Quote Digest

[Lord J Esq]

You aren't the only one.  I thought it was hilarious.  =D

Having played Miles Edgeworth recently, seeing my bit about the watch reminded me of Calisto Yew's laughing animations.

[youtube]TjN14-9-7kM[/youtube]

[Katie Skyye]

I live right next to Seattle and several people with utilikilts go to my school, but kilts are a male thing anyway.

Though I did see male dress corsets at Steamcon...but I'm just saying that there need to be more dresses tailored for men. If women's dresses accentuate femininity or sex appeal, why can't men have something similar (obviously not the same)? Putting a women's dress on a man looks silly because women and men are built differently, and it's not necessarily because of "the lingering sexism in our fashion industries." Men and women look different! Just because a woman looks fine in "men's" clothing--let's take pants as an example--doesn't mean she won't look better in women's pants that are cut to suit a woman's figure. Not ALL women are curvier or bustier than men, but as a general rule we are, and so clothing is made so that it will look good on our body type.

"Sexism = the selective treatment or regard of a person on the basis of sex," OR "Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex."

I don't think it's sexism to acknowledge that genders look physically different and make clothing differently so that both genders can have clothes that fit them properly and look good. There are exceptions, of course (this kid at my school wears one of his mother's suit vests and it looks great on him), but in general, women's versions of men's clothes look better on them than men's versions of men's clothes.

So, men would have to wear a different type of dress. It might not even be called a dress, but who freaking cares if we have to call it something different, as long as it exists. (and they're utiliKILTS because they're freaking KILTS, not because no guy would buy skirts. >_<  I imagine that's part of it, maybe? But skirts =/= kilts. The lack of bright colors, though, is silly, you're right.)

[tushantin]

Though I did see male dress corsets at Steamcon...but I'm just saying that there need to be more dresses tailored for men. If women's dresses accentuate femininity or sex appeal, why can't men have something similar (obviously not the same)? Putting a women's dress on a man looks silly because women and men are built differently, and it's not necessarily because of "the lingering sexism in our fashion industries." Men and women look different! Just because a woman looks fine in "men's" clothing--let's take pants as an example--doesn't mean she won't look better in women's pants that are cut to suit a woman's figure. Not ALL women are curvier or bustier than men, but as a general rule we are, and so clothing is made so that it will look good on our body type.

It's probably just my perception, but I actually agree with this. Well put, Katie!

However...

"Sexism = the selective treatment or regard of a person on the basis of sex,"

So when I fall only fall in love with women, and not men, that makes me sexist? Sexuality also influences how you behave towards a particular sex and what's the first thing you think of subconsciously. Prejudice should be looked down upon, and that's all well, but it amuses me that people aren't given the freedom to pick "what kind of regard" we must have for others, let alone between sexes. "Trying to fix the world" in the case feels like "tying our hands and feet". It's hypocritical, and a degeneration of intellectual liberty.

[alfadorredux]

Except that kilts are skirts—they're just a specific type of skirt (pleated and roughly knee-length, with the Scottish-traditional version being worn by both genders). </pedant>

[Katie Skyye]

"Sexism = the selective treatment or regard of a person on the basis of sex,"

So when I fall only fall in love with women, and not men, that makes me sexist? Sexuality also influences how you behave towards a particular sex and what's the first thing you think of subconsciously. Prejudice should be looked down upon, and that's all well, but it amuses me that people aren't given the freedom to pick "what kind of regard" we must have for others, let alone between sexes. "Trying to fix the world" in the case feels like "tying our hands and feet". It's hypocritical, and a degeneration of intellectual liberty.

I was just quoting previous definitions that your guys posted to make my point that differing clothing designs and choices for women and men do not constitute sexism! I wasn't actually making a statement about what sexism is, sorry. n_n'

[Katie Skyye]

Except that kilts are skirts—they're just a specific type of skirt (pleated and roughly knee-length, with the Scottish-traditional version being worn by both genders). </pedant>

Ah, thanks. Good to know!

[Lord J Esq]

I was just quoting previous definitions that your guys posted to make my point that differing clothing designs and choices for women and men do not constitute sexism! I wasn't actually making a statement about what sexism is, sorry. n_n'

It's implicit, although perhaps I should have stated it outright, that any clothing typically reserved for one sex, when worn by the other sex, would be cut to suit members of that sex. It's certainly not sexism to point out the species' sexual dimorphism, but I never said otherwise.

As for the definition of sexism I gave, it includes the definition you gave subsequently. Look it back over again; you'll see that mine was much more general.

[Syna]

I think many fans of a very famous image would agree with you on the matter of tailored dresses for men, Katie:



Bowie is obviously looking to heighten his femininity here (note the curves), but the dress also accentuates his broad shoulders and cuts down low enough to emphasize his (flat) chest. He manages to be both feminine and dress to his form.

One of my major hobbies is dressing androgynously, as I suppose some of you know by now. Since most of us don't have the uberslim, Andrej Pejic-esque physique that would allow us to wear any kind of clothing we pleased without looking shapeless, I've founded that tailoring is actually very effective: what signals androgyny more than looking like a box is little details like a button-up shirt with a collar at the throat, rather than a v-neck. Artificially mimicking the form of the opposite gender isn't always aesthetically pleasing unless you want to go to great lengths to do it or you have a naturally androgynous body type (neither of which apply to me). But again, my priorities are much different than someone who is looking to "pass," since I'm not trans.

