him, perhaps you missed this: forced abortions occur. Someone who is pro-choice thus cannot be abstractly pro-abortion: if we support a woman’s right to control her reproduction, then we must support a woman’s access to an abortion if she so chooses to have one, and we must oppose abortions being forced on those who do not desire them.

Your understanding of the issue would benefit from realizing that American debate on abortion rights exists only on one half of the possible spectrum, ranging from abortion on demand to no abortion at all. Abortion on demand actually occupies the central ground—which is why I view my support of unrestricted abortions at will as moderate and the views of most Americans as extreme. Moving in the other direction from abortion on demand, we eventually get to the opposite extreme of no births at all—every baby is aborted, regardless of whether the mother wants to give birth or not. Various positions on this half of the spectrum account for the incidence of forced abortion in the real world.

Thus, the spectrum is one of choice which proceeds from no choice but to accept one outcome, to free individual choice for either outcome, to no choice but to accept the other outcome.

To be quite clear, I have not explored that half of the spectrum as thoroughly as I have explored the spectrum which opposes the right to abortion, as that half of the spectrum comprises much of the issue’s urgency and lingering injustice in our social climate. Contrary to the claims of conservatives, forced abortions in this country—although they do exist—are rare and do not represent a broader social ill.

To be even more clear, I do not generally support forced abortions, and I can think of no specific circumstance where I would support an abortion if it were directly against the will of the mother. Perhaps that is because I have not explored that half of the spectrum sufficiently to identify all possible categories of justification. Nevertheless, I can think of no instance where I would support it. The most I can say is that I would support involuntary abortions in cases where the mother is mentally incapacitated and unable to render an informed decision, and some kind of risk exists as to either the mother’s wellbeing (if she retains the capacity for such) or the child’s.

Consider, then, your own words in opposition to the author’s statement that he is not pro-abortion. The effective meaning of your opposition is that the pro-choice movement’s primary goal is to promote abortion, even when it is in opposition to a woman’s right to choose. That is what a pro-abortion stance necessitates, and that is why the author rejects it, and that is why you should reject a blind pro-abortion stance. Even if all you say is that forced abortions are not tolerable, you are then admitting that abortion is only tolerable within the context of the situation.

My opposition to the author of that article was that he supported abortion by vilifying it, nothing more. Your logic here follows from the incorrect assumption that I am pro-abortion, and thus is equally inapplicable.

To make a free choice, one must have access to honest information. Additionally, while it is admitted that one cannot know all potentially relevant factors to a conundrum before him or her, free choice also relies on having as full and complete of information as possible. The reason for this is that malicious characters can use partial information and false information to get an individual to make the “choice” that the malicious character wants them to make. Such behavior injures and suppresses the right of the individual to make a free choice.

The necessity of full and honest information is particularly important in medical procedures, where it takes the name of “Informed Consent.” While patients should indeed listen to the recommendations of their doctors, a doctor must still explain the situation to a patient and be complete honest with all unpleasant details. If there is only a 10% chance that you’ll survive an operation, the doctor is morally obligated to tell you this. If there is a chance that there is a 0.2% chance that you’ll feel queasy for an hour after a medical procedure, the doctor is still morally obligated to tell you that. Patients must be fully informed of their options, the risks associated with each, and the potential outcomes.

This is broadly correct. My only contention is that what you speak of as a “moral” obligation—I will overlook my disregard for moral systems here and treat your usage of the word as compatible with the concept of ethics—which exists at all levels of statistical risk is eventually bounded on the lower end by other ethical obligations as well as practical realities. To apprise individuals of all risks—the ethical position you are taking—is prohibitive, because the full spectrum of risks for essentially any action entails a long tail of vanishingly unlikely but still directly possible outcomes which, were they to occur, would significantly affect the individual in question. Not only is such information prohibitive, but the provider does not possess it in its entirety to begin with. Thus your position with regard to these statistical extremes is untenable (because it is not practicable) and cannot stand without a provisional directive.

The significance of this bit of abstractness in the present discussion is that, in order to be actually pro-choice, one must not only work to maintain a woman’s access to an abortion, if she so chooses to obtain one, but one must also work to ensure that those who are faced with such a choice have access to as honest and as full of information as is possible.

Your error, then, is in not supporting that goal. Indeed, you are opposed to that goal!

Frankly, I find it difficult to accept that an individual of your intelligence could make a statement like this with full honesty. It makes me doubt your sincerity, and wonder what you are playing at.

In any case, you are flatly wrong. I fully support the right of a pregnant female to have good information prior to making a decision about whether to have an abortion. I always contend that people should base their decisions and judgments on good information. I have hit that conviction repeatedly over the years, here and in our discussions elsewhere, and everywhere else I write my personal thoughts. That is a theme of mine. You know, “Illumination” and all that. I don’t know if I ever specifically stated at the Compendium that I want people who are considering whether to complete or terminate a pregnancy to have good information, but if I did not then how supremely disappointing of you to infer that my silence on that very narrow and explicit assertion could possibly mean that I support the opposite view. I trust you will stand corrected without delay.

Quote from: Lord J Esq
The right to personhood by the unborn child sets in after conception but before the child is born. This strategy pragmatically attempts to serve everyone by asserting the right to an abortion for part of the pregnancy, but asserting personhood rights for the fetus for the remainder of the pregnancy. The logic behind it uses irrelevant and often arbitrary physical factors such as heartbeat, the ability to feel pain, “viability,” the ability to smile, the presence of certain detectable brain activity, and various “human” behaviors like kicking. This argument is simply not defensible.
Your stated justification for rejecting the position that personhood sets in after conception but before birth is that such a position is not defensible. That is a worthwhile consideration, to be sure, but that is not sufficient to reject such a position. Indefensible or not, if it is true, then it must be held to! To do otherwise is to present a false face to the people making the choices to have abortions, and thus it is to manipulate their choices and undermine their rights.

By “not defensible” I meant “not correct on the grounds of being not logically defensible.” Yes, if a position is correct it should be upheld, but that scenario is irrelevant because the argument that personhood develops prior to birth is not correct—i.e., the assertion is not logically defensible. Indeed, such arguments as exist in support of that particular assertion—e.g., the primacy of a supernatural “soul,” the prevalence of irrelevant physical characteristics such as a heartbeat—all of them are bogus. To one of your learning they should be self-evidently bogus (and we could take them one at a time if it were truly a point of contention), but I recognize that your past history of Christian conservatism may create intellectual blind spots.

You go beyond that to affirm a falsehood as well:
Quote from: Lord J Esq
Our physical nature provides that an unborn child does not possess personhood at any stage. Personhood, not “life” or “humanity,” is the relevant criterion at issue when it comes to asserting any special rights of the unborn. The absence of personhood is the absence of legal standing. One cannot murder a non-person, nor is the killing of a non-person inherently wrong like murder is.
To be very clear, I am not saying that your falsehoods are contained in the claim that personhood does not begin at conception, nor is your falsehood contained in the claim that personhood begins at birth. Rather, the falsehood comes is asserting as truth that which you do not know to be true.

This is of utmost importance, so I will repeat it: Your error is in making a definitive judgment on a topic that you lack any concrete evidence for. The lie is making a moral quandary appear resolved and simple.

I understand what you are saying here. I do not possess metaphysical certainty as to what personhood entails, and my scientific understanding of the concept is, though well-informed, necessarily incomplete (as our current science does not yet encompass such completeness).

Although in all but the highest levels of precise dialectic conversation, some casualness is not only inevitable but also to be encouraged lest we reduce our intellectual engagements to a robotic quality, since you pointed it out I will indeed have to clarify my position. Ahem: “Our physical nature provides, to the best of our understanding, that an unborn child does not possess personhood at any stage.”

There you are. Usually—as those who know me well will point out with a roll of the eyes—I am quite exhaustive about these clarifications, but I sometimes omit them when I am speaking imperatively. Call it a writer’s prerogative. Regardless, I am all too happy to admit my mistake and take this opportunity to address what is one of only a few criticisms in your whole post that is both correct and applicable to me.

Incidentally, your comment that my alleged falsehood is not contained in “the claim that personhood begins at birth” makes another incorrect assumption. I do not claim that personhood begins at birth—a position which you wrongly imply to me—but that it develops gradually beginning a number of months after birth.

Since there is no objective observable point where personhood begins, we must refrain from making arguments based on personhood.

Incorrect. There may yet be no absolute point, but there is a clearly defined interval of uncertainty, the lower end of which does not come anywhere near a child’s pre-birth existence. Furthermore, even if there were such an overlap, we would still—and should still—be able to make such arguments on a tentative basis.

What I can and will do -- and what I here urge you to do -- is to pursue truth first, a human’s right to choose second, and abortion only as a third.

It is easy to be encouraged to affirm that which one already holds. Except for your tacking on of abortion to the end of that statement—which is unnecessary—I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Defense of abortion is only our primary concern if abortion itself is our primary concern. If our primary concern is freedom of choice, then we must discard even easily defended positions if they are false.

You present a false dichotomy here. Abortion is relevant because it concerns a female’s right to self-determination. Choice is the means by which self-determination is executed. Abortion is, in this particular case, is the object.

That you judge the matter in terms of defensibility rather than accuracy is part of why you made your error, Josh.

Again you mistake me. This time your mistake is understandable, as I tend to be quite particular with my word usage, and my usages are not necessarily standard. A correct position is defensible, by definition, even if that defense is tentatively inaccessible or otherwise conceptually very difficult to communicate, let alone unpopular. An indefensible position, therefore, by corollary, is never correct. Hence it is trivial for me to use the terms interchangeably in most circumstances, because imprecision will never lead to inaccuracy.

I had two criticisms of your post. The first, that your stance is oppressive, has been explained.

And dismissed as an error of interpretation on your part! On the whole your criticisms are valid—with a few glaring exceptions—but they simply do not apply to me personally. We have substantially more agreement on these issues than you realized, and perhaps I have been able to bring this to your awareness. I know that I can be abstruse, arcane, obscure, and capable of many shortcuts whose intermediate steps are not apparent. That is a weakness of mine as a writer who writes to general audiences. I would advise you, in general, to ask me for clarity prior to spending your valuable time on criticisms which, though generally meritorious, are irrelevant.

The second, that you use Christian Fundamentalist tactics, is next.

Simply put, you are engaging in the same unthinking aversion to compromise that fundamentalists take in relation to science.

I hereby disabuse you of the notion that I have put anything less than extensive consideration and study over many years into my views on abortion. My thinking is extensive. My position is rigid only because the alternatives presented to me are ethically unconscionable. You just spilled much ink insisting that positions be upheld to the extent they have truth to them; it is an inescapable consequence of that (correct) insistence that positions based in untruth be rejected. I am really a very reasonable person. It is American ignorance to blame, dear sir, and not humble Josh, that I cannot accept any of the popular positions on abortion in this country. I am not intransigent. I am more than willing to negotiate to the extent my ethics will allow me, and to be tolerant of all that exists within that sphere. I am even, in cases of deplorable injustice, willing to accept interim compromises leading to solutions which exist outside my ethical sphere, on the understanding that they will progress forward with time and social clamor. For instance, I support abortion rights in this country as they exist right now at the federal level—even though abortion is flatly illegal in many instances. It’s not that I accept the present status of rights as an end, but that I support the fact that the present regime alleviates considerable injustice and is preferable to no abortion rights at all until the day we can achieve abortion on demand for everyone.

Insisting that a complex world view is all or nothing results in a terrible choice.

Once again we are in general agreement and you do not realize it. I only issue absolutes where it is factually correct or ethically compulsory that I do so. My general philosophical stance is highly agnostic, curious, skeptical, and probing. I am impressed that I can offer what few absolutes I do, but I am proud of them, Thought, because they are important and because they are right, and I simply do not accept your underestimation of my thinking or considerateness. I could count on one hand all the times in my life where I have issued an absolute which turned out to be fundamentally incorrect. Off the top of my head, I cannot think of any.

You objection to the author of the article, Josh, is clearly the result of him not adhering to what you perceive as the only legitimate world view. Since you perceiving him erring in anything, even though it is minor, you perceive him as no longer being part of the “faithful.” The problem is, he isn’t the only one. People have and will continue to recognize the lie in your position, but this isn’t a crisis unless you make it one.

Good rhetoric, but it has no legs to stand on.

However, as an objective curiosity, I think your last remark there—about people having broad power to prevent crises in their lives—is one of the wiser and more insightful truths I have heard from you, ever, let alone lately, and I encourage all others reading this to reflect upon it. I should include myself, as the recent kerfuffle with tush indicates. My usual methods did not account for his, well, his style, to put it charitably, and I create a lot more trouble for myself and him and all the rest of us than it was worth to point out the absurdity and wretchedness of many of his positions and arguments.

Should you construct such a world view in which if people don’t agree with you they then feel like they have to become pro-life?

Indeed not. You make a good point. Generally, I tolerate allies when we align on issues but not necessarily the underlying rationale. For instance, you and I are in broad agreement on many issues indeed, yet I suspect without much doubt that, on a personal level, we are quite different in some important ways when it comes to why and how we hold those positions. To reiterate, I usually tolerate people with whom I share common cause. Most of my allies on this very Compendium are just that, allies, and not people with whom I share a deep and abiding philosophical worldview. I do this out of shrewd pragmatism on one hand, because their support aids my own ambitions, but also because it makes relationships with these peope easier, friendlier, and more satisfying.

