View Full Version : Feminism out of control?
It's getting a bit much lately, everything seems to be sexual-harassment, all the while women are very aware of their sexuality and are not afraid to use it. I am getting a bit tired, not just of whining women but also of gender-politics and social-justice warriors and nore gender-types than additions in my food.
I am ashamed to say that I was born as a white heterosexual man and always stayed that way. Should I???? What do you want from me ffs.
Should be enough for topic.
Kagemusha
10-22-2017, 09:20
Is it the "Me too" campaign, or whats bothering you?
Is it the "Me too" campaign, or whats bothering you?
Too much whining in general is bothering me, yeah #metoo me as well. We need a white herero-sexual men's manifest we are under siege by whiners
Gilrandir
10-22-2017, 10:39
I am ashamed to say that I was born as a white heterosexual man and always stayed that way.
It's never too late to try something else. Start with the skin color.
I remember a Fragony who said when people are bullied, they should stand up to the bully to stop him.
These women are doing that and now they're whiners?
Gilrandir
10-22-2017, 11:53
I remember a Fragony who said when people are bullied, they should stand up to the bully to stop him.
These women are doing that and now they're whiners?
Do you believe people whine only when they are bullied?
I remember a Fragony who said when people are bullied, they should stand up to the bully to stop him.
These women are doing that and now they're whiners?
Of course they should, it's just going too far. Not just this #metoo nonsense but everything. Everybody wants a slice of the victim-pie. Feminists even get worked up about the colors pink and blue, half the population obvious discriminated even before born. Blacks about black chocolate, what should we call it otherwise. I hear 'white priviliged'everywhere. Fuck off. All they achieve is that people like me who always behaves nicely get annoyed. I am a #meetoo by their standards and I am perfectly harmless. Can I be worked up about something please
Do you believe people whine only when they are bullied?
What? No...
Of course they should, it's just going too far. Not just this #metoo nonsense but everything. Everybody wants a slice of the victim-pie. Feminists even get worked up about the colors pink and blue, half the population obvious discriminated even before born. Blacks about black chocolate, what should we call it otherwise. I hear 'white priviliged'everywhere. Fuck off. All they achieve is that people like me who always behaves nicely get annoyed. I am a #meetoo by their standards and I am perfectly harmless. Can I be worked up about something please
A lot of the things you mentioned can easily be ignored by not reading every leftist article about them. I personally don't care what genders people want to have, but I'm not going to memorize every potential spectrum either way. I don't think giving someone you don't know a wrong label is insulting as long as the label isn't used for slander or discrimination. If someone looks male to me but it identifies as a snail, I didn't insult them and it doesn't warrant any reeducation either. It is not directly related to feminism either way.
The #metoo thing does appear relevant to me though, even if some of them may interprete handshakes as sexual harassment. I doubt the ones overdoing it are many, their number is probably exaggerated by male whiners who want to continue groping women (not you, in general). People loke Roosh V are whiners, but I mostly ignore them, too. The thing with women is that not all of them want the same things, just like not all men are sexual predators (want the same things). None of it justifies jerking off while blocking the door...
What? No...
A lot of the things you mentioned can easily be ignored by not reading every leftist article about them. I personally don't care what genders people want to have, but I'm not going to memorize every potential spectrum either way. I don't think giving someone you don't know a wrong label is insulting as long as the label isn't used for slander or discrimination. If someone looks male to me but it identifies as a snail, I didn't insult them and it doesn't warrant any reeducation either. It is not directly related to feminism either way.
The #metoo thing does appear relevant to me though, even if some of them may interprete handshakes as sexual harassment. I doubt the ones overdoing it are many, their number is probably exaggerated by male whiners who want to continue groping women (not you, in general). People loke Roosh V are whiners, but I mostly ignore them, too. The thing with women is that not all of them want the same things, just like not all men are sexual predators (want the same things). None of it justifies jerking off while blocking the door...
Well that's kinda it no? You don't care about all that, neither do I. But more and more I'm told I must, and I really don't like to be told what to do. For me they go too far, it starts to upset me.
