|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: No need for grunt work? *Societal Roles* | |||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Christ thats embarrasing Scraf. No of course it isn't. Claiming, or assuming, that women, as a collective, are hysterical as a property of their weak feminine brains, is indeed sexist. Accusing an individual of acting hysterically is entirely appropriate and permissable. And you should know this, becuase you should know, it is not about the words, it is about the message conveyed in the words. At no point have I ever attacked Brenna, or you, or indeed anyone, on the basis of their gender. Not ever. I challenge you to show any circumstance in which I have done so, supremely confident you will find none. And because you should know this, raising this objection here and now is beneath you; you must have known it was spurious. It was merely malicious.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
hysteria
1. Path. A functional disturbance of the nervous system, characterized by such disorders as ansthesia, hypersthesia, convulsions, etc., and usually attended with emotional disturbances and enfeeblement or perversion of the moral and intellectual faculties. (Also called colloquially hysterics.) Women being much more liable than men to this disorder, it was originally thought to be due to a disturbance of the uterus and its functions: cf. HYSTERIC and the Ger. term mutterweh. Former names for the disease were vapours and hysteric(al) passion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
Yes thats nice Schraf. Unfortuntely, it falls fould of my standing criticism of dictionaries - dictionaries must priovide all meanings attached to words, and do not much discuss appropriate circumstances.
In order to make your argument you have resorted to the term as used to describe a medical pathology; unfortuinately this ignores the common usage of the term: 1. Behavior exhibiting excessive or uncontrollable emotion, such as fear or panic.2. A mental disorder characterized by emotional excitability and sometimes by amnesia or a physical deficit, such as paralysis, or a sensory deficit, without an organic cause. "Behaviour exhibiting excessive or uncontrolled emotion" is a precisely accurate description of Brennas baseless and unsupportable ranting. And the real irony is that in attmepting to construct this spurious argument, you are committing the very sin which Brenna rails against, which includes being hypersensitive over alleged discrimination in ordinary speech. But of course, and this is the reason its ironic, its because you have suspended your normal critical faculties in your haste to launch an attack on me, haven't you? You certainly know that normal use of the perfectly serviceable English word "hysteria" cannot be sexist unless I make gender an issue in the claim - and I certainly did no such thing. Asking Brenna to show her sources is NOT such an absurd request that you should feel the need to ride to her rescue. And overall debate would be much improved if instead of tolerating these drive-by posters and protecting them from serious questions, you instead insisted they DO defend their positions with evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Contra, clearly you are a sexist because you refuse to ackowledge the source and root of the word "hysterical" as being sexist and demeaning to women.
Therefore, your contention that you are a feminist is called into question. I demand that the moderators address this sexism!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Self-parody as argument? An... interesting... tactic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
For ongoing behavior problems here and elsewhere, Contracycle has been suspended for a yet to be determined amount of time. You can try apealing your case to admin@. But I don't think Admin has much simpathy for you right now.
Shraf - (IMO) You're not coming out of this looking that wonderful yourself. You shouldn't let him do such a fine job of pushing your buttons. Or something like that. Comments on this? Take it to the "General..." topic, link below (I expect I'll be reopening it soon). Adminnemooseus Added by edit: Perhaps, if anyone is interested in trying to salvage this topic, they should go back and (re)read message 1 and everthing beteen there and here. This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 05-05-2005 11:18 PM New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Claiming, or assuming, that women, as a collective, are hysterical as a property of their weak feminine brains, is indeed sexist actually, women as a collective would not be hysterical due to their weak feminine brains. that's entirely the wrong region of the body. instead, they'd be hysterical due to their hysteras, which is greek for "womb" or uterus. hysteria, in victorian england was a "disease" women got from time to time. only women, and not men, as men do not have wombs. it was treated by having a skilled doctor manually masturbate the woman, sometimes with a device called a "vibrator." vibrators were later marketed to women as home health appliances. in serious cases, a procedure called a "hysterectomy" (ie: removing the hystera) would be performed. it modern terms, we might equate "hysteria" with "pms."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joshua221  Inactive Member |
Bikinis, MTV, stuff like that.
porteus@gmail.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: That's not using our wonder and reverence for woman's ability to create life to keep people watching TV. That's using titlation and sexual imagery to keep people watching.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hangdawg13 Member (Idle past 751 days) Posts: 1189 From: Texas Joined: |
Let's look at:
Technological advances since the industrial revolution have provided mankind less need for hard work, heavy lifting, and work that mainly males would do during this time. "Grunt work" has been disappearing, as humans rely on machines and other tools to take away this sort of labor. And instead of argue if boys are better than girls try and figger out what the heck the future generation of boys and girls will be like when we have the option of macro-evolving ourselves in one generation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: What makes you think that this will ever be possible in the future? Evolution doesn't happen to individuals.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hangdawg13 Member (Idle past 751 days) Posts: 1189 From: Texas Joined: |
What makes you think that this will ever be possible in the future? From what I understand we already have the ability to alter individuals and will soon have the ability to alter the germ line. We are already doing all sorts of things with lab animals; its only a matter of time before parents have the option of eliminating genetic diseases. ...and while they're at it they may want to make sure their kid isn't a runt... and heck they might as well make him a good athlete, handsome, extra smart, tireless, etc...
Evolution doesn't happen to individuals. Why not? We have the power, and we will use it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 477 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
Hangdawg writes:
By definition, the smallest unit that can evolve is a population. Why not? We have the power, and we will use it. If we make better people through genetic engineering, it's called "gattacarization" or some other damn thing, but it's not evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hangdawg13 Member (Idle past 751 days) Posts: 1189 From: Texas Joined: |
By definition, the smallest unit that can evolve is a population. That's the Biological Evolution definition, but there are other kinds of evolution.
If we make better people through genetic engineering, it's called "gattacarization" or some other damn thing, but it's not evolution. Cool; I learned a new word. Did they coin that after the movie Gattica or vice versa...? So anyway... either by gattacarization or by cybernetics I'm pretty sure whole populations of humans (and eventually robots) will evolve themselves during the next century... unless of course Iran drops an EMP over everybody, or the NWO turns on Big Brother in full force or WWIII breaks out... etc.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 477 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
Hangdawg writes:
Fair enough.
That's the Biological Evolution definition, but there are other kinds of evolution.
Cool; I learned a new word. Did they coin that after the movie Gattica or vice versa...?
Ha ha. Actually, I just pulled that word out of my...
So anyway... either by gattacarization or by cybernetics I'm pretty sure whole populations of humans (and eventually robots) will evolve themselves during the next century... unless of course Iran drops an EMP over everybody, or the NWO turns on Big Brother in full force or WWIII breaks out... etc.
I doubt we will ever have WWIII for one obvious reason: I will already have taken over the world before WW3 is remotely a possibility.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024