Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The word Man is inherently confusing/sexist? Oh the huMANity!
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 61 of 90 (345024)
08-30-2006 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Silent H
08-30-2006 10:00 AM


Re: What's at stake?
Hello Holmes:
Oh no, am I now too to be subjected to the wrath of Holmes? Well you can fuck off... Ha...sorry...I couldn't resist...I'm just kidding...don't get me suspended...but how could I pass that one up?
Holmes writes:
While outrageously stated, especially toward the end, I think there is a grain of truth within jug's post. Some of the feminist movement appears to hold the position suggested.
So what? To use your argument, let's say 1% of women involved in the feminist movement secretly want to be men...does that mean nemesis-juggernaut's blanket opinion of the movement is valid?
Holmes writes:
And there is a disdain towards women that choose to have kids and raise a family as if that were somehow not normal, the "normal" role being almost a cardboard cutout of the stereotypical man.
I'm sorry, but I really don't see this in the real World. I am not personally aware of any of the women I know that have chosen to raise a family (as opposed to seek a career) being looked down upon. Quite the opposite, as a matter of fact.
I find nemesis-juggernaut's writings to be that of a sexist (and to a lesser extent...racist) individual. Hey, I'm cool with that...to each his own, but to claim that the feminist movement is all about women wanting to be masculine is a pile of shit. I mean, the whole concept that somehow if a women stays home and raises her kids, they will turn out better than . say . a women that has a career is so absolutely sexist, and as far as I know . completed unsupported, that I am stunned he even suggested it.
I work at a University and I was walking passed an office of one of our female professors talking with another one of our female professors. I stopped in and asked them straight out, what the feminist movement meant to them. They both said "equal treatment to men", primarily referring to pay. I then asked another group of four grad Students and was told basically the same thing. Interestingly, one of the professors I talked to has a family (two kids) and I have met (and played with them numerous times) and trust me...these are two great kids. So the bullshit about women being somehow terrible mother’s cuz they also chose to work is just that...bullshit.
As you yourself said Holmes, career mothers are often great parents as well, so the nonsense that nemesis-juggernaut included towards the end of his post, to me, goes a long way towards expressing his rather sexist view of the feminist movement, and the "proper" role of women in our society.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Silent H, posted 08-30-2006 10:00 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Silent H, posted 08-30-2006 12:20 PM FliesOnly has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 90 (345025)
08-30-2006 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Silent H
08-30-2006 9:52 AM


Re: What's at stake?
Although I seem to disagree with most of what you say, you do write well and I like your avatar. I thought I should point that out first since I have never replied to you before.
Well, on this forum if someone agrees with even one or two aspects, I'll take it. I suspect I'm a bit of a rare breed. Thank you about the avatar and thank you for the compliment on the writing, though I would disagree with you. My thoughts on any given subject are sometimes jumbled and I tend to drift into tangents. I happen to think that your style of writing is very eloquent, clear, and concise. If I'm not mistaken a few people have complimented you on that.
quote:
The feminists themselves undervalued women's strengths and admired male attributes. They truly are MASCULINISTS, not feminists.
I think this is a very real and interesting point regarding some quarters of the feminist movement. Especially those which emphasize semantics, it seems based on a jealousy only possible if one embraces "sexist" stereotypes and desires to take the role of the other, rather than reverse any power imbalance by embracing onesself.
Yes, I seem to agree with that. Crashfrog seems to think that fighting fire with fire is the best method to resolve a conflict. It doesn't work on the playground, it doesn't work in corporate America, it doesn't work with gang violence, so why would it work in a completely invented gender war?
quote:
The media term their jobholding sisters "working mothers" rather than "mothers who don't raise their children." The jobholders are treated as "normal" women, rather than those pursuing an "alternative lifestyle."
I don't think I've seen this going on, and to be truthful it isn't fair to label all mothers who work as inherently not raising their children. Even in your most "domestic" situation a mother's chores throughout the day are NOT focused on raising the children, but rather taking care of household work. There is no reason a woman could hand that off to someone else and still have time to take care of kids... especially once they are going to school.
But there is a truth to the idea that women who don't pursue careers are somehow lesser or not following the norm of what they should be doing. Birth, school, career, maybe kids, death. And I think that is sort of sad to subject women who choose not to follow a career, to some form of abuse for their choice.
I agree with both of your sentiments. Even tacitly referring to working mothers as avoiding their responsibilities is the same as saying that any woman not in the workforce is worthless. But there is this underlying pressure for women, judged by their female peers, that if Susie Q isn't out in the workforce instead of the soccer field with her son or daughter, that she must be worthless. That's absurd to me.
quote:
Yes, alternative lifestyle. The "children as pets" trend has been the norm for only a few decades.
Yeah, that doesn't seem to be very wise. But how is that not equally a man's fault?
Unfortunately, that happens way too often in society. I happen to be very active in my children's lives and don't understand how some parents actually seem to have an aversion towards their own kids, but a concerted effort goes along way in their lives.
How has it failed miserably? Based on what vantage point? I was definitely a "latchkey kid" as were many of my peers and none have massive psychological problems. I realize this is totally anecdotal but in truth the people I have met with the biggest psych problems (needing meds and all) have come from traditional families.
I think if we were to juxtapose latchkey kids to kids that come home to parents who immediately care for them, you'd see a vast difference in their attitudes-- of course there are always extenuating circumstances. Some families do not have the luxury of having a single-income home. After struggling to provide that opportunity for my own family, my wife re-entered the workforce just a week ago. It was a bit of a shame because now she can't go to school and she was getting close to completion. But that's the brakes sometimes. I want to make certain that everyone understands my position. I don't have an aversion towards women in the workplace; far from it. What I have an aversion to is the Feminist movement which basically covets masculinity and repackages it under the guise of femininity. I have an aversion towards certain hard-charging, stiletto wearing, 'woman of the 90's' mentality-weilding women who basically call traditional women crap.