Well that's kinda it no? You don't care about all that, neither do I. But more and more I'm told I must, and I really don't like to be told what to do. For me they go too far, it starts to upset me.
So who is telling you that?
So who is telling you that?
Oh common, these feminists/gender/sjw types are getting increasingly annoying and pushy, impossible to miss it, it's ,ike being in a South-Park episode. I bet there is one
Oh common, these feminists/gender/sjw types are getting increasingly annoying and pushy, impossible to miss it, it's ,ike being in a South-Park episode. I bet there is one
I have some very leftist friends on Facebook, some of whom post a whole lot of things, but rarely, if ever, anything about gender blending or whatever it's called. Perhaps it is more common if you hang out with artists a lot, I remember at some art event a girl was shouting "I have no gender!" while playing weird games with what seemed to be her boyfriend. Perhaps I hang out with more conservative people than you do?
Montmorency
10-22-2017, 13:46
Oh common, these feminists/gender/sjw types are getting increasingly annoying and pushy, impossible to miss it, it's ,ike being in a South-Park episode. I bet there is one
Why shouldn't they be pushy if people like you are so quick to call them whiners? In your time here, most of what you have posted has been in defense of your personal comfort in not having to consider how a given issue affects people and the world - not just sexism and racism, but EU politics and climate change as well.
Your attitude most generally seems to be, 'If it's bad, it's better not to talk about it; if it's really bad, it must be fake or a conspiracy against my way of life.'
For once, let's try to get to the bottom of your value-set here.
What do you want from me ffs.
What do you want from yourself to begin with? Try laying it out.
It's very simple what I want, not having to defend myself just because I couldn't care less
Montmorency
10-22-2017, 14:01
It's very simple what I want, not having to defend myself just because I couldn't care less
If you feel like you behave appropriately in life and have nothing to defend yourself from - then don't defend yourself? Have you considered that maybe you already agree with many of the feminist ideas?
If this is so and you have nothing that needs changing, then public discourse on the matter should hearten you; at least, it shouldn't discourage you.
If you have specific misgivings or disagreements, then you can either just not talk about it - or you can complain about and try to change it. As long as you are already complaining here, then it doesn't cost you to go into more detail...
If you feel like you behave appropriately in life and have nothing to defend yourself from - then don't defend yourself? Have you considered that maybe you already agree with many of the feminist ideas?
If this is so and you have nothing that needs changing, then public discourse on the matter should hearten you; at least, it shouldn't discourage you.
If you have specific misgivings or disagreements, then you can either just not talk about it - or you can complain about and try to change it. As long as you are already complaining here, then it doesn't cost you to go into more detail...
Of course I already agree with feminsts idea's why wouldn't I? Hence the too in too far. 'I couldn't care less is' not enough anymore, everything needs to be gender-neutral by the new wave. I wasn't kidding earlier, they really get upset at the colors blue and pink at birthdays or gender-reveal party's, that's just one example.
Simply put, feminism used to be about equality, now about neutrality
Montmorency
10-22-2017, 14:35
Of course I already agree with feminsts idea's why wouldn't I? Hence the too in too far. 'I couldn't care less is' not enough anymore, everything needs to be gender-neutral by the new wave. I wasn't kidding earlier, they really get upset at the colors blue and pink at birthdays or gender-reveal party's, that's just one example.
Simply put, feminism used to be about equality, now about neutrality
What do you mean by "gender-neutral"? Is it using certain language, wearing certain clothes, or something else? Why does it bother you?
In your example of color association, is it that someone was surprised or upset at the gendered use of color at some party, or is it that people are pointing out that there's no real reason to associate a color with a gender, and that doing so is part of a framework that can be limiting to children in how they act and are expected to act, as well as how they look? If the former, why is that important to you? Is it someone you know personally? If the latter, do you disagree that the specific blue-pink color associations are relatively-new and arbitrary?
How do you distinguish between "equality" and "neutrality" in your usage?