But, with regard to that contact on my Google+ list who I “un-circled” for posting in support of the view taken by the author of that abortion article, I departed from my usual practice of tolerance. I was aware of my choice at the time, and I felt that the overreaction on my part was a demonstration of my fury at the view which supports abortion rights but hates abortion. It was not inherently consistent, but it was contextually so.

And I do that on occasion. I’ll depart from my usual practice to do something unlike me, to make a point—even if the only person who cares is me, myself.

Within the pro-choice movement, there needs to be room for people who say that personhood begins at conception but that abortion can still be acceptable.

I see what you are saying, and, though I don’t like it, in an effort to enrich myself from your very thoughtful post, I will contemplate on how I can be better about this. Of course, your suggestions are always welcome. =)

At this point you are probably thinking that these have been interesting but ultimately unconvincing arguments (particularly, I suspect, on the less  important topic of your scare tactics). Allow me to make another stab at displaying how your perspective is pro-abortion instead of pro-choice and how that perspective is flawed. These are essentially supplemental considerations that weren’t warranted by my above arguments but which I am here making in an effort to get past your normal hesitations.

Hah! This is one of the reasons why I so enjoy your company. You care more than most people do, and you have the words and wits to act on it. If not for your claim that I don’t support access to good information prior to making decisions, I would have found your post one of the most enjoyable things I have read from you on the Compendium in many months, even though it mostly wasn’t applicable to me. I am attracted to passion, to intelligence, to good language...and you do that better than anyone else here, I think, possibly but not necessarily excepting me. I deeply enjoy it and, what’s more, I deeply appreciate it. Thank you, Thought, for reminding me in the midst of a Compendium stagnant era that this forum is really something special.

The effective meaning of your effective meaning is quite clear: you hold that there are no instances where abortion would be unacceptable. This is easily disproven since forced abortions are not acceptable.

You know what? You’re right. I’m wrong. I don’t concede the point, but my substantiation thereof is not correct. I will have to add a qualifier to it. That much is trivial; I’ll get to it the next time I need to get to it. Some instances of abortion are unacceptable. I suppose my implication in my earlier remark was the condition of “as pertains to the mother’s will.” In other words, I meant that I hold there are no instances where abortion would be unacceptable if the mother’s will is to terminate her pregnancy. But I didn’t say that, and, moreover, the point you raise is a good one.

I return to the article to make sure of this, but the author at no point advocates that woman should pursue this option before resorting to an abortion. That is entirely you.

You are incorrect. From the article:

Quote from: The Article
I’d also love to pour some money into research to find ways to make embryos and first-trimester fetuses harvestable so they can be implanted in the wombs of people who can’t have their own babies...

It is implicit on the author’s part that this is being presented as an alternative to abortion.

Likewise, the sentiment behind your statement is clearly pro-abortion. It alienates those women who believe that their fetus is a person, and thus do not want to get an abortion, yet do not wish to carry the creature to term. If an option can be developed for them that does not hamper the freedom of other women who disagree, why reject it?

I don’t reject having that choice be available to those who want it. I support that. What I reject is the motive by which the author indicated support for funding that research. The author’s motive is his or her own personal opposition to abortion, and we have already covered that ground.

Pro-lifers already support adoption over abortion, and this procedure would be quite similar in concept to adoption.

Slightly off-topic, but pertinent: Adoption carries a burden which abortion does not, and which many people do not realize: The adopted baby will indeed eventually become a person, and that eventual person will not initially be a part of its biological parent’s (or parents’) life.

As has already been discussed, anyone who promotes equality should hope that the events which cause unwanted pregnancies would go away. This would, indeed, necessitate the hope that one day abortions would go away as well, due to lack of demand. That is only an undesirable hope if one supports abortions in opposition to choice. Abortion is a tool: pick it up when it is needed, set it down when it is not.

Returning to your forced contrast of “pro-abortion” versus “pro-choice” and your mistaken interpretation that I subscribe to what you have grouped into the former, you again paint me into an image which is not representative of my actual views. I too hope that demand for abortions which result from unintended pregnancy eventually drop to zero. But I did not say anything to contradict that earlier. I said I hope that there are as many abortions as people desire to have. So long as birth control methods are imperfect, and as humans are imperfect themselves, unintended pregnancies will continue to exist. We can pare them down, though, and I support that if only as a bulwark against the societal restrictions on access to abortion and the modest medical discomforts and minor risks of an abortion.

(However, if we are going to fancifully postulate the ideal existence of “invisible” birth control, then let’s postulate the ideal existence of invisible abortion too. In such a scenario, there aren’t many instances where birth control is any more preferable than abortion. Indeed, abortion may end up being more economically affordable—although that’s just speculation on my part.)

Meanwhile, owing to physical or social complications as well as personal changes of heart that arise once a pregnancy has begun, there will always be the demand for abortions.

But, well, only the most perfect discipline is acceptable for someone of your caliber.

The above certainly satisfies my requirements, but we shall see if you have anything to add! My hope is that you will easily and without pain recognize that your interpretation was mistaken and that we have very few actual disagreements.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on December 05, 2011, 04:19:41 pm
Sorry for the delay. To get right into matters: Josh, you had a critical misperception of the points I was making. The main reason I’m responding is to make sure that it was clear, for others as well as for you. I stated it both explicitly and implicitly several times, so I’m surprised you missed it. But then, judging from your reply, you were having an off day, so it is understandable.

It appears that you think that I imagine you sitting in a dark, abandoned warehouse, curling your dark and luxurious handlebar mustache with your left hand, chuckling and scheming and plotting on how to force women to have abortions. Perhaps there is a hunchbacked mook in the background, dragging bags full of unspeakable supplies along the ground, now in the light cast by broken windows, now in the darkness that the light only makes deeper.

That is certainly not the case. When I said that you were primarily pro-abortion, I was not saying that you weren't pro-choice, nor was I saying that you'd label yourself as pro-abortion. This is a matter of subtle degrees, not of binary situations. When you speak clearly and directly on the topic, there can be no mistaking that your words greatly value the pro-choice stance. Much as you criticized the original article for its effective meanings, rather than what it plainly said, I was criticizing you for the underlying implications and effective meanings of your words and stance, not your direct statements.

The problem, then, is that the majority of your reply shot in the opposite direction. Direct statements from you assuring the world of your good intentions do not address the criticisms. You cannot “assure” these charges away, but rather must show through your actions that these were invalid in the present and, hopefully, in the past as well.

Perhaps you will maintain that your former responses still apply? If so, there is nothing to be done. If you are considering the matter anew, then allow me to offer up a particularly telling statement you made in your reply that confirms my original assessment:

Defense of abortion is only our primary concern if abortion itself is our primary concern. If our primary concern is freedom of choice, then we must discard even easily defended positions if they are false.

You present a false dichotomy here. Abortion is relevant because it concerns a female’s right to self-determination. Choice is the means by which self-determination is executed. Abortion is, in this particular case, is the object.

The context makes it clear that the second and third sentences are in contrast to my own statement (which effectively was that if freedom of choice was our primary concern, then defense of abortion cannot be our primary concern). You are then saying that defense of abortion is our primary concern. That is incorrect. You explained why well in a completely different thread:

My amusement of the day is that I am very deeply immersed in a huge project with hydra-like tentacles. To perform one task, I must move aside and complete another one first, and to complete that task, move aside and complete another...and on, and on.

Our primary task is to ensure reproductive rights. To do that, we must complete a different task first: the establishment and protection of abortion. We might direct the entirety of our efforts to that task, but it isn’t the primary task. It is the one that we are working on to accomplish that primary task. The defense of abortion certainly our current concern, as the opposition to it poses a clear and present danger to reproductive rights, that doesn’t make it primary.

Now you did try to qualify your statement by saying that abortion is the object only in a limited setting. That is incorrect. Consider the Normandy Landings: their immediate objective was to secure a foothold in Europe, but that objective had no meaning unless it was to serve the larger purpose of the war. Defense of abortion has no meaning unless our primary concern is reproductive rights, even if only in particulars.

You are quite right that the term “pro-abortion” has a hint of unsavoriness to it (if it is only a hint, then perhaps I didn’t properly vilify it). Appearing pro-abortion over pro-choice, even if you didn’t actually mean it that way, hurts the perception of you and the pro-choice movement. It gives the opposition caricature to point to as justification for their continued opposition.

This is important because pro-lifers aren’t evil at their core. Indeed, the only way that social reforms are even possible is because people are basically good. Their decency can be appealed to. The problem is that biases, hatred, and prejudices run interference and prevent appeals to decency from getting through. To win, then, we must reduce the possible points where our appeals to decency can be stopped. The more perfect we are, the easier the victory will be.



That was main point of this post. The rest of this post will address a few minor notes, which I address now primarily for the sake of thoroughness, and at the end I’ll have the pleasurable task of admitting some errors and apologizing.

Ahem: “Our physical nature provides, to the best of our understanding, that an unborn child does not possess personhood at any stage.”

That is still misleading as it implies that our understanding supports, in some way, the supposition than an unborn human does not possess personhood. To the best of our understanding, our physical nature does not comment at all on the status of the personhood of an unborn child.

Since there is no objective observable point where personhood begins, we must refrain from making arguments based on personhood.

Incorrect. There may yet be no absolute point, but there is a clearly defined interval of uncertainty, the lower end of which does not come anywhere near a child’s pre-birth existence. Furthermore, even if there were such an overlap, we would still—and should still—be able to make such arguments on a tentative basis.

Personhood itself is poorly defined, and none of those paucitious definitions hold universal sway.

As for making tentative arguments, by all means, as long as they are labeled as such. That said, I would propose that time is better spent on other areas where reproduction rights can be concretely defended, no matter how the personhood question (the pro-lifer talking point that it is) eventually gets resolved, if it ever does.

I return to the article to make sure of this, but the author at no point advocates that woman should pursue this option before resorting to an abortion. That is entirely you.

You are incorrect. From the article:

Quote from: The Article
I’d also love to pour some money into research to find ways to make embryos and first-trimester fetuses harvestable so they can be implanted in the wombs of people who can’t have their own babies...

It is implicit on the author’s part that this is being presented as an alternative to abortion.

I fully agree: it is being presented as an alternative to abortion. As I originally noted, though, nothing is said that this fanciful treatment is to be offered in place of, rather than in addition to, abortion. It is presented as another tool, the virtues and vices of which are left unsaid.

To make a free choice, one must have access to honest information. Additionally, while it is admitted that one cannot know all potentially relevant factors to a conundrum before him or her, free choice also relies on having as full and complete of information as possible...
 
The necessity of full and honest information is particularly important in medical procedures, where it takes the name of “Informed Consent.” ... Patients must be fully informed of their options, the risks associated with each, and the potential outcomes.

... To apprise individuals of all risks—the ethical position you are taking—is prohibitive ...  Thus your position with regard to these statistical extremes is untenable (because it is not practicable) and cannot stand without a provisional directive.

I already stated a provisional directive, although perhaps it wasn’t clear enough: “all potentially relevant factors.” Factors that are too minor or unlikely to be relevant are can be dismissed with. Science has statistical processes for determining what these are, but allowances are also made for what the patient finds important. For example, since memories are formed by fast-growing parts of the brain, a cancer patient might well ask if chemotherapy (which targets all fast-growing cells, including cancer cells, hair follicles, and nerve endings) would impair their mental functions. Scientifically speaking, there's no reason for a doctor to inform his or her patients of such a concern, but if a substantial number of patients are so concerned, it is reasonable to preempt their questions. Informed consent is already an established medical practice that gets on quite fine: I am advocating essentially the same thing, just with a slightly larger practicing group.



Now, this brings me to the enjoyable part, although I wish it weren't so brief.

 
My only contention is that what you speak of as a “moral” obligation...

You are quite correct: “ethical obligation” would have been the better statement. Given that I was focusing on your effective meanings, I should have been more careful! My sincerely apologies.

Incidentally, your comment that my alleged falsehood is not contained in “the claim that personhood begins at birth” makes another incorrect assumption. I do not claim that personhood begins at birth—a position which you wrongly imply to me—but that it develops gradually beginning a number of months after birth.

Ah, you are correct here. It seems I was translocating information from the Abortion Thread discussion. Again, my apologies.

And more generally, allow me to apologize for having apparently implied that you were in some way devilish. I do not quest that you have good intentions. When you speak directly, yes, you fully support reproductive rights, fully support informed decision making, etc. My criticisms were on the “effective meanings,” not your intent. So again, my apologies for any implications to the otherwise.

As I had noted, I was trying to affect a more Joshonian style in hopes that it would facilitate communications between us. It didn’t seem to accomplish much, perhaps simply because it is contrary enough to my own style that I performed quite poorly. Anywho, I’ll discard it now and once again apologize for any offense offered.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on December 07, 2011, 11:43:35 pm
@Thought: It looks like we are converging on a consensus. I will reply at a later date to clear up some inaccuracies and errors on your part, and address some of your concerns. You could have saved yourself a lot of trouble by asking me for my position rather than attempting to discern it! In the meantime...

The Obama Administration Is Overruling the FDA's Decision to Make the Emergency Contraceptive "Plan B" Available without a Prescription (http://houstonfreethinkers.com/news-stories/national-news/2084-obama-administration-overrules-fda-on-availability-of-plan-b.html)

The news article suggests that HHS Secretary Sebelius overruled the FDA over concerns about the safety of Plan B, a viewpoint that the FDA and others dispute. I am well and truly baffled by this development. I have had only positive things to say about Sebelius thus far. Is she doing this under somebody else's orders? This is inexplicable and despicable. To have come out of the Obama administration, it is also inexcusable.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on December 07, 2011, 11:55:37 pm
Has to be election posturing. Fuck it, by the way.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on December 08, 2011, 12:37:57 am
You could have saved yourself a lot of trouble by asking me for my position rather than attempting to discern it!