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Silent H, posted 08-30-2006 9:52 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Silent H, posted 08-30-2006 2:12 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 90 (345027)
08-30-2006 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Silent H
08-30-2006 4:54 AM


Re: a solution?
quote:
cram it up your ass.... go fuck yourself... Fuck off, Holmes.
Whoa! I totally missed this post and just read it now. That's a bit hardcore.
I didn't deserve that, and its not supposed to be tolerated at EvC anyway. Please keep it civil.
No, you didn't deserve that. I would expect people to yell such colorful epithets to me, but not to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Silent H, posted 08-30-2006 4:54 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 90 (345030)
08-30-2006 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by FliesOnly
08-30-2006 8:37 AM


Re: What's at stake?
quote:
But where a male might excel in is in analytical thinking on practical matters.
This is just the sort of crap that Crashfrog is talking about. Do you know any college educated women at all?
LOL! Yes, my mother, my wife, my sister, etc, etc.. Look, its a FACT that MOST men are more mathematically inclined towards analytical thinking than women. Its also a FACT that women are stronger verbally than men. Their grasp of language comprehension is typically far greater than that of their male counterparts. Is this the absolute rule? Certainly not. Are some women better at analytical reasoning than me? Yes. Can speak more eloquently than some females. Yes. But statistically, I'm not incorrect on this. And this is precisely what I meant by women and men sharing different strengths and weaknesses. So, the whole 'sexist' plea is ridiculous.
Why do you make the assumption that a man will excel in "analytical thinking on practical matters" but when faced with the same situation a women would probably start to cry? You must have spent you entire life around weak people.
You have completely distorted my post. Who said that a woman faced with a difficult situation would start crying? Who said that?! It sure wasn't me. What I said was that a woman might be more inclined to inject 'emotion' into her reasoning whereas a man might be more inclined to distance himself emotionally from the situation. So, again, read what I actually write and stop reading way more into my posts than what is warranted.
quote:
I have no problem with femininity. In fact, I encourage it.
So I guess you make your wife wear a French-maid outfit while she does all the cooken and cleanin fer ya.
My wife has only wore a French-Maid outfit once and it was during sex. It was also her idea. I suppose I wasn't supposed to be attracted to her either, eh? As for cooking and cleaning, she usually cooks and I usually cleans. Anymore personal questions for me that bear no relevance to the subject?
Where do you get this shit? Ok, so your version of the feminist movement means that women secretly want to be men. Most of us here on realityville see it more as a desire for women to be treated equally. You know, like paying a women the same as her male counterparts.
I'm saying that its subconciously evident that feminists are far from exhibiting feminine qualities and sure seem to covet or desire masculine traits. Paying women the same wage as a man has nothing to do with feminism, they only use that as a wedge strategy. There is no such thing as total equality in any society. If there was, it would acceptable for a woman to open the cardoor for me, it would be acceptable for a man to hit a woman the same way he might hit another man, etc, etc. The women's sufferage movement made wonderful advances for women. And now they do get paid the same wages as their male counterpart, especially in a government job. Feminism is about tipping the scales of justice, not equaling the weight distribution.
I can guarantee you this, nemesis-juggernnaut, if I had to go into a battle and I had to chose between taking either you or my wife...you would be left sitting on the sidelines. Odds are she can shoot better than you, can handle a knife far better than you, and if you piss her off...holy shit...watch out! She can make quick decisions (she does it all the time) and I would trust her with my life. With you, however, based on what I read of yours, if you found out I was all for equal rights, have no problems with Affirmative Action, and think that gays should be allowed to marry, I'm afraid that if push came to shove...I'd be a dead man.
That was a great testimony. Sounds like your wife has anger problems.
quote:
Here is a great little essay I found. This basically elucidates how I feel about Feminism:...blah...blah...blah
Wow! What an unbelievable pile of shit. I'm stunned that you had the guts to show it to us. I mean seriously...holy crap!
It was a good essay-- be stunned all you want with a look off incredulity on your face. I'm sorry that it doesn't allow for you to live in abject misery for all your masculine proclivities.