Color pink/blue was just an example out of many, a very real one. Neutrality is not accepting that male and females are different I guess, it's not about equality then anymore but about special treatment and pretending. That's too much to ask. You don't have to look at it like that, but I do
edit, that #metoo didn't trigger me but overall whiningness that's too close for comfort, just read up on some opinion-articles, isn't #metoo all about how females 'felt' when interacting with males? Well I have feelings too, and you are not allowed to disagree with me because of that.
Couldn't you say that giving girls pink stuff and boys blue stuff is a form of special treatment already?
Why would it be wrong to change that?
This actually bothered me before when I wanted to buy chocolate with yogurt and strawberry flavor because I really like that. It usually seems to be wrapped in pink and marketed like an item for women, so I felt a bit weird and wondered whether people would think of me as effeminate (not a real man/not worthy or whatever) in the supermarket. Of course I bought it anyway, but it seems like a good example of how these traditional things can actually bother me more than if we did what some liberals want and just discarded these notions of "how boys/girls are supposed to behave".
Or we can argue about whether or not I'm "less of a man" (see how this already applies some arbitrary standard of what makes a "real man" that all men supposedly need to adhere to in order to not be something "lesser"?) because I happen to like yogurt and strawberry flavor. :rolleyes:
Sorry I just hermetically closed myself I just feel that way
Are you discussing gender-neutral in how language is biased against women and the movement to make it gender-neutral as not to imply a preference? This would be changing statements from "A man's personal right to freedom of expression shall not to be infringed upon" to "A person's personal right to freedom of expression shall not be infringed upon" then there are words such as man-kind, his-story, etc.
Then there are things like the 'worst insult' apparently refers to a woman's vagina. As a heterosexual male, do you dislike a women's vaginas that you use the c-word to insult other people? You really have to question what those people are actually saying sometimes.
Greyblades
10-22-2017, 15:34
Actually fragony I feel that femenism has lost a lot of it's bite over the last few years, in the anglosphere at least.
It seems to me the extreme variants of identity politics are prone to self discrediting themselves the longer they operate; I point to the failure of DNC chair candidate Sally "Shut up white people" Brown, the reaction to the firing of Google Engineer James Damore, and the decline of marvel comics (http://thefederalist.com/2017/04/12/forcing-political-correctness-employees-characters-killing-marvel-comics/) as examples of the trend of public revulsion towards such ideological extremism.
Personally what really relieves my worries about such ways of thinking is the ever growing list of Soc-Jus advocates who 3 years ago were pinned their flag to the anti-gamer mast and today are known for having self-destructed in rather spectacular fasion (https://twitter.com/i/moments/851713200537993216?lang=en). Leland Yee (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/02/25/ex-calif-state-sen-leeland-yee-gun-control-champion-heading-to-prison-for-weapons-trafficking/?utm_term=.08fb8a16b6d0) being a particularly cathartic example.
then there are words such as man-kind, his-story, etc.
Isn't mankind just short for humankind and isn't history spelled with just one s and how exactly do they perpetuate anything? Maybe it's because I'm an ESL fool and the German words for them seem neutral, but to me they are descriptive terms and that's it. I did think about mankind before though, but I'm not sure how using these terms is supposed to be bad for women.
The insults seem to be more clear, yes, but they're not just a gender issue since disability and some other things are also used for insults.
Greyblades
10-22-2017, 15:52
No, history is not derived from his-story, it's just a coincidence of language latched on to by those who want to be seen as cleverer than they actually are, language tricks are a common substitute for profundity in feminist philosophy.
Kagemusha
10-22-2017, 16:00
Are you discussing gender-neutral in how language is biased against women and the movement to make it gender-neutral as not to imply a preference? This would be changing statements from "A man's personal right to freedom of expression shall not to be infringed upon" to "A person's personal right to freedom of expression shall not be infringed upon" then there are words such as man-kind, his-story, etc.
Then there are things like the 'worst insult' apparently refers to a woman's vagina. As a heterosexual male, do you dislike a women's vaginas that you use the c-word to insult other people? You really have to question what those people are actually saying sometimes.