When you speak plainly and directly, there can be no mistake. But when not...
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on December 08, 2011, 12:46:55 am
I think I take more care with my words than you give me credit for, and certainly more than anyone else here. It is simply unavoidable--I explained this to you in PM--that I should not maintain absolute precision clarity in my word use in all my social interactions. I understand that you rightly hold me to a higher standard, but I think in this case your standard could benefit from improvement itself.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on December 08, 2011, 12:59:10 am
Just making sure you weren't misunderstanding the point again.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: rushingwind on December 10, 2011, 05:44:41 am
Normally, I would post this in my own journal or in my SoY thread, but I thought it might be of some interest here. As for a little bit of context, I've been coming off of a long, long depression. I have things buried so deeply that I don't even remember how much they hurt me. While talking with someone the other day, I uncovered something that, like many other realizations, made me cry in the retelling of the story.

In my senior year of high school, we took a ski trip. I had signed up for a snowboarding lesson, and everyone was kind of joking around with me about being the only girl that dared to go snowboarding. I thought they were just joking. When we finally went on the trip, we all had to line up to meet the snowbaording instructor. There were six of us, and the instructor proclaimed he could only take five people, and it didn't matter that six had paid. The five boys instantly counted themselves off, and the instructor didn't even look at me. He pointed at the boys and said, "All right, guys! Let's go!"

I tried to argue with him. I said that I'd paid to be there, and the ski resort had a contract with the school and he had to take me. He rolled his eyes, looked me up and down (which was extremely embarrassing as an overweight 17 year old), and exhaled sharply. And then he said, "Look, lady, it's not my problem. Go get a lesson from someone who wants to teach you." And then he just walked off.

I stood there in shock for a moment, then cried. I felt so awful. I went back into the lodge and turned in all my snowboard equipment, as I was quite done with skiing around for the day. I sat in the lobby and cried, and one of my classmates asked me what was wrong. I told her, and she went and got the teacher. When I told the teacher what happened, she walked off and said she'd take care of it. Eventually she came back and said the manager had talked to the instructor and he would be giving me a lesson at 4pm, and he wouldn't be able to get out of it. I didn't go. I couldn't even stomach the though of it. I didn't want a lesson with that instructor. No one seemed to care that this guy overlooked me and treated me badly just because I was a woman.

That's pretty much the whole story, but it amazed me that when I started telling it to my roommate, I started to cry. I never realized how much it had actually hurt. I was in a very sensitive position at that time in my life (I mean, who isn't? But I was entering into a phase of depression and that did NOT help). I just shrugged it off and said, "Eh, no big deal." But it was a big deal, and I should have spoken up and said so, but I was just a scared teenager, not sure of herself or of what to do.

Long story short: People need to be more careful of how they treat young women and girls. I know that's pretty much the whole point of this thread, but it's important to note that even small things, small comments, and seemingly meaningless events (such as the little story above) can still hurt the recipient of those words a decade later. (I'm okay now. I cried it out. I feel better. I can now let it go. But I won't stand idly by if there's a next time.)

We need to change society. Somehow, we need to fix this. Stuff like this is not okay.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on December 10, 2011, 07:29:24 am
It is difficult to focus upon evil and retain the power to see anything else, so starkly does it bend our gaze. Never more than in the stories of injustice is it more grueling to imagine a world free of injustice.

I wouldn't have gone for a lesson with that instructor either. My sense of self-worth and my abject humiliation would have combined to make that much a certainty. I've had a few experiences along those lines in my lifetime, but nothing quite so dazzlingly egregious as yours.

You hit it on the head. Stuff like that is not okay. It devastates people.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on December 10, 2011, 02:21:59 pm
To continue my ongoing discussion with Thought:

The main reason I’m responding is to make sure that it was clear, for others as well as for you. I stated it both explicitly and implicitly several times, so I’m surprised you missed it.

That is my error, so I thank you for taking the pains to clarify your point. Importantly, however, as I told you in PM, I think you would benefit from being more clear and direct, because although I must take the blame for failing to understand you...for me to completely miss a point that has been stated several times usually suggests ambiguity on the part of the speaker, which is what I think happened here.

It appears that you think that I imagine you sitting in a dark, abandoned warehouse, curling your dark and luxurious handlebar mustache with your left hand, chuckling and scheming and plotting on how to force women to have abortions. Perhaps there is a hunchbacked mook in the background, dragging bags full of unspeakable supplies along the ground, now in the light cast by broken windows, now in the darkness that the light only makes deeper.

That is certainly not the case.

Indeed not! Though I would enjoy having a luxurious handlebar moustache to twirl in contemplating my many schemes. No, dear Thought, although I have been honestly bemused as to why you have pressed your point so hard even after being proved in error, I do not suspect that you do so out of malice.

Much as you criticized the original article for its effective meanings, rather than what it plainly said, I was criticizing you for the underlying implications and effective meanings of your words and stance, not your direct statements.

Yes, this is one of our more substantive disagreements. I must confess that some of my word usages were not absolutely strict, which apparently created the ambiguity in which you made your faulty interpretation of my position. Even though I am one of the most meticulously thoughtful people on the Compendium with regard to word choice—perhaps the very most thoughtful—it’s true that in the casual environment of this board I write at a level less formal than I would use in an academic setting. The fact that everyone else, yourself included, does the same even worse than I do, is no defense for my lapse.

Our disagreement is not that I could have been more strict with my usage of language, for I concede the charge, but that someone of your intellectual caliber was confused into such a pointless and self-evidently wrong interpretation—concluding ultimately that I would be so dim and dull as to have taken years to construct a position on behalf of sexual equality which is ill-considered and oppressive to females. You have yet to properly acknowledge your mistake here, which I think it would behoove your good character to do.

It is not that I am incapable of making such a mistake, but that in this case it was not so, and yet you persisted in the criticism even when I pointed your mistake out to you in no uncertain terms. Were I genuinely guilty of holding a counterproductive position, I would be very grateful to have it pointed out to me, and immediate in my concession.

Direct statements from you assuring the world of your good intentions do not address the criticisms. You cannot “assure” these charges away, but rather must show through your actions that these were invalid in the present and, hopefully, in the past as well.

You are mistaken also on this point. Direct statements are entirely appropriate, because we were talking about the substance of a position. Any disagreement stemming from a conflicting understanding of a single concept  is properly resolved by each party articulating their positions so that the conflicting conceptual framework is resolved.

At any rate, I have done more than my share to show over the years on this Compendium and elsewhere that I am very sincere in my views and efforts and have acted in accordance with my principles. The fact that the Compendium has such a vibrant discussion on issues of sexual equality, including abortion, is due mainly to the fact that I continually foment such discussion. I simply will not  be accused or implied to be anything less than what I am in this most crucial endeavor to promote access to abortion care for all those who wish it.

Also, to besmirch the people who are most significant to the furtherance of a just cause is unwise even if you have a legitimate academic curiosity to explore. You may always pursue those kinds of curiosity, but in private with me. You are new to the support of abortion rights, and you have a good deal yet to learn and appreciate about the nuances of the issue. Your curiosity and skepticism are healthy, and it is always preferable to be skeptical than to be faithful when in the absence of definitive knowledge. I won’t ask to be taken on faith as to the integrity of my credentials. Rather, they are already here in abundance on this Compendium and elsewhere for you to scrutinize at your convenience. In the meantime, when it comes to making public criticisms you must also take responsibility for the social fallout of your doubts which turn out to be unfounded.

Defense of abortion is only our primary concern if abortion itself is our primary concern. If our primary concern is freedom of choice, then we must discard even easily defended positions if they are false.

You present a false dichotomy here. Abortion is relevant because it concerns a female’s right to self-determination. Choice is the means by which self-determination is executed. Abortion is, in this particular case, is the object.

The context makes it clear that the second and third sentences are in contrast to my own statement (which effectively was that if freedom of choice was our primary concern, then defense of abortion cannot be our primary concern). You are then saying that defense of abortion is our primary concern.

You are mistaken again. By insisting upon the recognition of a “primary concern,” you persist in the false dichotomy which you originally presented. In the case of self-determination at issue, both means and object are paramount in their respective class. You are structurally oversimplifying the problem.

My amusement of the day is that I am very deeply immersed in a huge project with hydra-like tentacles. To perform one task, I must move aside and complete another one first, and to complete that task, move aside and complete another...and on, and on.

Our primary task is to ensure reproductive rights. To do that, we must complete a different task first: the establishment and protection of abortion. We might direct the entirety of our efforts to that task, but it isn’t the primary task. It is the one that we are working on to accomplish that primary task. The defense of abortion certainly our current concern, as the opposition to it poses a clear and present danger to reproductive rights, that doesn’t make it primary.

I think you should give further contemplation to my previous remarks until you understand them. You continue to labor under this false dichotomy you have created. The only “primary” goal here is self-determination. Abortion itself and the choice to have an abortion are not in competition with each other.

You are quite right that the term “pro-abortion” has a hint of unsavoriness to it (if it is only a hint, then perhaps I didn’t properly vilify it). Appearing pro-abortion over pro-choice, even if you didn’t actually mean it that way, hurts the perception of you and the pro-choice movement. It gives the opposition caricature to point to as justification for their continued opposition.

Given my history on this subject and my stated views in response to your criticism, these are exactly the kinds of remarks which do you a considerable disservice. I invite you to immerse yourself in the reproductive rights movement and accuse the people in it as you have accused me. You will discover soon enough that not only do you have no ground to stand upon when you presume to speak for the movement here, but, also, that you will find yourself written off as an insincere figure in that movement when you make unfounded criticisms of the people in it.

Now, I take you at your word that your commitment is genuine, and I suspect that your original impulse for criticizing me was a noble and academic one. However, at this point you need to acknowledge that your persistent criticism of my position is simply not valid, and that by refusing to own your mistake gracefully and even going so far as to suggest that my pro-choice views harm the pro-choice movement because I used the word “abortion” instead of “choice,” you are not contributing productively to the movement. If you pursue such a tack elsewhere, you will earn easy alienation. You are fortunate that I am more forgiving than most, and the more so because I know you (a little bit) and think you are an honorable person.

I have learned that, in the pursuit of grassroots social change, it is necessary for allies to put aside as many of their differences as they can in pursuit of the common goal. I have also learned to generally take people at their word when they say they are genuinely committed, unless their words or actions speak clearly to the contrary. If pressed you would probably concede that my commitment is genuine too, in which case, even though you have maintained that my execution of that commitment is counterproductive. Since I have made my disagreement with your assertion quite clear, I think now is the point for you to make a genuine acknowledgment of your error, if you have it in you to do so.

If not, then now is the time for us to agree to disagree. It isn’t necessary that allies in a movement attain full agreement with one another, so long as there is enough cohesion for the movement to agree upon some meaningful core principles and plans of action. I have learned to accept being misunderstood by others. I don’t hold it against you, because I know your intentions are not malicious.

Just so that I am clear, which we have agreed is important, don’t mistake any of this for a suggestion on my part that people in a common movement should not criticize each other. I do not agree with that statement. A healthy movement not only needs to tolerate sincere criticism, but indeed can only be healthy by tolerating such. You have made your criticism, and there was nothing wrong with giving a voice to your suspicions—up until the point when I informed you that you were in error in your interpretation of my position. After that point, you had the opportunity to press your argument decisively, which you did, and although you did spot some minor errors on my part, for which I am grateful, your core criticism was proved to be unfounded. It is not even that you lacked the means to develop your argument. It is that you mistook me, plain and simple, and since being corrected you have stubbornly persisted in your criticism despite losing the legitimacy for your suspicion. Where pride becomes the motivating factor in your campaign is where your license ends to criticize your ally in a manner that is healthy for the movement whose goals we both share.

This is important because pro-lifers aren’t evil at their core.

I see you are not using my definition of evil, “ignorance or willful ignorance.” Rather, you are using a more convention definition, and I gather you are trying to point out that many anti-choicers (or “pro-lifers,” if you must) possess a certain measure of decency and “good” intentions. Very well, then. I agree.

Indeed, the only way that social reforms are even possible is because people are basically good. Their decency can be appealed to.

But with this I do not agree. Not necessarily, anyhow. I learned a long time ago that some people can be reasoned with, but most cannot. “Decency” be damned, which is why I would really prefer you use my definition of “evil” as it does not contain the kinds of flaws and gaps that your more conventional definition does. The people who cannot be reasoned with can only be forced, neutralized, bribed, or tricked. The vast majority of the activist core of the anti-choice movement are not capable of being reasoned with. (For that matter, a significant proportion—though not necessarily the vast majority—of the pro-choice movement’s core activist base is similarly dogmatic in its commitment.) In lieu of this juiciest recourse, wherein wisdom wins the day and humanity prevails, the alternative is to crush the enemy by marginalizing their cultural influence and setting the law against their will.

Were the underlying issue not so important, and were reason sufficient to prevail, such a ruthless policy would be necessary. As it is, however, nothing less than such a ruthless policy is just.

That is still misleading as it implies that our understanding supports, in some way, the supposition than an unborn human does not possess personhood. To the best of our understanding, our physical nature does not comment at all on the status of the personhood of an unborn child.