In general I think of clothing as "masculine" or "feminine" versus "clothing made for men" and "clothing made for women." I realize this is an artificial distinction imposed upon us but hell, while it's here I may as well have fun with it. =D

[tushantin]

In general I think of clothing as "masculine" or "feminine" versus "clothing made for men" and "clothing made for women." I realize this is an artificial distinction imposed upon us but hell, while it's here I may as well have fun with it. =D

If Syna ever embarks on a road for Presidency, I'd vote for her.

[Syna]

Hell yeah! You're the second person who has told me that! I have two votes! 

[tushantin]

Hell yeah! You're the second person who has told me that! I have two votes! 

Yeah? Who was the first? XD

[alfadorredux]

Cribbed from someone's sig on another board:

I used to be amused by Utopians. With life experience, I have grown to fear them. The great failing of Utopians is that they can never accept that someone else might not want to be a part of their utopian vision. Like ill-mannered tourists, they assume that if you don't agree with them, it must be because they're not explaining it simply enough, or often enough, or loudly enough, or ultimately, because you're stupid. Utopians always think achieving Utopia is simply a matter of education—and then re-education—and then coercion, legislation, litigation medication conditioning threats book-burnings eugenics surgical modifications hunting down the counter-revolutionaries killing the reactionaries genetic engineering—and ultimately all Utopians, no matter how nobly they begin, always end up at the same conclusion: that the only thing that keeps Man from building a secular heaven here on Earth is the nature of Man, therefore we must build a New and Better Man.

(I expect that people will understand both why this comes to mind, and why I expect to get some flak from posting it.)

[tushantin]

"I used to be amused by Utopians. With life experience, I have grown to fear them. The great failing of Utopians is that they can never accept that someone else might not want to be a part of their utopian vision. Like ill-mannered tourists, they assume that if you don't agree with them, it must be because they're not explaining it simply enough, or often enough, or loudly enough, or ultimately, because you're stupid. Utopians always think achieving Utopia is simply a matter of education—and then re-education—and then coercion, legislation, litigation medication conditioning threats book-burnings eugenics surgical modifications hunting down the counter-revolutionaries killing the reactionaries genetic engineering—and ultimately all Utopians, no matter how nobly they begin, always end up at the same conclusion: that the only thing that keeps Man from building a secular heaven here on Earth is the nature of Man, therefore we must build a New and Better Man."

(I expect that people will understand both why this comes to mind, and why I expect to get some flak from posting it.)

Ahahahahahah! No, Alfy, you won't be getting any flak. Not from me, anyway.

Frankly, the that quote is amusing because it's 98% correct, and since the past few days I've also been on the receiving end of such Radicals' abuse. But if the quote's correct, they'll simply be circling in futility.

Like ill-mannered tourists, they assume that if you don't agree with them, it must be because they're not explaining it simply enough, or often enough, or loudly enough, or ultimately, because you're stupid.

[Lord J Esq]

I used to be amused by Utopians. With life experience, I have grown to fear them. The great failing of Utopians is that they can never accept that someone else might not want to be a part of their utopian vision. Like ill-mannered tourists, they assume that if you don't agree with them, it must be because they're not explaining it simply enough, or often enough, or loudly enough, or ultimately, because you're stupid. Utopians always think achieving Utopia is simply a matter of education—and then re-education—and then coercion, legislation, litigation medication conditioning threats book-burnings eugenics surgical modifications hunting down the counter-revolutionaries killing the reactionaries genetic engineering—and ultimately all Utopians, no matter how nobly they begin, always end up at the same conclusion: that the only thing that keeps Man from building a secular heaven here on Earth is the nature of Man, therefore we must build a New and Better Man.

I think you labor under the misconceptions of straw man utopians. It's very hard to find an actual utopian story in our literature and entertainment nowadays, primarily because many people are too pessimistic or cynical to dare envision such a thing, or else because most of the ones who try don't really have utopian vision at heart so much as an ordering of "the world according to them." People with a real utopian vision are not concerned about ordering every last detail of people's lives.

I wouldn't assume that you were referring to my comments from the Sexism thread when you wrote that, but tushantin certainly was--he is waging a passive-aggressive campaign now, incapable of behaving better than a child--and so let me address that, if I may.

You may or may not see it, but the problem of sexism (and, pertinent to that discussion, the problem of sexism on the Internet) is a very serious one. It is an enduring injustice, one that limits and injures and ruins people's lives, and one that requires people of good conscience to act. It's very easy, alfadorredux, to look at the world, to see that it's messed up, and compare the hugeness of that mess to the meekness of your own power as an individual, and then sneer at--or cower from--the people who are trying to do something about it. The sentiment is understandable, as not everyone who wants to change the world perceives justice and injustice clearly, and many come up with the wrong solutions. Indeed, many people are not up to the task or have misguided views.

Yet your supposition of the straw man that anyone who pursues a utopia is really pursuing a nightmare is flatly incorrect. The arc of history is enough to attest to that. No one person is going to achieve a golden society, but many people acting together and in succession have slowly improved our way of life immeasurably. People enjoy more freedom, more opportunity, more material comfort, and are better-educated. Real utopians do not seek to pit people against one another, or oppress the lot of them, or keep them stupid or powerless. I don't know why you chose education as your starting point for criticizing them, but education really is the first and most important duty of everybody. Is that really something you reject?

[Mr Bekkler]

...when you wrote that...

Cribbed from someone's sig on another board:

He didn't write it, J.