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by FliesOnly, posted 08-30-2006 8:37 AM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by FliesOnly, posted 08-30-2006 3:40 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 75 by Jaderis, posted 08-31-2006 5:00 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 84 by joshua221, posted 09-07-2006 11:13 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 65 of 90 (345032)
08-30-2006 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by FliesOnly
08-30-2006 11:19 AM


Re: What's at stake?
don't get me suspended..
Actually I didn't mean to get a certain someone suspended, and I hope I didn't. I was surprised to see that was allowed, and only asked NWR if I was going to have that flexibility. Admittedly it probably wouldn't raise level of debate.
let's say 1% of women involved in the feminist movement secretly want to be men...does that mean nemesis-juggernaut's blanket opinion of the movement is valid?
Absolutely not! I totally agree that to label the entire movement, or even the majority of it the way jug did was not correct. I was merely trying to point out that some feminists, and indeed they often think of themselves as the true feminists, can be described the way jug did.
Perhaps that's the only experience jug's had of them? Not an excuse, only an explanation.
I am not personally aware of any of the women I know that have chosen to raise a family (as opposed to seek a career) being looked down upon. Quite the opposite, as a matter of fact.
You haven't heard anyone suggest even subtle disappointment when a women decides to have a kid, esp if it means leaving behind a career? It may not be rampant as jug makes out, but I have seen it. Of course anecdotes and a buck won't get me anything at starbucks.
So the bullshit about women being somehow terrible mother’s cuz they also chose to work is just that...bullshit.
Oh that was completely wrong, and I called him on that part. Even if some fems are "masculinists" as jug put it, that does not come close to validating that working mothers are somehow worse at it. Then again maybe I'm biased since my mom worked.
I definitely did not mean to validate much of what jug was saying, or discount your overall argument. I was just trying to pull out some of the elements which have a trace of truth to them, and would be interesting to discuss within the context of this thread which can arguably contain changing roles via change in language/perception.
And I certainly do believe what I think has a trace of truth can be argued against.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by FliesOnly, posted 08-30-2006 11:19 AM FliesOnly has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 66 of 90 (345061)
08-30-2006 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Hyroglyphx
08-30-2006 11:24 AM


Re: What's at stake?
If I'm not mistaken a few people have complimented you on that.
I think my writing gets a mixed result. I'm opaque to some. I do need to improve and I keep trying. I stand by my compliment of your style.
fighting fire with fire is the best method to resolve a conflict.
You know I have to say that that's a good rule of thumb, but sometimes one must fight that way. It depends on the circumstance and someone better show some damn good evidence to back up such a suggestion. I agree that it doesn't work in this case.
But there is this underlying pressure for women, judged by their female peers, that if Susie Q isn't out in the workforce instead of the soccer field with her son or daughter, that she must be worthless. That's absurd to me.
I think everyone here can agree that this kind of pressure isn't worthwhile. The question seems to be more about how common that is both to feminism as a movement, and in the culture as a whole. I agree with you that it exists, but perhaps more so with flies that it is not to as great a degree as you are suggesting.
It seems that more evidence is necessary to back up claims regarding its popularity.
I think if we were to juxtapose latchkey kids to kids that come home to parents who immediately care for them, you'd see a vast difference in their attitudes-- of course there are always extenuating circumstances.
I take your point that kids that are neglected or have less support may suffer from disadvantages that those who are well cared for and have full support would not face. But I think it is much more complex than to equate being a latch key kid to that former group, even as an inherent potential.
What I have an aversion to is the Feminist movement which basically covets masculinity and repackages it under the guise of femininity.
If you change that to "the portion of the feminist movement" you'd probably find more people willing to agree with what you are saying.
I have an aversion towards certain hard-charging, stiletto wearing,
Heheheh... what in particular do you have a problem with these elements? And will you be at least partially satisfied if they take off their high heels?