Unless you are using a very exotic definition of “personhood,” you are wrong. Perhaps we should dedicate another thread to a discussion of what personhood is and what empirical evidence there is to demonstrate the presence of the physical traits which establish it.

I return to the article to make sure of this, but the author at no point advocates that woman should pursue this option before resorting to an abortion. That is entirely you.

You are incorrect. From the article:

Quote from: The Article
I’d also love to pour some money into research to find ways to make embryos and first-trimester fetuses harvestable so they can be implanted in the wombs of people who can’t have their own babies...

It is implicit on the author’s part that this is being presented as an alternative to abortion.

I fully agree: it is being presented as an alternative to abortion. As I originally noted, though, nothing is said that this fanciful treatment is to be offered in place of, rather than in addition to, abortion. It is presented as another tool, the virtues and vices of which are left unsaid.

The author very strongly implies—although I cannot go so far as to conclude a definite assertion—that fetal harvesting should be considered in lieu of abortion, not simply as a third possibility but as a distinct substitute.

Now, this brings me to the enjoyable part, although I wish it weren't so brief.

My only contention is that what you speak of as a “moral” obligation...

You are quite correct: “ethical obligation” would have been the better statement. Given that I was focusing on your effective meanings, I should have been more careful! My sincerely apologies.

You see, Thought!, you are quite capable of reasonable concessions when you have decided you are willing to make them. We share this personal conceit, I think, of having difficulty accepting defeat on terms other than our own...an inevitable outcome from time to time in the pursuit of (logically) hostile argument. I still catch myself having to guard against my own conceit, occasionally, but I dare say I have made good progress over the years in attaining the appropriate measure of humility. I think you are a few paces behind me. I suggest this as an area for your active efforts at self-improvement.

And more generally, allow me to apologize for having apparently implied that you were in some way devilish. I do not quest that you have good intentions. When you speak directly, yes, you fully support reproductive rights, fully support informed decision making, etc. My criticisms were on the “effective meanings,” not your intent. So again, my apologies for any implications to the otherwise.

Indeed. I appreciate it.

As I had noted, I was trying to affect a more Joshonian style in hopes that it would facilitate communications between us. It didn’t seem to accomplish much, perhaps simply because it is contrary enough to my own style that I performed quite poorly. Anywho, I’ll discard it now and once again apologize for any offense offered.

Joshalonian Style, as you put it, has the distinct quality of being provocative to those whom it rebukes, corrects, amends, and otherwise disagrees with. I don’t recommend for you or anyone. We have seen how poorly tushantin handles it. You are not as bad, but such a style is nevertheless not in your idiom and to wield it at length you probably would end up being a fair bit more offensive than me, especially given what you have told me of your conservative and confrontational past.

But what you name as “Joshalonian Style” is just one facet of a much larger jewel. It is an unfortunate consequence of this Compendium’s breadth and scope that people here see me operating in this particular style much of the time, out of proportion to my overall character. When I join in argument against the unworthy, the misguided, the ill-intentioned, and the foolish, “Joshalonian Style” can be brutal. Even at its gleaming best it gives scant indication of my kindness, my cautious nature, my humbleness in the face of not knowing, my soft spots, and more. It’s a pity my persona here is that of a firebrand. I am a firebrand only in the pursuit of justice, a pursuit in which I never engage haphazardly. Nowhere else in my life am I so hard-edged. To see only this side of me makes me look like a hardass. I know that. Yet in the pursuit of justice there is no other way I could be, given the reality of our grossly unjust world and the failings and ignorance of those with whom I interact on these most important subjects.

If you do not hew to your principles on matters of importance, you are nothing—a philosophical zero, a human who has surrendered their most crucial judgment to the caprice of external forces. Much like the U.S.S. Enterprise, Captain Picard’s great flagship of the Federation, I have aboard me the instruments of total war, and there is no doubt that I am better-armed than most people. Yet to call me a warship would be like calling that great vessel of the stars a warship. It is a fundamentally narrow and inaccurate view.

It’s a shame that more people on the Compendium don’t have the opportunity to get to know me better (and vice versa with regards to fascinating individuals like yourself and Faust). Perhaps I should spend more time here highlighting that side of myself. The way things have worked out thus far, I have usually ended up taking the more interesting people here aside for various projects and groups, outside the view of the Compendium at large. The general audience here, as I went to the trouble to ask in the Kinks to Work Out thread, views me as needlessly offensive, confrontational, abrasive, etc., etc. That view is doubly incorrect, not only because it undervalues the importance of hewing to one’s principles in spite of all ignorance and complacency, but because that’s not the kind of person I am when I’m not fighting, and I’m usually not fighting.

Anyhow! You are in a position to appreciate this, so take it to heart again now, and be dissuaded from pursuing the Joshalonian Style for yourself. Only I could possibly wield it to good effect, and even I have yet actually master it.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on December 11, 2011, 05:14:37 am
@RW, thank you very much for sharing your experiences -- I always find them enlightening. The behavior of the boys seems worthy of highlighting. I suspect that their self interests (that is, they paid for the lessons, too, and had no desire to miss out) made them into willing yet inadvertent participants. Often that seems the way of things: injustices seem to originate with a few and get accepted by the many.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Katie Skyye on December 12, 2011, 11:17:53 pm
This was merely something I've been wondering about, after reading a lot of things on here, and seeing the response to Tushantin's post.

I understand that it's sexist to have female characters scantily-clad while their male counterparts have full armor. I get it, okay? That makes all of the sense.
But what if the female character just doesn't wear armor? I'm going to go from my own stories to try to make sense of this to myself.

I have a group of people traveling. One is a knight and he wears full armor, not only for protection, but to conceal his identity. One is a guardsman and he wears light armor. One is a witch and she wears plainclothes, and one is a fairy and she also wears plainclothes. They're perfectly capable people, and there's really no reason for them to use armor, and the witch isn't physically strong anyway (though the fairy is), so she wouldn't be using armor.
I guess what I'm saying, is, just because women CAN be strong characters and kick ass and need to wear more clothing, do the ALWAYS have to?
I mean, I can't imagine any of my characters in bikini armor--in my head at least they are dressed appropriately for their various situations.

I've got a tall, longsword-weilding chick in SENSIBLE leather armor who has a giant as a partner who sticks to a leather vest and cloth pants because he's big enough that he doesn't have to worry about tons of protection.
And, in fact, he gets captured and she has to rescue him. Damsel in distress indeed!
I've got a gal who wears an army uniform just like everyone else's army uniform (think WWII) whose brother gets captured and killed. She's also the bodyguard for another male character in the story.

I've got a gal who rides a dragon and wears light armor under a DRESS just in case her giant meat shield/best friend doesn't manage to protect her.

Who else? A demoness who sticks to denim shorts and short-sleeved tops because anything else gets torn up too easily by her movement and the monsters she fights. It helps that she's practically impervious to blunt trauma, and there's no armor in the world that could block the kind of attacks she's dealing with anyway.

In fact, lots of my protagonists are female.

But seriously, am I not allowed to have a female "damsel in distress" happen once in a while without being called sexist? (I'm speaking more in general, since I rescue my male characters more than my female ones...)

Aren't I allowed to have a weak female character once in a while, along with the weak male ones? And just as many strong male characters as female ones?

And...well, I really like drawing girls! It's hella fun! And the less clothes, the better! I can't wait till figure drawing class, when I can draw nudes without anyone looking at me funny! Just because I'm realistic when I plan my characters, story-wise (giving them proper clothing) doesn't mean I don't want to draw fanservice once in a while...
...but apparently the only thing that isn't sexist is NO FANSERVICE EVER NOPE. ;A;

/sigh

Well, have some fanservice anyway!

(http://hijiribe.donmai.us/data/023edd054777723f4e3edf3ac2b86315.jpg)
...but she's so awesome!
(http://hijiribe.donmai.us/data/6d1e8b039a1e5b22422e727a2926ad42.jpg)
I SEE NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS :F
(http://hijiribe.donmai.us/data/558e988fe069a8932f4626ff24bbb004.jpg)
yes it is crossdressing yup 8D for the sillies
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on December 12, 2011, 11:56:03 pm
With regard to tushantin's post and the following remarks (http://www.chronocompendium.com/Forums/index.php/topic,2061.msg212341.html#msg212341), I actually went back and re-did my response because I think my own initial interpretation of RD's response to tushantin's post was erroneous. Therefore it may have been a mistake on my part that elicited your post here, Katie. All the same, this is a really worthwhile topic to bring up! I've thought about this quite a bit and will be sure to reply in a few days. In the meantime, I'm really curious what everyone else has to say about it.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Acacia Sgt on December 13, 2011, 02:03:36 am
I agree with you Katie. That's also more or less my stand on the matter as well. Now if only I were more active in getting into discussions... :lol:

On the other hand, these kind of topics I tend to avoid participating in anyway. It's just... well, I don't think I could keep up. :roll:
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on December 13, 2011, 02:39:12 am
But what if the female character just doesn't wear armor?

Might I suggest a google image search to answer your question? Look at Wizard Art (http://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&hl=en&source=hp&biw=1366&bih=575&q=wizard+art&gbv=2&oq=wizard+art&aq=f&aqi=g2g-m6g-S2&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=1024l2441l0l2647l10l9l0l2l2l0l203l939l0.6.1l7l0) vs Sorceress Art (http://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&hl=en&source=hp&biw=1366&bih=575&q=wizard+art&gbv=2&oq=wizard+art&aq=f&aqi=g2g-m6g-S2&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=1024l2441l0l2647l10l9l0l2l2l0l203l939l0.6.1l7l0).

For male wizards, the worst I saw was one with a mostly exposed chest (with rippling muscles, which has more to do with male power than male sexuality). For females... well, the best I saw was one wearing a sexy-toga. You'll also notice that almost all the wizards are old, while almost all the sorceresses are young.

You are quite right, Katie, in that wearing armor or not doesn't make something sexist. It is just that often women are given impractical garments that emphasize their sexual aspects: armor often results in hilarity (the chainmail bikini a perfect example). Male garments are usually practical and, when they aren't, emphasize power over sex.

Now as to your question, "am I not allowed to have a female 'damsel in distress'," since I think that is more of a writing question than a sexism question, I'll let others better than myself give their answers.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: tushantin on December 13, 2011, 02:57:24 am
But seriously, am I not allowed to have a female "damsel in distress" happen once in a while without being called sexist? (I'm speaking more in general, since I rescue my male characters more than my female ones...)

Aren't I allowed to have a weak female character once in a while, along with the weak male ones? And just as many strong male characters as female ones?
Thank you Katie for pointing that out. I share the very same sentiment, and hence my statement "Feminism goes crazy sometimes".

Where there's a cultural traction (sexism) that's oppressive the counter traction (feminism) stand with newer, better values that can keep the orthodox at bay. However, with further aggression, even the counter traction grow stagnant at their approach and end up being rock-solid dogma. This, in return, restrains creative minds from liberal thoughts. Feminism is also a victim to this kind of situation.

Which is why I never bother with feminism approach where it's not required in the first place, especially in literature where each characters are valued based on their physical and psychological status. While majority of my characters are male (because I'm a male), I also have sufficiently strong characters and protagonists as females. By strong, I don't necessarily mean physically, though that's a given; it can also be mentally, financially, politically, artistically, psychologically, philosophically, magically, etc. My approach is that where a character is weaker at one state it can be stronger at another, and will redeem that balance. That said, to answer your question, I don't really mind having female characters that are physically weaker; that said, I also don't mind male characters as physically weaker -- if anything, weaker characters add quality to story and offer creative situations to tackle with. I think FW knows what I'm talking about, and he knows my approach towards both male and female characters, especially with weaker ones.


And...well, I really like drawing girls! It's hella fun! And the less clothes, the better!
(http://bambikill.blogg.se/images/2009/chibi_blue_nosebleed_by_blue_the_echidna_45483563.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Syna on December 13, 2011, 03:57:01 am
I understand that it's sexist to have female characters scantily-clad while their male counterparts have full armor. I get it, okay? That makes all of the sense.
But what if the female character just doesn't wear armor? I'm going to go from my own stories to try to make sense of this to myself.

This reminds me of a popular response to the Bechdel Test (http://bechdeltest.com/): "But there are good, non-sexist movies that fail! Feminist movies, even!"

And they have a point -- there are excellent depictions of women to be found in some movies that fail the Bechdel test, and lamentable ones to be found in some of those that pass. But that doesn't mean that the trend is not indicative of a larger problem. And as writers, I think our writing can only be better for generally avoiding such generally harmful trends, except where the story absolutely demands that you utilize them (and hopefully, in such cases, you will use them in a clever and self-aware fashion).

Personally, I find that when a writer actively attempts to invert tropes, it can have the pleasant effect of stronger, deeper characterization. Of course this technique frequently results in tokenism, but certain writers have quite the knack for it -- Joss Whedon (for all his faults), for instance.  