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-30-2006 11:24 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 67 of 90 (345089)
08-30-2006 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Hyroglyphx
08-30-2006 12:00 PM


Re: What's at stake?
Hello Again:
n-j writes:
Look, its a FACT that MOST men are more mathematically inclined towards analytical thinking than women. Its also a FACT that women are stronger verbally than men. Their grasp of language comprehension is typically far greater than that of their male counterparts.
How is this a FACT? You have data to support this? Or will you admit that any possible truth to this is the result of learned behaviors, not genetics. In other words, the very thing feminists are complaining about.
j-n writes:
. And this is precisely what I meant by women and men sharing different strengths and weaknesses. So, the whole 'sexist' plea is ridiculous.
So what you're saying here, is that in the business World, a CEO can react to a given situation in one of two ways, the correct "male way" and the incorrect "female way". What a crock of shit.
n-j writes:
You have completely distorted my post. Who said that a woman faced with a difficult situation would start crying? Who said that?! It sure wasn't me.
Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say I completely distorted your post. I may have embellished a bit, but I only did it based on how I interpreted your post. You said she would "inject emotion into her response" (or words to that effect), and I took that to mean "crying". Maybe I should have said she would just have a "hissy fit".
n-j writes:
It was also her idea. I suppose I wasn't supposed to be attracted to her either, eh
Nope, not at all. Personally, I hope you had a blast.
n-j writes:
As for cooking and cleaning, she usually cooks and I usually cleans. Anymore personal questions for me that bear no relevance to the subject?
Well, none right now...but maybe a bit later. And it bears on the topic in that you seem to be saying that the traditional gender roles are great and you see no reason to change them...feminists are nothing but a bunch of dykes and a women’s place is in the home, raising the kids.
n-j writes:
I'm saying that its subconciously evident that feminists are far from exhibiting feminine qualities and sure seem to covet or desire masculine traits. Paying women the same wage as a man has nothing to do with feminism, they only use that as a wedge strategy.
Where to you get this stuff? I would consider my wife a feminist and trust me, she exhibits plenty of feminine qualities. I've seen her naked and we've even had sex (she's very flexible). But she also is strong willed, doesn't back down from confrontation, is way more intelligent than I and most guys I know (and remember, I work at a University), and isn't afraid to get dirty.
Again, in reality-ville, paying women the same wage as men has everything to do with feminism. Have you asked any women lately how they view the feminist movement? Granted, my sample size today is small (8) but each and every one of them I've talked to today desires equal pay and equal treatment for the same job.
n-j writes:
That was a great testimony. Sounds like your wife has anger problems.
Why's that...cuz she doesn't act like you think a female should? As it turns out, she happens to love hunting and is an accomplished taxidermist. Guess that makes her a lesbian, eh. What if I made the same statement but inserted the word "brother" where is now says "wife". Then it'd be ok? No anger management issues to speak of then I guess, eh.
n-j writes:
It was a good essay--
It was a terrible essay. Written, more likely than not, by a conservative fundamentalist that thinks that the perfect women is one that is barefoot, pregnant and "serving her man".
Edited by FliesOnly, : I'm gonna be out of town for a few days (400 mile bike ride...DALMAC), so I will be unsable to respond for a bit...sorry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-30-2006 12:00 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Dr Jack, posted 08-30-2006 4:03 PM FliesOnly has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 68 of 90 (345095)
08-30-2006 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by FliesOnly
08-30-2006 3:40 PM


Re: What's at stake?
How is this a FACT? You have data to support this? Or will you admit that any possible truth to this is the result of learned behaviors, not genetics.
What if it is genetic1?
Think about it, for a second, what difference will it make. Suppose men are genetically better at maths than women and I want to hire an accountant - what different would that FACT make?
If I've got any sense it makes none. It makes none because the differences between individual women are far greater than the differences between men and women as groups. Hell, even where the differences are far more marked and quite clearly strongly genetic, as is the case with physical strength, picking someone for physical strength of the basis of their sex is dumb this woman - just for example - is far stronger than I am.
Discrimination on the basis of group characteristics is a far inferior to individual testing as a way of identifying the best candidates. This is true for race, creed and sex - independent of the truth or fallacy of any claims to inherent differences or cultural differences in ability.
1For my part I think it is likely that are genetic differences in the intelligence and behaviour of men and women; just as there with other species. I also strongly suspect that these effects are amplified by cultural prejudices. As far as I know, there are no studies that credibly establish it one way or the other.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by FliesOnly, posted 08-30-2006 3:40 PM FliesOnly has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Chiroptera, posted 08-30-2006 4:12 PM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 90 (345100)
08-30-2006 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Dr Jack
08-30-2006 4:03 PM


Re: What's at stake?
I recall that SJG makes the same point in The Mismeasure of Man. Even if the differences between sexes (and that between races) were largely genetic, because the differences between individuals in each group are larger than the differences between groups, it would not explain how the various races and genders are represented in different occupations and socioeconomic classes.

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." -- George Bernard Shaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Dr Jack, posted 08-30-2006 4:03 PM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 90 (345140)
08-30-2006 6:11 PM


Undue criticism
Somehow my comment on gender neutrality was thoroughly derailed into something I never intended. My main point, and I'd like that no one loses sight of it, that men and women are different-- not radically, but different nonetheless. Instead of competing with one another, why not recognize that we both have certain strengths and weaknesses that God/nature bestowed upon us. I also mentioned that it was a matter of statistical fact that men are typically more adept at mathemtaics than women and that women are more linguistic than men. I was shocked to hear that no one knew what I was talking about. I thought that was common knowledge. I guess not. An important distinction should be noted, however, and I think it was brought up by Holmes or Mr. Jack. These statsitics do not go by an individual basis, but rather is a conglomerate of individuals, i.e. a population. This doesn't mean that men are stupid and women are smart, or vice versa, it means exactly what I stated, that we share different strengths and weaknesses and that we compliment one another quite nicely. Afterall, isn't in the differences that we find attractive in the opposite sex to begin with? Think about it. I like femininity because I'm masculine. My wife likes masculinity because she is feminine-- ying/yang, push/pull, in/out, open/shut, day/night, /light/darkness, life is all about duality not some androgenous and monotonously drab existence.

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by crashfrog, posted 08-31-2006 10:44 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 80 by nwr, posted 08-31-2006 11:09 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 71 of 90 (345330)
08-31-2006 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Hyroglyphx
08-29-2006 12:44 PM


Re: What's at stake?
I see 'Feminism" as being anti-feminine. I see Feminism as trying to espouse a more masculine presence within feminity, which is horribly ironic to me.
Do you have any examples of feminists "espousing a more masculine presence within femininity?" Do you consider women taking on traditionally male occupations an example of this? That is the only thing I could think of that would make sense, unless you consider wearing pants a masculine attribute.
If I went around espousing "masculinity" I would be referred to as a sexist. Why? If the goal is really about equality, then why do they get to espouse feminism but I can't espouse maleism? Why does a black man get to espouse "black power" without anyone batting an eyelash, but a white guy can't espouse "white power?" If its all about equality, then make it equal across the board, no?
You obviously have no understanding of the equality movements. For example, "Black Power" had/has nothing at all to do with power over white people or even to do with white people at all. It has everything to do with black people taking control over their own lives and defining themselves in their own terms. The philosophy of "Black Power" came about as a way to show self-determination. To promote black political representation in majority black areas. To promote self-esteem and self-reliance in black people whose entire lives, from the use of the word "Negro" to the type of education they were "allowed" to have, were defined by white people. Again, it is truly self-centered to believe that the phrase "Black Power" has to automatically mean anti-white or even concern white people except in the sense that they wanted to release themselves from being completely dominated by white society.
On the other hand, "White Power" cannot ever mean the same thing unless we enter a time or society where the roles are reversed and white people are being truly oppressed by blacks or any other racial group. As it stands now, "White Power" is a term used for a baseless fear of losing power and hatred for people of other skin tones/religions/heritages.
The same applies to feminism. Feminist women fight for the right to define their own lives as women, not as men say they should be defined. This includes word usage and representation in politics and cultural life.
You can cry foul over the disparity of "Feminism" vs "Masculinism" and "Black Power" vs "White Power," but the terms indeed have inherent differences based on recent and current power structures. Taking pride in one's gender/heritage/what have you is acceptable and even encouraged, but the two latter terms carry alot of heavy baggage that needs to be lightened in order for them to be viewed as anything less than a (thinly) veiled attempt to destroy the gains of the equal rights movements.
As for your example of the school supposedly "trying to abolish the demarcation from males and females by confusing little boys and little girls about their own sexuality, their own identity, their own selves with this gender norming movement," I don't know how you can gather that from an anti-homophobia class. That's what your link showed, nothing more, nothing less. It said not one iota about little girls and boys rehthinking their gender or even how they perceive gender. It did say alot about making them think twice about negative words used against LGBTQ kids in their school and trying to make kids think about their own differences and how much it hurts when someone attacks them for having them (especially when no one stands up for you). I don't know how you gathered "Gender Neutrality" from that. It had nothing to do with making people blind to the differences between the sexes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-29-2006 12:44 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Silent H, posted 08-31-2006 4:48 AM Jaderis has replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 72 of 90 (345341)
08-31-2006 3:23 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Hyroglyphx
08-29-2006 5:49 PM