Honestly, ethical issues aside (and they are not to be dismissed or their importance underestimated), I just find most female character tropes dead boring. That's motivation enough for me to steer clear of the damsels in distress. (Who in their right mind would consider Ophelia more interesting than Hamlet?) That isn't to say interesting things could be done with the archetype, but in this day and age I've seen so many characters of that ilk (most of them terrible) that I can't think of very many. That would be my main reservation-- that the tropes are just tired out, uninteresting, and obsolete-- though I agree with most of your post in theory, Katie.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on December 14, 2011, 02:31:06 pm
The best thing a writer can do to defeat sexism is not to worry about "tropes" and just write compelling stories free of sexism.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Syna on December 14, 2011, 03:16:42 pm
I disagree. I don't think it's necessary to think in terms of tropes, but doing so can be a legitimate tactic for any writer, and an awareness of them can help you avoid bad characterization, as well as understand how to characterize compellingly. For instance, when I was learning how to teach creative writing, referring to tropes was one of the more effective methods I found-- many students didn't understand was wrong with their flat, hackneyed characters until they understood how cliche works, and how subversion of cliche works, and how tropes are utilized well and badly.  

And some storytellers are simply more archetypally minded than others; when I create characters, it's always with archetypes as inspiration.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: tushantin on December 14, 2011, 11:13:28 pm
One thing I've actually found incredibly useful is to help give characters contrasting attributes to their own personality. For instance, if a character in immensely brutal and violent, it helps to give him fondness towards flowers or poetry to explore "hidden" areas that many wouldn't have known about, not even you. This also puts a new turn in storylines.

Another thing I've found that, contrary to what most writers say, restraining yourself actually gives you an incredibl boost in creativity.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on December 16, 2011, 11:37:57 pm
Quote from: Katie Skyye
Aren't I allowed to have a weak female character once in a while, along with the weak male ones? And just as many strong male characters as female ones?
I think that's all we can ask for! Would that there were more works as balanced as yours. Keep up the good work. If I'm remembering right you're going into the videogame industry, and I look forward to seeing the projects you're involved in down the road.


As for the questions at hand, Thought and Syna summed up my own opinions already. I think it's difficult to take a single artist - let's go with Hyung Tae Kim (https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=kim+tae+ho+artist&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=13066l14101l0l14263l7l6l0l0l0l0l415l1092l0.1.1.1.1l4l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&biw=1152&bih=717&wrapid=tlif132408789173010&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=WfrrTvjtIoLpgAeuycz5CA#um=1&hl=en&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=hyung+tae+kim+art&oq=hyung+tae+kim+art&aq=f&aqi=g1g-sS1g-S1&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=8503l11120l0l11240l17l16l0l3l3l0l202l1906l1.11.1l13l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=e5132b64d0dcfed&biw=1152&bih=717) and Bomi (http://browse.minitokyo.net/gallery?tid=2565&index=3&order=id) for sake of argument - and harangue him or her for promoting certain stereotypes. If an artist has something for breasts, or giant codpieces for that matter, I think it's kind of his or her own thing. Letting that happen every once in a while is part of freedom of expression IMO.

The problem I see is one of the aggregate. It's when there's a scantily clad or distressed-oh-somebody-save-me woman everywhere you turn that something becomes worthy of critique, and extremely worthy of fighting. I think we're getting better at it, slowly but surely. When I search female knight (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=agrias&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=240l2831l0l2934l9l7l1l0l0l0l289l1295l0.2.4l7l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&biw=1152&bih=689&wrapid=tlif132408872144310&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=i_3rTunSM83gggftsIz8CA#um=1&hl=en&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=female+knight&oq=female+knight&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=190146l191299l0l191435l13l9l0l2l2l1l202l1105l1.5.1l7l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=1c036f35f7d44e9f&biw=1152&bih=689) on Google nowadays, I at least have to scroll down somewhat before the completely nonsensical things overtake the more sensible depictions. There are enough examples to celebrate that a blog has even arisen (http://womenfighters.tumblr.com/) for the purpose! This is nowhere near where we need to be, but I think a better balance is definitely within reach.

However, my positive outlook on this could very well be the result of an insulation I've subjected myself to for a while, and where RD's comment in the Quotes thread was concerned, my limited experience in sections of the videogame industry dominated by large corporations. I have so little time to really sit back and consume media nowadays that I've made a hard rubric like Syna has: if a work features a stereotype like a bunch of scantily clad or hapless women, it probably isn't worth my time more generally. I've bowed out of experiences like World of Warcraft (http://ohinternet.com/World_of_Warcraft) and Dead or Alive (http://www.google.com/search?pq=women+in+armor&hl=en&cp=8&gs_id=w&xhr=t&q=world+of+warcraft&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&biw=1152&bih=689&wrapid=tljp1324089493799010&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=nwDsTusuprbaBbuq3aQP#um=1&hl=en&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=dead+or+alive&oq=dead+or+alive&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=5807l7006l0l7135l13l11l0l5l5l0l190l817l1.5l6l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=8fe6f94a0eda62d0&biw=1152&bih=689) on account of this, but when things like Ravenmark: Scourge of Estellion (http://i.imgur.com/yOuGA.jpg) and Serei no Moribito (http://myanimelist.net/anime/1827/Seirei_no_Moribito) await me on the other side of the equation, I can't say I've chosen poorly. It certainly isn't a rule that all good artists/game designers/etc. are drawn away from stereotypes, but over the years I feel I've seen a correlation over all. A certain creativity is needed to do something that's off the beaten path, and that level of creativity often flows into other aspects of the work.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: tushantin on December 17, 2011, 03:57:06 am
A certain creativity is needed to do something that's off the beaten path, and that level of creativity often flows into other aspects of the work.
Then here's a provoking question: If a certain fiction requires the use of scantily-clad women what justifiable purpose does it play within the context of the story?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on December 17, 2011, 05:38:20 am
If I'm understanding correctly what you're asking tushantin, I think that would fall under what Syna called using the trope "in a clever and self-aware fashion." There's always plenty of room for that; it could result in a discussion of the meaning that clothing has in the character's culture, etc., etc. And that's useful. This is the difference between a character wearing barely anything because it's hot, or because there's some kind of skimpfest ceremony going on, and the character wearing barely anything because the character is female. That gets to the root of the issue, I think. Too many pieces of media do the latter.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Syna on December 17, 2011, 11:57:28 am
Faust puts it very well, though I would add: don't kid yourself. A scantily-clad woman is still a scantily-clad woman, whatever plot-related reasons may be involved. Be careful and clever about it.

An easy fix is equal-opportunity fanservice-- take care to make the males attractive to various people who are attracted to men. Scantily-clad women seem less of a predatory phenomenon when everyone is being catered to. That way whatever issues you run into are more likely to be ones of taste, not of sexism. XD
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: tushantin on December 17, 2011, 12:51:10 pm
Faust puts it very well, though I would add: don't kid yourself. A scantily-clad woman is still a scantily-clad woman, whatever plot-related reasons may be involved. Be careful and clever about it.
In case you never figured, it was a test statement. If someone feels the need to portray scantily-clad women, does it play any purpose? It wouldn't even be worth it just for the sake of having it (unless the media is being targetted towards teen boys, which is... kinda horrid). It's the question I always ask myself while writing: what's the purpose of the element in the story? Why a vase and not a clock? Why burgers and not hotdogs? Why Libra but not Virgo? Why a dagger and not a rod? These questions help you analyze the plot abstractly and help rid of any "author's bias" temporarily which helps see things from another perspective. These are also essential for good mystery / thriller writing. XD

In this case, scantily-clad women, sexism or not, wouldn't even be an effective element in the story unless there's some explanation to it (and a pretty good explanation at that). Unless the situation is about beach parties, communal baths, etc. where even scantily-clad men are found everywhere, there's simply no reason to have it.

Then again, the topic may split here to "what do you mean by scantily-clad". Is it clothes altogether or just the armor?

If it's the latter, that complicates things further because 99% of the population are usually civilians and don't have armors. So if a woman is injured in warfare and doesn't have armor that does not mean the author was biased against her -- she's just a civilian, like many other men who died right there.

An easy fix is equal-opportunity fanservice-- take care to make the males attractive to various people who are attracted to men.
Unfortunately, I can't do that. I'm not attracted to men. XD

That reminds me. When I went broke once I offered to write a story for a magazine. The short story was actually an excerpt scene from a novel I had "planned" but had no intention of writing. While sexism wasn't central to the story it did play an important plot-point, and I took the opportunity to do something I wouldn't have normally done: I included scantily-clad women. Only this time, the element had a purpose in the plot.

At first I was worried, but with the response I received upon the publication of my article renewed my faith in humanity.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Katie Skyye on December 18, 2011, 12:20:58 pm
An easy fix is equal-opportunity fanservice-- take care to make the males attractive to various people who are attracted to men.

You mean like this guy?

(http://tales.neoseeker.com/w/i/tales/a/a0/Luke1721541spql_2.jpg)

Why do both his jacket AND shirt do that? It's prolly fanservice.

I mainly asked the question because I want to get into Video Game character design, which demands that you SEE the character model. Unlike a book or other written story, where a detailed description of clothing may be irrelevant, well...
...yeah, it's slightly more relevant!

But anyway, that's all answered my question. Seeya!
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on December 18, 2011, 10:31:58 pm
Fuck http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mrl-mm-7WM8

Ooh, first the kid shows that he works at manual labor with a distinctly all-male crew (and one techno-dinosaur). Then the kid takes the truck over to a stereotypically feminine doll (colored pink, of course, and standing next to a pink My Little Pony) who has no idea how to haul her own goods and needs Captain Truckfucker to roll up in his gas-guzzling shithound and do it for her. Fast forward and the kid rolls up to the dollhouse representing "home", and who is his wife, but none other than Lara Croft? The camera hilariously focuses on her bare stomach and large breasts. Then the man-sized version of this asshole comes home, whereupon the kid runs right up to him (past his mom) and loses his shit. (Not shown in this version of the commercial; there's an alternate floating around somewhere that I saw on TV earlier.)

It's all the subtle things. There's rape; there's domestic violence; and then there's all the insidious little, subtle, psychological images that reinforce traditional roles. Right here, it's the woman being helpless to do physical work or being a hot piece of ass who stays home all day while the man is out braving the dangers of hauling heavy shit around. Pathetic. This kid's almost guaranteed to be a future Republican vote.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on December 19, 2011, 12:31:31 am
Meme, I dub thee "Silverado Boy (http://i.imgur.com/YTKTN.jpg)."

But really, the underlying image (http://i.imgur.com/yQqzj.jpg) couldn't be more appropriate for the discussion at hand, could it? It neatly sums up so much of what we've been talking about.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: tushantin on December 19, 2011, 04:14:05 am
In the child's defense (but not the director's), I'd like to add something:

1) "Boy plays with girl dolls for the first time."

2) "Immediately shoves them into traditional gender roles."

3) Me: "Based on what he has observed."

For one thing, the child isn't to blame solely on this occasion. Monkey see, monkey do. As children, we are quite likely to follow the world based on observation, and when we see blocks moving on wheels we simply take that information for granted. The same goes for his perception of womanhood and traditional gender roles (which brings an interesting point in mind...).
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on December 20, 2011, 12:44:21 am
Quote from: tushantin
As children, we are quite likely to follow the world based on observation, and when we see blocks moving on wheels we simply take that information for granted. The same goes for his perception of womanhood and traditional gender roles...
I agree, and that's a big part of why I feel art can be a key vehicle for change. Honestly, I'm not sure how I would have turned out had I not been exposed to pieces of media like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rwq_FyjEYX4#t=25m45s) and this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJxbgBWLWZ4), and this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ls5uo4xidwQ) and this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdQF-VOvfkU#t=32s), at critical moments of early development. That violence has to be tied with power in American culture is problematic in and of itself, but against the backdrop of other media in the early 1990s, it was the gender mix that stood out. I wouldn't have gotten that message at home were it not for these game developers feeding my braaaiins.

One could extrapolate that the earlier the progressive media influence (or parental example for that matter) reaches the child, the more effective the change will be. Now I'm curious as to how modern children's cartoons compare to the ones we all watched as kids.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Katie Skyye on December 20, 2011, 02:02:31 pm
My mom went to sea for a living on a merchant marine ship right after college, and at the time was one of about 12 American women total to do so. She only stopped so she could spend more time with me and actually have a part in raising me. She is the BIGGEST influence on me because when I was seven she divorced my dad and I spent most of my time with her. When I was nine my grandpa died, effectively leaving me with no male relatives.
So I suppose I grew up with some interesting notions about gender roles--namely, that I didn't realize there were any. Sexism was a crazy foreign concept that for a long time I assumed didn't exist anymore because I'd never really been exposed to it or seen it happening in a way that I understood. I wasn't taught gender roles--I figured anyone could be as girly or as manly as they liked.
I didn't play with dolls--they were boring, somehow, because they were human. I had a bunch of beanie and plush cats, and about fifty pounds of plastic dinosaurs that I played with, and when I went through a brief Barbie phase, I had them shooting lasers at each other.
I played a ton of video games, too...and wanted to be a paleontologist.
Hm, I think what it was, was that it didn't matter if you were male of female--you just had to be smart. Smart people could do whatever they wanted to. That was my philosophy, and still is. Of course, I no longer absolutely HATE stupid people, but they're pretty darn low on my respect scale...

Hmm, as of now, I know a bunch of female-to-male transgenders, but it's very confusing for me! They all just look like girls with short haircuts! And I know a few lesbians, but I'm really not sure if they're also transgendered or what...