Re: What's at stake?
But adding black power it doesn't place white power on a level playing field. It just keeps increasing the animosity.
Yes massa, I's be quiet so's not to upset you. I's jus keeps mah head down and agrees wit you so's you doesn't get angry.
So you're essentially saying that black people having more power over their own lives or even having an equal playing field upsets too many white people and should be stopped immediately. What complete and utter horseshit.
Its not like they revel in the notion of masculinity, theyrevel in the notion of spinning together masculintiy with feminity so that there is this stagnate, androgenous, gender neutral society.
Again, examples please.
What?? What a slap in the face. Why would you want to work for a company that you suspected espoused racist ideologies to begin with? Its just silly to me.
First of all, those companies espousing racist ideologies should be exposed for what they are and changed or destroyed. That is what "working within the system to destroy the system" means.
That said, this is why most "Black Power" adherents oppose affirmative action, at least in that sense. It implies something that the white establishment is "giving" to black people perpetuating the dependence of black people on others. Instead, black people doing for themselves and fighting blatant exclusion is what the fight is really about. Same with women. I don't want to be given a job because I am a woman, but because I am qualified and I educated myself and fought hard to get it. But if I am excluded because I am a woman, you can bet there'll be a fight.
Many of the people involved in the feminist movement especially, but also in other movements, maintain a victim mentality and that is where affirmative action plays a huge role. It began as an attempt to expose the disparities in education and employment, but became another rut in the dependence cycle because instead of continuing the real fight against inequality, we took what little we got at first and became complacent, continuing to view ourselves as victims of the system (while being a part of the system) instead of fighting for real change.
If you haven't noticed nature has made males stronger of the two sexes typically
In what sense? And what does that have to do with the discussion of equal rights?
Now, lets say I'm in a combat situation. Can I get mad at a woman if she does not have the physical ability to do what I can do? Certainly not. Can I get mad a Washington bureaucrats who, for the sake of being 'fair,' gave women a role that nature never intended for them? Yes, I can!
I agree that any person given a job should meet the requirements for that job. I agree that a 120 pound woman should not be given a combat role that would require her to drag a wounded 200 pound comrade to safety in a combat situation. Same goes for the 120 pound man (Yes they exist!). However, that is not the argument. The argument stems from the COMPLETE exclusion of women from combat duties no matter their strength or ability. There are MANY women who can perform all combat roles (my ex, for example, is 5'11 and weighs about 175 of mostly muscle from lifelong athletics and is currently serving in Iraq. There are many women even larger and/or stronger than her, tho). The argument IS that duties/jobs should be given based on ability, not gender or race or sexuality or religion or lack thereof. The argument is to be able to determine your own future without being told "no" from the get go because you are the wrong gender or race or sexuality or nationality, etc.
If I'm a male and decided to be a childcaregiver, can I really get mad at the parents who selected a female over me?
I'm not really sure what this means. Men are perfectly capable of being caregivers. What parents are you referring to?
Males and females are different. They are. And its that difference which makes for some interesting relationships. I just don't see why society is trying to eradicate that rich diversity.
Yes, males and females ARE different, but their gender does not define their roles. Their ability and desire do. The differences ARE reason for celebration, but the lives of people should not be defined for them by someone else just because they are "uncomfortable" with the direction that that particular person chose.
There is another flipside to that. I have absolutely nothing to do with slavery, yet I'm part caucasian and part hispanic. On both sides of that family tree, somewhere my ancestors probably engaged in slavery. Isn't it racist to assume that I'm a bigot simply because I was born white/hispanic? Doesn't that completely render the complainants whining ineffectual? Obviously.
Did anyone ever accuse you of being a bigot simply because you are white? Or did they accuse you of being a bigot because you are a bigot (not saying you are, just posing a hypothetical). I am white and I know for a fact that some people my family history owned slaves. I have never been accused of being a bigot. Not even when I revealed that fact to a black person. I wasn't asked for an apology either. I get the feeling that you are talking about reparations. In that case, the "complainants" are asking for acknowledgement and apology from the government and in some cases compensation (or even just the fulfillment of the promise of "10 acres and a mule" in whatever terms are acceptable to both sides) from the government, not individuals.
You may not be talking about that, but your assertion that people actually accuse you of racism simply for being white (although growing up white doesn't usually allow for being empathetic towards or even aware of most of the real black issues) smells of bullshit and a juvenile grasp of race relations.
That was just one instance. In that same school district they are making unisex bathrooms and refuse to refer to the children as "Boys or girls." But why pretend that there isn't a difference when there is? That's ridiculous. Here, listen to the transcript , its entitled under "Gender Neutrality
I might be a couple days too late, but I didn't see that title on the main page and I don't care much for trusting radio personalities (of whatever persuasion) to report news accurately. Could you post a link to the actual policy or even just the school or school board's website so I can verify this claim?
The harm in that is that its intentional confusing children as to who they are. They are making people gay not helping those who are already gay.
Do you have any evidence for the assertion that anti-homophobia programs in schools make kids gay? It is possible that in a non-hostile climate more kids feel comfortable asserting the fact that they are gay, but these programs do not a homosexual make. In fact I would think that a kid who finally comes to understand what "fag" and "dyke" really mean and, realizing that it means them, will try to hide the fact (even in a less hostile environment) that they are gay to avoid such slurs.
Case in point: me. I used those words as a kid, not really knowing what they meant. Once I found out what they meant, I realized that I was a "dyke" and tried to cover it up, even deny it, because I knew that I could be beat up for it just like the girl I knew in 8th grade that was put into the hospital because she dared to come out and "flaunt" her orientation (I don't say sexuality because it wasn't about sex for her at that point...it was who she was without ever having sex).
They don't want to treat homosexuals differently, yet at every turn, they set up speical privaleges for them.
it is NOT about "special privileges." It is about the fact that too many kids over too many years have been attacked by others because of their perceived or proclaimed sexuality and NO ONE stood up for them. Not the teachers or administration, not other students, sometimes not even their own parents! Telling kids that it is not OK to beat someone up for that or for any perceived difference or that you can get away with it is the message. Not that those kids are somehow special and that you should be gay so you can be special, too.
That makes no sense. If a kid beats up any one, for any reason, let them get in trouble for their action. Punish the crime not the thought that caused the crime.
It is not about punishing the thought that causes the crime. However, the crime would not have been committed in the first place if the hatred was not there (it's not a case of a mugging in progress and all of a sudden the perptrators decide to call someone a fag. Most victims of hate crimes are targeted specifically for their "difference" and would not occur otherwise). I've had many friends over the years who have been hospitalized (including an older straight cousin of mine who was attacked because he was perceived as gay when he just had the "glam rock" long hair and was walking with a male friend from a club) and I have had a few near misses myself. I don't necessarily agree with stronger sentences for hate crimes, but I do agree with the separate definition because it tells people that attacking someone based on gender or race or sexuality or nationality or religion WILL be punished when they were previously ignored, and in some cases even condoned, for so long.
Just like all the good ol' boys who got away with murder in the South because the murder of a black person or a "race-traitor" was't deemed a big deal and they got off.
Do not speak that of which you do not know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-29-2006 5:49 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-31-2006 4:09 PM Jaderis has replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 73 of 90 (345347)
08-31-2006 4:19 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Hyroglyphx
08-30-2006 3:35 AM