Basically, there's no way for me to know if someone is just a short-haired girl or a long-haired guy, or if they're transgendered or not...I really don't want to offend anyone by getting it wrong. >n<
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on December 21, 2011, 10:00:18 pm
I'm glad to see this thread doing so well. If injustice must linger, then so too must our vitality against it endure. I hope you all continue to spend good energy here, coming to terms with awareness of what sexism is, and giving form to our mutual resolve to end it.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on December 21, 2011, 10:09:03 pm
All I want for Christmas is for all men's rights activists to jump off a fucking bridge.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on December 22, 2011, 12:40:19 am
So men shouldn't be allowed to wear skirts if they feel like it?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: tushantin on December 22, 2011, 01:30:00 am
All I want for Christmas is for all men's rights activists to jump off a fucking bridge.
ZeaLitY, with all due respect, that kind of attitude actually gives plenty of freedom to misandry. Agreed, an innumerable number of women need our support. But do we have to endanger innocent men for that? Where's equality in that?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on December 22, 2011, 02:01:12 am
Quote
ZeaLitY, with all due respect, that kind of attitude actually gives plenty of freedom to misandry. Agreed, an innumerable number of women need our support. But do we have to endanger innocent men for that? Where's equality in that?

Quote
So men shouldn't be allowed to wear skirts if they feel like it?

Both of you, go read up on the fucking men's rights "movement". Comparable organizations are the Ku Klux Klan and Westboro Baptist Church. You're going to laugh at yourselves afterwards for raising objections to my post.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: tushantin on December 22, 2011, 02:21:57 am
Both of you, go read up on the fucking men's rights "movement". Comparable organizations are the Ku Klux Klan and Westboro Baptist Church. You're going to laugh at yourselves afterwards for raising objections to my post.
Ah, forgive me, I guess I misread your previous post. I thought your hatred was directed at "men's rights" rather than "men's rights activists" (ah, curse dyslexia...). And indeed, I'm not not really fond of the WBC either.

I guess part of my bias stemmed from the current situation of my relative; an innocent uncle of mine, and his family, have fallen into a misandric hellhole devised by an incredibly greedy woman. It's amazing how we put a lot of effort into removing gender inequality by supporting womanhood, then someone or the other uses that effort for their own selfish agenda (not just a few corrupt women, but incredibly self-conceited men do it too).
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on December 22, 2011, 10:58:45 am
I visited the National Council of Men's page last week when looking up SC custody law to see if we have an accountability measure for child support payments(we do not). I considered sending an email asking what the law was or how we could go about changing it, but even to contact them you need to enroll in counseling, which I'm immediately suspicious of.

But I'm not asking about the activists, I'm asking about the causes. Would you say you support their causes(the skirt thing I mentioned, child custody laws, etc.), even if their actual activism grates you?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Syna on December 22, 2011, 12:09:41 pm
But I'm not asking about the activists, I'm asking about the causes. Would you say you support their causes(the skirt thing I mentioned, child custody laws, etc.), even if their actual activism grates you?

I know this was directed at Zeality, but personally, I absolutely support such measures. It's really too bad that the "masculinist" movement is full of delusional & self-serving fools, because I would love to see men address issues specific to their gender in a way that doesn't derail feminism.

(Their attitude reminds me of why I hate One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, with the loathing-of-slash-sexualization-of Nurse Ratched. One character in that book actually mutters the line "we're living in a matriarchy"-- bear in mind this was written in the 1960s. When I read that, I set the book down and laughed hysterically for five minutes straight. How do you even start to address that!)

An interesting quote I found at No, Seriously, But What About the Menz (http://noseriouslywhatabouttehmenz.wordpress.com/), which I have some problems with but which generally covers men's issues much more capably than most:
Quote
My “not into gender studies” friend once told me that although he frequently deconstructs problems of masculinity in the privacy of his own mind, he doesn’t like to publicly have those conversations because he doesn’t want to sound like an MRA. He said, “A lot of the time, men who want to think seriously about masculinity won’t talk about it aloud because we really don’t want to be that,” emphasizing “that” with loathing. He later added, “It’s very tricky to discuss masculinity yet avoid simply devolving into male entitlement. That’s the crux of the problem with the ‘Men’s Movement’ assholes — none of them are addressing the underlying problems of masculinity.  They’re just whining about not receiving the privileges their cultural conditioning tells them to expect.”
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: xcalibur on December 22, 2011, 12:17:47 pm
I assume that most "mens rights activism" is either pure trolling, or a response to the worst excesses of feminism without taking the rest into account.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on December 22, 2011, 12:52:34 pm
I checked out the subreddit for Men's Rights a while back, for no other reason than that the name caught my eye while browsing. The posts there seemed horrific, but in order not to misrepresent them based on memory, I went back today. Here's what I found:

(http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l242/Truthordeal/Mensrights.png)

For those of you who don't know how reddit works, these are posts by members, either with links or text, that have been "voted up" because a mass agrees on them. This is about as clear a view of a men's rights' consensus as you'll find in one place. Here's the link if you care to explore it more on your own:

http://www.reddit.com/r/mensrights

-------

Now I think there's some good on here. I think we would all agree that female-on-male domestic abuse is an issue that's often ignored or goes unreported because men fear a lack of respect as a result. It's also an issue that I feel feminism on its own does not address effectively, although we all probably would not agree on that. Either way, some advocacy on it is a net benefit. Unfortunately, as Syna said, there's also a bunch of whining about a loss of privilege, and those guys need to grow up.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Katie Skyye on December 22, 2011, 04:02:26 pm
This is only slightly related: I know that when my parents were getting divorced, my dad wanted to try to get full custody instead of my mom, but decided not to after the lawyers basically laughed at him for suggesting it. Even his own lawyer didn't think it was wise to try.
I'm glad he DIDN'T get custody, because he's terrible, but I knew some people in school whose moms were batshit insane and their dads were decent people, at least, but who couldn't get custody and whose child support was going to (in one case) drugs for the mom, and in another case, WoW subscriptions. Yes, really.

So...hm, I wasn't really making a point, just an observation.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on December 22, 2011, 04:23:19 pm
Their entire fucking attitude is "I knew x and y happened to him, FEMINIST CONSPIRACY" or "I read about a false rape allegation once; all rapes are thus false, except for prison rape against men, am I right guyz???" Some of the most incredibly nasty, boorish, pathetic people dwell within the men's rights "movement", and it's why none of their initiatives or legitimate concerns will ever be addressed. No one wants to deal with a group of 1 sane person and 9 crazy assholes. /Mensrights/ on reddit is moderated and run by someone who legitimately believes that there is a female conspiracy that currently controls the world.

 :picardno
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: tushantin on December 23, 2011, 04:58:54 am
A point to note is that when the power tilts over to the advantage of feminist mindset then the ratio of false rape allegations eventually increase (though still minimal compared to actual rape cases). No, the real interesting bit is that despite the negligible scores there will always be a triggered fear amongst the "masculine activists" which they think gives them a blank check to rationally justify themselves. The loss of privilege eventually deals in a backward perspective and they begin stepping on paranoia grounds of "feminist conspiracy", a concept that may or may not exist.

Question is, how are you going to tackle this backward thinking? Aggression would further the paranoia by ten-fold but halting would allow them to chuckle smugly. Then there's also the question of how will they react to what circumstances. The privileges bestowed upon "the men" traditionally in one way helps furthering the goals of feminism and yet in another remains an annoying hindrance.

Yet, my personal belief is that masculinity doesn't need privileges. Societies without patriarchy, especially those in the ancient/antiquity east, have done quite well too. I think this would be a good time to revisit and study those societal structures (though some were based on religious philosophies).

Quote
That’s the crux of the problem with the ‘Men’s Movement’ assholes — none of them are addressing the underlying problems of masculinity.  They’re just whining about not receiving the privileges their cultural conditioning tells them to expect.”
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on December 23, 2011, 02:29:37 pm
I like stories, they are wonderful at illustrating concepts. To that end, I beg your indulgence, Tush, while I relate one that is here relevant.

My dog hates getting her toenails trimmed. She used to tolerate it better than she does now, and the worsening is largely my fault. When she gets her nails trimmed, I used to try to comfort her during the process, to reduce her fear. Unfortunately, my comforts became associated with the unpleasantness of trimming her nails, and now if I try to comfort her during this, it only makes her fear worse. In some ways, comforting her was an indication that there was indeed something to fear. I recognized my error and have subsequently adjusted my behavior. My dog still hates getting her nails trimmed, but she isn’t so terrified as when I tried to calm her fears.

How does this relate? People can be the same way. Our efforts to reduce the fears of others can have the opposite effect of the one intended. By trying to reassure “Men’s Right Activists” that we have no desire or intention of turning the XY persuasion into a secondary class of citizens, we may be confirming to them that their fears of such a situation are valid, and thus in turn we reinforce them.

The solution, then, may be to do nothing about them. Instead, we must focus on ourselves being clear in our actions and intentions, and ensuring that our actions are impeccable. If telling someone “there is nothing to fear” causes them to  fear more greatly, then showing them that there is nothing to fear is a legitimate option to try. I cannot guarantee brilliant success -- by dog is still afraid of getting her nails trimmed -- but it might help things not be as bad.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Katie Skyye on December 25, 2011, 01:17:23 am
(http://www.deviantart.com/download/207469542/internet_jerks_by_b1nd1-d3fisiu.gif)
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: tushantin on December 25, 2011, 05:29:06 am
@Katie: XD I feel really sorry for that dude. It's ironic he's surprised about "a girl on the internet", as if the concept is foreign to him (quite the majority of brilliant artists at DeviantArt seem to be females, though I wouldn't be surprised if the majority at 4Chan are males).

@Thought: I owe you a response, though pardon the delays. (I learned a term which I'd like to use now) I'm stretched too thin.  :D
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Katie Skyye on December 25, 2011, 08:04:51 pm
@Katie: XD I feel really sorry for that dude.

That picture was drawn by a girl! XD
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Sajainta on December 25, 2011, 10:08:50 pm
That picture was drawn by a girl! XD

I think he meant the person in the picture, not the person who drew it.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on December 27, 2011, 01:57:00 pm
For New Year's, I want all men who complain about getting "friendzoned" to jump off a bridge.

She doesn't want to have sex with you. Might it be because you're an indignant, uptight, self-pitying, "nice guy" patriarchal asshole? Get the fuck over it, you pathetic pieces of shit. Stupid motherfuckers.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: tushantin on December 27, 2011, 02:08:54 pm
For New Year's, I want all men who complain about getting "friendzoned" to jump off a bridge.

She doesn't want to have sex with you. Might it be because you're an indignant, uptight, self-pitying, "nice guy" patriarchal asshole? Get the fuck over it, you pathetic pieces of shit. Stupid motherfuckers.
You have my vote there. It's amazing how a lot of guys think that to get a girl you need to be a pick-up artist of sort (well, it is an "art" indeed, but not one I'd approve of); it's like a game to them rather than trying to legitimately understand someone's feelings. Only two kinds of men usually worry about being "friendzoned": the Casanovas (aka, "Women Hunters"), and those living in their mom's basements.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on December 27, 2011, 02:21:31 pm
Oh, but when they're rejected, it's the GIRL who's the shallow one, according to them. "But I just wanted to get to know her!!! SUCH A SHALLOW WOMAN REJECTING NICE GUYS LIKE ME"

(http://chronofan.com/Zeality/SOYAE.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: tushantin on December 27, 2011, 02:28:55 pm
Oh, but when they're rejected, it's the GIRL who's the shallow one, according to them. "But I just wanted to get to know her!!! SUCH A SHALLOW WOMAN REJECTING NICE GUYS LIKE ME"
XD

Then I've news for you. Reminding me of a similar article I once read somewhere, a lot of guys like dividing themselves between "Nice Guys" and "Jerks" (there has been an in-depth study of it in psychology, but common folks take it in simplistic terms and disregard the consequences, making it impractical). Related to your comment, I can safely say that those "nice guys" complaining in those lines aren't really "Nice Guys" in the first place.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on December 28, 2011, 02:54:36 am
http://skepchick.org/2011/12/reddit-makes-me-hate-atheists/

Rebecca Watson basically did a ShitRedditSays effortpost that annihilated r/atheism/ and helped demonstrate why reddit, and the internet at large, is so fucking hostile to women.

I am now taking volunteers to run my reeducation camps for patriarchal assholes.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on December 28, 2011, 03:21:01 am
I'm still reeling after getting a whiff of what happened there -- all the analysis needs now is a trigger warning.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Katie Skyye on December 28, 2011, 02:12:23 pm
For New Year's, I want all men who complain about getting "friendzoned" to jump off a bridge.

Hmm, I accidentally did this to someone. I considered him my bro, but he ended up falling for me. He never complained about "friendzoning," but that's essentially what happened.
Hmm, I feel bad for him, but I don't regret turning him down. We've since cut off contact, anyway.
Anyway, the majority of assholes complaining about 'friendzoning' are just that: assholes. I'm not trying to defend them, I'm only sharing a personal experience of mine. I'm not raising any arguments here. Okay? Okay.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on December 28, 2011, 03:48:46 pm
I cannot deny that I was once a "nice guy," in the sense of complaining about shallow women. This is one of those instances where you hang around the type of people that reinforce certain ideas with personal experiences, and, of course, it's often hard to crawl out of those delusions.

I think the main reason I got caught up in that mindset is something that tush brought up; in order to get dates, the common perception is that you have to be a 'player.' You have to have all the right moves, know the right words, and overall be a manipulative asshole. Obviously that's not the case, and today I realize that being manipulative in that case is often a sign of an abusive relationship or the 'seduction community,' but in high school where perception matters that's what it was. Since I was not a player, it often occurred to me that I had some kind of flaw that made me unable to get a date, which also coupled with the (correct) opinion on my part that the players were giant skeezbags anyway.

So the "nice guy" community was a perfect fit for me. It wasn't MY fault for not being a player; it was the girls' faults for only liking jerks. Those shallow girls were the reason that I couldn't get a date, and it had nothing to do with anything else that even related to me, except that I wasn't a "jerk." Of course this brings up the problem of the "nice guy" getting friendzoned and whatnot. xkcd can explain it better:

(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/friends.png)

In the end, while "seduction" types are manipulative assholes, the "nice guy" and his emotional manipulation of himself and others is often just as bad. I'd like to think I've kept the good parts of the "nice guy" in me and have begun using that sort of patience and empathy in platonic relationships, but really, you're not much of a nice person or a friend if you can't commit that much anyway.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: tushantin on December 28, 2011, 04:05:43 pm
XD The problem with the "nice guys" complaining about "shallow women" (no offense, Truthordeal) is usually because there's a lack of self-respect, much less actually respecting a woman: you simply let them walk over you. In any case, we've all been there (including the women in similar situations, I suppose), so don't worry.

I think I'll be concise here rather post a text wall: based on evolutionary traits, a lot of times masculine and manipulative "jerks" seem attractive to many partners because strength of character and self-respect triumphs in social fields and competence. But there's another facet a lot of people miss: women are usually attracted towards men with feminine traits for their sensitivity, kindness and understanding. Unlike relationship with abusive jerks, relationship with feminine men seem to last longer (at least from my research). Femininity pertains to gentleness and honesty, and hence often fidelity. Sincerity wins always.

But of course, even feminine men require sufficient confidence. Without self-respect, and respect for the partner, things go crazy, be it jerk or nice, man or woman. A person doesn't need to be a jerk, or pretend to be a nice guy. Just go out there and honestly socialize and have fun, doesn't matter who. Know each others' feelings, and remember that every friend matters. And more importantly, be yourself!
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on December 28, 2011, 04:12:57 pm
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/28/world/middleeast/israeli-girl-at-center-of-tension-over-religious-extremism.html?_r=1&ref=women

Fuck these stupid motherfucking assholes. The Romans should have razed the old Abrahamic places of worship, destroyed the icons, and created a policy of detecting and eliminating religious dissent in its most nascent form. How less fucked-up the world would be if we were still half-caring about Jupiter and his pantheon instead of living under the thrall of monotheistic brutality. A few words to the right governors and administrators, and Jesus would have never made it out of Galilee, and Mohammed would have never stepped foot outside Mecca.

(http://www.preteristarchive.com/Rome/images/titus/1885_alda-tadema_titus/The_Triumph_of_Titus_big.jpg)

Ave, Imperator.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Magus22 on December 28, 2011, 05:08:44 pm
I am embarrassed to say (since I just turned 24 a week ago today)

...but what exactly is "friendzoning"?

I could probably find something on the plethora of web content available on our fabulous search engines, but I have to say that The Compendium is far more intelligent than an automatic search resulting in over a possible 1,000,000 results...
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on December 28, 2011, 05:39:49 pm
@Zeality: Rome did do that. Incidentally, that's why Christianity spread the way it did.

@Magus: I'll give you an example. A boy and a girl are friends. The boy starts feeling that his relationship with the girl could be more than friendship, and starts dropping hints or even going so far as to ask her out. The girl, either unaware or not interested, drops hints that she doesn't think of him that way, outright rejects him, etc., and usually says that she would like to "remain friends." When the boy knows that he will never have more than a platonic friendship with the girl, that is called being put in the "friend zone." A lot of "nice guys" complain about being "friendzoned" because they typically project their feelings onto the girl and think that they were being led on, and that her rejection was cruel and shallow.

Of course, my example emphasizes the male side of things, but that's because I happen to be male and the incidence of this sort of thing tends to be more heavily male.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Acacia Sgt on December 28, 2011, 07:18:10 pm
The Romans should have razed the old Abrahamic places of worship, destroyed the icons, and created a policy of detecting and eliminating religious dissent in its most nascent form. How less fucked-up the world would be if we were still half-caring about Jupiter and his pantheon instead of living under the thrall of monotheistic brutality. A few words to the right governors and administrators, and Jesus would have never made it out of Galilee, and Mohammed would have never stepped foot outside Mecca.

That's a big butterfly effect trigger. Despite the negative things, there were also quite a bit of positive things that were inspired by those religions. For example, without the Crusades, Europe wouldn't have come in contact with the Middle East and the influence it left in them after the Crusades were over. Or it would just have taken longer. That is, assuming this change wouldn't influence the fall of the Roman Empire.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Syna on December 28, 2011, 08:45:31 pm
@Zeality: Rome did do that. Incidentally, that's why Christianity spread the way it did.

Rome did enforce policies against the Christians, but they were also exceptionally accommodating of the Jews-- incidentally, part of the reason that Christians were discriminated against.

They basically treated the Christians in a similar fashion to the more uppity mystery cults, because that's what they were acting like.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on December 28, 2011, 10:39:50 pm
Rome had already "fallen" by the time of Mohammed too; I just wanted to address the "Christianity" aspect of it.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on December 28, 2011, 10:49:12 pm
Rome proper was still alive in the Byzantines. There's a great alternative history fiction (whose name escapes me) in which a lone Byzantine agent detected and assassinated Mohammed early on, averting Islam and allowing the Byzantine Empire to eventually reclaim the lost western empire.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on December 29, 2011, 04:52:45 am
Really interesting book I just found (http://books.google.com/books?id=MX_cIxhdZQ4C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false); those interested in media may want to give it a whirl. It's on the dense side so far, but I'm finding the analysis rich! Here's a book review (http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=9416) for a quick recap.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Magus22 on December 29, 2011, 12:19:55 pm
@Magus: I'll give you an example. A boy and a girl are friends. The boy starts feeling that his relationship with the girl could be more than friendship, and starts dropping hints or even going so far as to ask her out. The girl, either unaware or not interested, drops hints that she doesn't think of him that way, outright rejects him, etc., and usually says that she would like to "remain friends." When the boy knows that he will never have more than a platonic friendship with the girl, that is called being put in the "friend zone." A lot of "nice guys" complain about being "friendzoned" because they typically project their feelings onto the girl and think that they were being led on, and that her rejection was cruel and shallow.


Well I understand it now so that was an excellent example. Many thanks! Zeality is pissed because guys always seem to blame the girls for their reaction and for being the shallow one. I wonder if the reverse could happen as well... roles reversed and the guy rejects the girl, what would the girl say? hmm...


Of course, my example emphasizes the male side of things, but that's because I happen to be male and the incidence of this sort of thing tends to be more heavily male.

No doubt there are still some lady-Compendiumites around too. I would love to get both sides, just for my own benefit. On the side, I will never commit into a relationship. Why? The right one has not come along and will NEVER come along. I have accepted this fact, hell I have even tried to be like other people (which I can do), but after some time it just gets boring. Some of my friends lifestyles are interesting yet stupid. I just got to be myself. I also now work full time and I have no time nor interest now to pursue relationship. I see all of my friends on Facebook starting families or continuing with their "girlfriends" and I am happy for them, but I am honestly fine going solo in this life. I enjoy racking in some serious cash and when I come home from work every day I will watch a TNG or DS9, play a couple hours worth of games, and then hit the hay before the cycle repeats itself. I know it doesn't sound like much of a life, but there's nothing else to do but eat, sleep, and work...

sigh... there are times when I wish I was back in school or if I could just push a reset button to see the outcome of another choice that was available to me. With all of the knowledge that could be learned and paths available, how illogical it would be for those that are near their end to simply be extinguished without exploring these other mysteries that could have been discovered. Life after death? yea sure maybe... I am just not convinced yet... and if that makes me a bad person, I apologize. People say you need faith and to read the Bible or to get involved with a religion, but I honestly don't find that necessary.

Sorry for that off-topic rambling...
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Sajainta on December 29, 2011, 06:38:59 pm
(A wild female Compendiumite appears!)

I wonder if the reverse could happen as well... roles reversed and the guy rejects the girl, what would the girl say? hmm...

No doubt there are still some lady-Compendiumites around too. I would love to get both sides, just for my own benefit.

I haven't been friendzoned, but I've done the friendzoning and I've had female friends who've been rejected.  Many of them react well, all things considered, but sometimes things get ugly and they blame other women.  Sounds weird, right?  Well, there's actually a trope for so-called "nice girls" who yearn after guys who always go after "the bitches".  It's basically internalized misogyny--women bemoaning the fact that all the "good guys" run after bitches instead of choosing them, the nice, sweet girl.  I think there's even a book out called Why Men Marry Bitches.

Women can't win.  If we reject a guy, we're a bitch.  If a guy rejects us, the girl he's going after instead is a bitch.

On being the "friendzoner"...it's really hard to have to do that to someone.  You don't want to hurt them, but if you don't set the record straight then it feels like you're just stringing them along.  Being rejected always sucks, but rejecting someone hurts too.

The problem a lot of girls have is that many guys interpret good friendship as "oh, she's into me".  It's incredibly frustrating.  I'm a very intense person when it comes to close friendships and I love having deep, meaningful conversations that last hours.  I'm not crushing on my friends; I just want to get to know them.  But a lot of guys seem to assume that deep conversations = crush.  Which isn't true at all!  I would even bring up my boyfriend in said conversations, or be completely up front and say "I'm not really looking to date anyone right now", and I would still get this reaction from a guy.  I mean...mentioning that you're taken or outright saying that you don't want to date anyone aren't hints.  They're anvil-sized absolute statements.

And yet when I've had to do the friendzoning, I've still received "But I thought you liked me!  What about all of those long conversations we had and all the things you wanted to know about me?!"  And then they stop being your friend because they think you're a bitch for rejecting them.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on December 29, 2011, 09:19:31 pm
I wonder if the "long conversations" flag for males has anything to do with the presumption that men are supposed to be closed off emotionally. Like, we're supposed to hide or withhold our feelings, and so the thought of a girl wanting to 1) express herself and 2) try to get you to express yourself, triggers us to think that she's into us. Or maybe I'm just missing something.

Hey tush, work your psychobabble and figure this out.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: tushantin on December 30, 2011, 07:53:43 am
Hey tush, work your psychobabble and figure this out.
I will. XD Though it might take a bit. I have some interesting info that may be of some use to you (and a bit of practical ones that might annoy some idealistic folks). Though it'll require me to sit straight for a while and type in thoughtfully. Rest assured, I will eventually.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Lord J Esq on December 31, 2011, 12:05:03 am
Yes, it happens in the other direction, Magus. We're all human, after all, and we're all subject to the same complexities of human interrelationship.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Katie Skyye on January 01, 2012, 10:26:24 pm
Quote from: NotAlwaysRelated
(A three-year-old boy is playing with some dolls at the day care center and separating them into families.)

Boy: “And this is the mommy, and this is the daughter, and this is the other mommy, and this is the son and the daughter, and this is the other mommy–”

Worker:
“Where are all the daddies?”

Boy: “They’re in jail.”

This sort of reminded me of the stupid car commercial, because it's dolls, but...seriously, what is this? I mean, it's not exactly...sexist...in the traditional sense...sort of? Well, whatever, it made me laugh and I thought it might get a rise outta you guys since it's something that ACTUALLY happened, as opposed to a contrived situation in a commercial.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Synchronization on January 06, 2012, 02:19:57 pm
1
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: chi_z on January 07, 2012, 10:27:17 am
Behind curtain number C is tushantin, the sexy bachelor with an eye for art  :lol:
 :picardno
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on January 07, 2012, 12:37:10 pm
"Stranger #2, if I were a DS cartridge of Chrono Trigger, how would you play me?"

"All night long." *Applause and woo's* "And all the next day." *Sparser applause* "And probably obsessively for the next two weeks until I got all the endings." *crickets* "And then I'd probably move on to my PSN copy of Chrono Cross, because it's more aesthetically pleasing and the story is much deeper." *A lone audience member shouts "YEAH!"*

Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Katie Skyye on January 10, 2012, 09:21:10 pm
http://tumblr.thedailywh.at/post/15403040129/too-sexy-for-my-school-of-the-day-controversy-at

Discuss.

My two cents: If she wants to look, to quote, "provocative," a high school yearbook is prolly not the place to do it, but if they're allowing students to submit their own photos, then they should be prepared to deal with that sort of thing with a method other than NO YOU CAN'T IT'S TOO SEXY. Seriously, either have regulations in place ahead of time or allow the damn picture.
/two cents
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Tactless on January 10, 2012, 10:43:58 pm
http://tumblr.thedailywh.at/post/15403040129/too-sexy-for-my-school-of-the-day-controversy-at

Discuss.