Re: What's at stake?
quote:
How do homosexuals fit into that, I wonder?
That's a terrific question. I guess it would depend on which one plays the dominant role and which one plays the submissive role. Interesting that that dynamic duality almost needs to be in place for some naturalistic effect.
Shows how little you actually know about homosexuals. Kinda like the line I get from time to time - "So who's the man in your relationship?" Answer: There is no man.
At the age that they are presenting this nonsense, which is at Kindergarten, its wholly inappropriate curriculum at that tender age. What 5 year old needs to be taught about sex, gender roles, gay rights, or anything remotely akin to sex? Upper elementary, middle, and high school is a different matter. Kids are obviously walking hormones at that point. As for my understanding of parents role, it had nothing to do with sex. In fact, most kids are generally horrified that their parents engaged in such activities at first.
Well, your link showed a program in middle schools, which you seem to be implying is OK. I would now like you to show that 5 year olds are being introduced to matters of homosexual SEX. Not "Heather has two mommies," or introducing to kids that some other kids have "non-traditional families," but SEX. Exploring cultural differences is and should be a part of elementary curriculum. Sex usually is not and should not be (except as you say in "upper elementary" where basic sex-ed is usually introduced). If you can show me of any elementary curriculum which tells kids about homosexual sex acts, I will shut my mouth forever on this topic.
Make me gay? No, no fear of that. The problem has less to do with a physical act than it does psychologically. I would say that the LGBT community is in a state of utter ambivalence, not really knowing up from down. But don't misunderstand me to assume that something called 'homophobia.' What a slanderous invasion on reality, that word. Nobody fears homosexuals in a classic sense, except perhaps in a setting where many of them are prone to gang rape. I can only think of prison where such a situation might arise. What they fear is this degeneration of morals. Although some people have taken it to mean a personal attack on the homosexual, it isn't for me. Ita the lifestyle that I object to.
You can object to it all you want, but you should not be able to dictate what I should do based on your own personal objection as long as I am not hurting anyone (objectively) by doing what you find morally offensive.
As for the homophobia, it has mostly always meant the hatred for, not fear of, homosexuals. The "phobia" was/is used to highlight the irrational reaction people had towards gays. Kinda like my own arachnophobia which is less a fear of spiders, in the sense that I feel that they will attack or hurt me, but in the revulsion that I feel when I see or encounter them. It is an irrational feeling that could probably be overcome with an education about and gradual association with spiders.
Occasionally, however, the term is used sometimes in the "fear" context when it comes to those who attack homosexuals because they "fear" the homosexuality within themselves. That is not to say that everyone is homosexual or any such nonsense, but SOME of those who launch the most vehement attacks have conflicting feelings themselves. This can be used in the "hatred" context as well because that person can also hate that they have these feelings.
I'm not one of those who says that "everyone is gay in some way," because I do not define others for them. Just as I do not want someone else to define me. But I have been witness to a few cases where someone who appeared to be very anti-gay turned out to be gay and it tortured them to admit it after years of denial and did many very self-destructive things to "prove" that they were straight. This seems to be a rare occurance and those who vehemently espouse this stance on homophobia are probably those who went through this particular stage.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: There are extremists for every point of view.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-30-2006 3:35 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-31-2006 4:44 PM Jaderis has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 74 of 90 (345349)
08-31-2006 4:48 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Jaderis
08-31-2006 1:37 AM