My two cents: If she wants to look, to quote, "provocative," a high school yearbook is prolly not the place to do it, but if they're allowing students to submit their own photos, then they should be prepared to deal with that sort of thing with a method other than NO YOU CAN'T IT'S TOO SEXY. Seriously, either have regulations in place ahead of time or allow the damn picture.
/two cents

I'm not so sure if this is an issue about sexism rather than censorship and sexuality, but either way I think the editor should loosen his definition of "respectable" a bit and consider that in 2012, the picture of that girl is hardly considered obscene or untasteful, especially by something as liberally-oriented as a student body. Ultimately the quality of the yearbook will be reflected in how many students purchase it, and frankly the vast majority of people would probably take more kindly to that idea with subtle sex appeal.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on January 10, 2012, 11:57:10 pm
http://www.eurotopics.net/en/home/presseschau/archiv/aehnliche/archiv_article/ARTICLE98503-Spanish-bishop-legitimates-rape

"Archbishop". That title won't mean a thing in my labor camps.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Master Garland on January 15, 2012, 07:01:31 am
Indeed sexism is a social condition that should be done away with I agree. I know and am full aware that women and men are equal though different, and that they should have equal rights in all matters from personal, social, to professional and such. I am in no way sexist to the slightest minuet degree. These facts of me in mind it is now time for me to now say that I am against abortion in most cases there are stipulations depending on the case however. The aforementioned stipulations being that if the woman would be bringing a deformed child into the world or if she was raped especially if it was by a family member. By the way Lord J Esq you do realize that when a woman kills her baby it is not "her body" right. Yes they are connected by a cord but they are separate entities overall. I also find it to be on the rather inane side of thought processes that you so easily call others bigots and such. From what I have seen of your posts here you are number one arrogant, number two cold-hearted, and number three well-read and educated but ignorant all in one tight little package.

I will now start to get back on to the subject at hand now. I will start by debunking some of the pro abortion misconceptions.

Economic status: Here we go 'aborting not a bad choice the world is overpopulated enough as it is it will only further strain our economic resources' this old chestnut claim. I'll just admit straight up that the child will be attending school paid by tax dollars, it will require medical coverage at tax payers expense and so forth. Lets glance at the other side of the coin here. The said child will grow up and mature to adulthood one day and it may contribute something to society eventually. It will pay taxes when it gets older it may even contribute to some great inventions or discoveries in any field one day. Imagine how much great minds could have been but were not allowed to.

Sexism woman have no rights: Alright now 'anti abortion imbeciles are just sexist bigots who get there kicks oppressing women, such is their state of mind; they are nothing but sexist idiots. It's her body and her choice no matter what.' or something pertaining to that logic. I'll start this here rebuttal by saying that I am against MEN and WOMEN aborting for no real reason or government forced abortions etc. As for the my body thing that has been covered previously in this post.

Lack of financial security for child, unready pregnancy: I won't use quotes as it is rather useless here. So we have a poor teen girl who tried everything to not get pregnant but it happened(I do feel sorry for her) and she is scared, insecure, feels her youth has been shattered. She then contemplates abortion she thinks it will be better for her and the child. Lets look at that yes it will make her better off for a while back to security but the child could have been adopted. Then one might say that the child would always be miserable no blood family to speak of and what not but that is not always the case for every adopted child. No one can straight faced say that every adopted child is always depressed to the clinical and chronic point without hope of recover. The child could have grown to be a successful, happy adult but that chance was blindly halted by the seemingly better for both sides abortion choice. One last thing here on this note some not all but some women have suffered from post-abortion depression, guilt and trauma as a result of abortion. It may happen to some women who choose it, would that possible depression and guilt be worth it more than the hardships of raising a child?


I'll just end this post saying that if abortion must go on happening(which it will) then there must be advances in the technology to be done within the first 1-3 weeks of development. In this way there will be more of a safeguard against the child feeling pain in it's abortion. I say this in that there has really never been any real conclusive study of which really tells when a fetus feels pain in it's development etc.

Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on January 15, 2012, 10:19:31 pm
Hey, welcome to the Compendium Master Garland. It takes some bravery to venture into this discussion as one of your first posts, I must say!

I think you dismiss the bodily argument much too hastily. An umbilical cord isn't just a piece of string; it demands a powerful sacrifice from the prospective mother's body. I'm not equipped to discuss all the effects of pregnancy, but my understanding is that they are absolutely huge.

That's what makes it simple for those who identify as pro-choice. We can talk about economics and social responsibility and moral justifications and hypotheticals till the cows come home, but at the center of all this lies the bedrock question of whether a woman's bodily autonomy should end once pregnancy begins. It's worth noting that a proper pro-choice stance would oppose forced abortions just as much as forced completion of pregnancy. The point is to entrust decisions regarding pregnancy to those who are pregnant, end of story.

I had a "moderate" stance on this question pretty much identical to yours for the longest time, but things became a lot clearer for me once the above point was made. Of all the possible positions, I think the moderate stance is the most unseemly now that I look back on it -- it essentially appeals to what's worst in us. How tempted we are to look at a person's heritage or physical quirks and judge their worth and potential based on those things! At least, that's what I found hiding in the dark of the back of my mind when I examined my own position more closely.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Truthordeal on January 15, 2012, 11:57:35 pm
I read this guy's post earlier today, and let me just say that I am so glad that it was FW and not Zeality that stumbled in here first. Forum goers with the stomach to debate these things are hard to keep.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on January 16, 2012, 01:13:47 am
Well, Z's had a lot more experience with the issue than I have (and some forum members much, much moreso for obvious reasons!). It's a luxury to be able to discuss these things without striking out in a torrent of passion. That, and I was probably the only forum member stuck sipping cheap Pinot Noir on a Sunday and looking for something to do while writing all these cover letters, mwahaha.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Radical_Dreamer on January 16, 2012, 03:12:47 am
Master Garland, you've debunked nothing, only shared with us your own opinions on the topic. You claim you are not a misogynist, but you seem to consider a cluster of cells without a brain, and thus, unaware of its own existence, as being of equal or greater value to a woman in possession of a conscious experience. Have I misjudged you here, or is it that you hold men in the same low regard as well?
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Master Garland on January 16, 2012, 03:58:19 am
Hey, welcome to the Compendium Master Garland. It takes some bravery to venture into this discussion as one of your first posts, I must say!

I think you dismiss the bodily argument much too hastily. An umbilical cord isn't just a piece of string; it demands a powerful sacrifice from the prospective mother's body. I'm not equipped to discuss all the effects of pregnancy, but my understanding is that they are absolutely huge.

That's what makes it simple for those who identify as pro-choice. We can talk about economics and social responsibility and moral justifications and hypotheticals till the cows come home, but at the center of all this lies the bedrock question of whether a woman's bodily autonomy should end once pregnancy begins. It's worth noting that a proper pro-choice stance would oppose forced abortions just as much as forced completion of pregnancy. The point is to entrust decisions regarding pregnancy to those who are pregnant, end of story.

I had a "moderate" stance on this question pretty much identical to yours for the longest time, but things became a lot clearer for me once the above point was made. Of all the possible positions, I think the moderate stance is the most unseemly now that I look back on it -- it essentially appeals to what's worst in us. How tempted we are to look at a person's heritage or physical quirks and judge their worth and potential based on those things! At least, that's what I found hiding in the dark of the back of my mind when I examined my own position more closely.


Thank you very much for the friendly greeting there FaustWolf :) It is fairly odd that this topic was the first of which I participated in for sure. This is just among some of the subjects I feel so strong about.

It is true as you say 'the decisions regarding pregnancy should ultimately be in the one who is pregnant's choice' but that does not dismiss the immorality of her abortion. Indeed the developing fetus does extract a fair chunk of it's mothers nutrients for development via the umbilical cord so in a sense the two are one but still separate.

I am semi-moderate in the subject at hand in that if the child will be chronically deformed with little to no hope of a normal existence or slight happiness that a mercy killing may be a good choice. I also have no dark recesses for my reasoning no matter how hard I have tried to search it out(yes I do a lot of soul searching in myself too) it is just how I feel is right.

I have had some personal relations with people who have considered abortion but chose against it. I am a bit acquainted with the matter personally. My mom was going to abort her oldest child my big sister but an angel came to her in the form of a woman passively leading her away from the abortion. I won't go into the details but it is a very beautiful story. The other one is my sister-in-law was going to abort her second child but through the grace of God she had a change of heart. The latter(my sister-in-law) had her first child at the young age of 15 and she has done wonderfully and her children are very happy at that.

With all thing in consideration I am a Christian and I know that every child that has and will be killed are going to be in heaven anyway. So they are happy and in peace in the long run.


NOTE: I am sorry for any offences I may have caused to you Lord J Esq, I just hope the they will not create any strident feelings between us; as I hate conflicts to be honest.


P.S. I am so very happy to be apart of the CC forums now, greetings to all.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Sajainta on January 16, 2012, 06:09:16 am
First of all, welcome to the Compendium.

Why are you not against abortions for women who have been raped?  After all, isn't that woman killing a child as well?  Isn't that an immoral act as well?  Isn't that also a sin?  Why are some cases different?  If you are pro-life, shouldn't you be against abortion completely?

I have very strong opinions about abortion also, but not for the same reasons you do.  I am very firmly pro-choice, and I do not fully understand why people who are pro-life accept abortions in some cases, but are against them in others.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: ZeaLitY on January 16, 2012, 08:38:34 pm
I read this guy's post earlier today, and let me just say that I am so glad that it was FW and not Zeality that stumbled in here first. Forum goers with the stomach to debate these things are hard to keep.

I check the forum regularly, and did "stumble" in here first. My give a damn about a conservative being wrong on the Internet was broken, but since you want me to make an appearance:

This is no God. There is no such thing as a soul. Fetuses are unfeeling, unconscious collections of cells, and are NOT human beings. A seed is not a tree; an egg is not a chicken; a fetus is not a baby. There is nothing in there; nothing awake, nothing aware, nothing human, and no identity. Anything else is religious romantic thinking and needless infringement upon women's rights.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: FaustWolf on February 04, 2012, 01:38:57 am
Going back to the armor subject for a bit, J dug up an excellent and though-provoking article (http://madartlab.com/2011/12/14/fantasy-armor-and-lady-bits/) worth sharing here.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Katie Skyye on April 18, 2012, 12:54:16 am
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-that-we-end-the-equal-pay-myth/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-that-we-end-the-equal-pay-myth/)

I'm skeptical, of course, but it has some good points. I'm sure it runs deeper than "Well women choose different jobs!" but it's still interesting.
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: jamesexia on April 18, 2012, 03:42:22 am
Hey, welcome to the Compendium Master Garland. It takes some bravery to venture into this discussion as one of your first posts, I must say!

I think you dismiss the bodily argument much too hastily. An umbilical cord isn't just a piece of string; it demands a powerful sacrifice from the prospective mother's body. I'm not equipped to discuss all the effects of pregnancy, but my understanding is that they are absolutely huge.

That's what makes it simple for those who identify as pro-choice. We can talk about economics and social responsibility and moral justifications and hypotheticals till the cows come home, but at the center of all this lies the bedrock question of whether a woman's bodily autonomy should end once pregnancy begins. It's worth noting that a proper pro-choice stance would oppose forced abortions just as much as forced completion of pregnancy. The point is to entrust decisions regarding pregnancy to those who are pregnant, end of story.

I had a "moderate" stance on this question pretty much identical to yours for the longest time, but things became a lot clearer for me once the above point was made. Of all the possible positions, I think the moderate stance is the most unseemly now that I look back on it -- it essentially appeals to what's worst in us. How tempted we are to look at a person's heritage or physical quirks and judge their worth and potential based on those things! At least, that's what I found hiding in the dark of the back of my mind when I examined my own position more closely.


Thank you very much for the friendly greeting there FaustWolf :) It is fairly odd that this topic was the first of which I participated in for sure. This is just among some of the subjects I feel so strong about.

It is true as you say 'the decisions regarding pregnancy should ultimately be in the one who is pregnant's choice' but that does not dismiss the immorality of her abortion. Indeed the developing fetus does extract a fair chunk of it's mothers nutrients for development via the umbilical cord so in a sense the two are one but still separate.

I am semi-moderate in the subject at hand in that if the child will be chronically deformed with little to no hope of a normal existence or slight happiness that a mercy killing may be a good choice. I also have no dark recesses for my reasoning no matter how hard I have tried to search it out(yes I do a lot of soul searching in myself too) it is just how I feel is right.

I have had some personal relations with people who have considered abortion but chose against it. I am a bit acquainted with the matter personally. My mom was going to abort her oldest child my big sister but an angel came to her in the form of a woman passively leading her away from the abortion. I won't go into the details but it is a very beautiful story. The other one is my sister-in-law was going to abort her second child but through the grace of God she had a change of heart. The latter(my sister-in-law) had her first child at the young age of 15 and she has done wonderfully and her children are very happy at that.

With all thing in consideration I am a Christian and I know that every child that has and will be killed are going to be in heaven anyway. So they are happy and in peace in the long run.


NOTE: I am sorry for any offences I may have caused to you Lord J Esq, I just hope the they will not create any strident feelings between us; as I hate conflicts to be honest.


P.S. I am so very happy to be apart of the CC forums now, greetings to all.

Took the words right out of my mouth, mostly. I do feel that it should be up to the mother to decide whither or not to have a child. People need to wake up and realize that this debate has become so politicized that it's almost impossible for many people to even have their own opinion. I see too many parrots on t.v. that spout their parties stance on many different topics. By the way, I fall somewhere in the middle. I don't want anyone trying to force me to be something or someone I'm clearly not. My dad was like that when I was growing up, of course he wasn't around most of the time. I'm not going to go any further down that road since I've went off the topic. Sorry :)
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Schala Zeal on April 18, 2012, 01:06:50 pm
(http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/p480x480/423721_291983194202546_152196238181243_783593_1841065144_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Thought on September 17, 2012, 02:22:10 pm
http://manboobz.com/2012/04/22/a-little-gender-experiment-confirms-that-reddit-is-full-of-douchebags/
Title: Re: Fuck Sexism
Post by: Radical_Dreamer on October 21, 2012, 07:04:23 pm
 :picardno

I wish I could say that I'm surprised by those results, but at this point...it's more of a mix of anger and disappointment.