feminist control of language
The same applies to feminism. Feminist women fight for the right to define their own lives as women, not as men say they should be defined. This includes word usage and representation in politics and cultural life.
I think you are making the same mistake as jug has... overgeneralizing the feminist movement. In particular the portion dealing with semantics issues, attempting to control language, apppear to be exactly what jug is suggesting.
Lets separate pure word usage from representation, and lets take the specific example of being offended at using "man" to mean "humanity".
Semantic concerned feminists created a fictional story, or at least highly speculative one, regarding the origin of "man" as "humanity", and seek to replace it by attempting a level of control on language they ascribe to males in their own fictional story.
There really is nothing holding women back because the word "man" has two separate meanings, yet they believe so and covet what they believe males have as some semantic advantage.
If they were confident, and not attempting some role reversal, they could deal with the facts instead of creating the fiction, or even if buying into the fiction, champion their identity without having to manipulate rather innocuous parts of our language.
And indeed in their quest they create another fiction as well, that they speak for other women, and that women as a whole feel weakened or demeaned by hearing and using "man" to mean humanity. They talk for, and over, other women to assert their will just as they claim men do.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Jaderis, posted 08-31-2006 1:37 AM Jaderis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Jaderis, posted 08-31-2006 5:39 AM Silent H has replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 75 of 90 (345350)
08-31-2006 5:00 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Hyroglyphx
08-30-2006 12:00 PM


Re: What's at stake?
I'm saying that its subconciously evident that feminists are far from exhibiting feminine qualities and sure seem to covet or desire masculine traits. Paying women the same wage as a man has nothing to do with feminism, they only use that as a wedge strategy.
Excuse me? That is the epitome of feminism. Equal pay for equal work and recognition for the traditionally "women's work" is the point of feminism at it's heart (among a few other things that I have previously mentioned). You have let disinformation about "feminazis" distort your whole outlook of feminists instead of reading and finding out for yourself what feminism is all about.
There is no such thing as total equality in any society. If there was, it would acceptable for a woman to open the cardoor for me, it would be acceptable for a man to hit a woman the same way he might hit another man, etc, etc.
It IS acceptable for women to open a cardoor for men. I call it common courtesy.
It is not acceptable (to me) to hit anyone regardless of gender except in self-defense or defense of others. I'm not sure what you mean by "same way" but violence towards women by men happens all the time and it used to be acted upon by authorities by a shrug and a "she deserved it" mentality.
The women's sufferage movement made wonderful advances for women. And now they do get paid the same wages as their male counterpart, especially in a government job. Feminism is about tipping the scales of justice, not equaling the weight distribution.
Well, for starters, the women's suffrage movement had nothing to do with wage equality, but with voting rights for women (remember, women cannot concern themselves with the lives of decision making men and cannot make rational decisions for government).
As for equal pay, this link is the first I dug up but there is more where that came from. That link is not the be all end all of this discussion, but I would like to have some evidence for this assertion and I will dig up more to provide a counter argument if necessary.
Your view of feminism is highly distorted. Feminism is about choice, yes, even for those women who choose to "stay at home" and anyone who tells you otherwise is distorting the message. Including extremist feminists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-30-2006 12:00 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024