Correct form would be that backwards Indo-European languages are biased against women. Some other more developed languages have no such bias:
19983
Greyblades
10-22-2017, 16:45
Correct form would be that backwards Indo-European languages are biased against women. Some other more developed languages have no such bias:
19983
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/126/046/27f.jpg
Gilrandir
10-22-2017, 17:29
then there are words such as man-kind, his-story, etc.
And what is even scarier "woman" comes from "man with a womb". English is so sexist. I advise abandoning it altogether. After all the Brits could Brexit, why others can't do the same about their language?
Maybe it's because I'm an ESL fool and the German words for them seem neutral...
Oh really? German nouns and adjectives have gender. That is enough to call it gender biased.
All of this was trolling in case someone may get insulted.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-22-2017, 19:08
And what is even scarier "woman" comes from "man with a womb". English is so sexist. I advise abandoning it altogether. After all the Brits could Brexit, why others can't do the same about their language?In the USA, we punted English quite a while back.
Sorry I just hermetically closed myself I just feel that way
Have you ever sexually assaulted or harassed a female? Have you ever witnessed it and done nothing? No to both? Fine, all good. This campaign isn't directed at you. It's about a large number of men who do those things, as evidenced by countless examples from females across cultures.
Could have, bit too young for me
Montmorency
10-23-2017, 02:25
Could have, bit too young for me
Is it related to the [REDACTED] incident?
Gilrandir
10-23-2017, 14:35
In the USA, we punted English quite a while back.
But not the language, though.
This campaign isn't directed at you. It's about a large number of men who do those things, as evidenced by countless examples from females across cultures.
I have a feeling that some campaigners join in for PR or some other reasons not directly connected to the ostensible aim. I mean how could you have been nonchalant and unperturbed and SILENT for dozens of years and then abruptly you claim to have been suffering most horribly.
I have a feeling that some campaigners join in for PR or some other reasons not directly connected to the ostensible aim. I mean how could you have been nonchalant and unperturbed and SILENT for dozens of years and then abruptly you claim to have been suffering most horribly.
Fear.
Fear of people who will start victim blaming and not believing them if they end up being the only ones, etc.
Fear of being alone in the spotlight as "the victim", becoming controversial, ruining other aspects of one's life and so on and on.
I often wonder whether I should tell others about the time I got robbed. On the one hand it's an interesting story, on the other hand it may skew their view of me towards "victim, weak" and so on and I may not want that. Being a victim can be like a disability, it may not be your own fault, but you may suffer in even more unrelated situations anyway. Certain people here also tend to use "Opfer" (victim in German) as an insult. Comes from Middle Easterners as far as I can tell, but Germans use it as well now.
Sarmatian
10-23-2017, 15:21
I do believe that things ought to be discussed, not swept under the rug, but I just don't see how anyone can maintain that there is institutionalized discrimination of white males in the western world.
It's just mind-boggling. Take any parameter you want, white males are always on top.
Certainly there are cases of discrimination against white males, but they are very rare, in contrast with discrimination of women or males of other skin colour.
Gilrandir
10-23-2017, 15:56
Fear.
Fear of people who will start victim blaming and not believing them if they end up being the only ones, etc.
Fear of being alone in the spotlight as "the victim", becoming controversial, ruining other aspects of one's life and so on and on.
I don't believe influential women have this fear. Oprah has been talking of her experience for years. The actresses involved in the Weinsten scandal couldn't have been that scared for that long.
I do believe that things ought to be discussed, not swept under the rug, but I just don't see how anyone can maintain that there is institutionalized discrimination of white males in the western world.
It's just mind-boggling. Take any parameter you want, white males are always on top.
No, it is not mind-boggling that resident populations of well-developed countries fare better off in their home countries than immigrant populations from poorly developed countries.
Sarmatian
10-23-2017, 16:07
No, it is not mind-boggling that resident populations of well-developed countries fare better off in their home countries than immigrant populations from poorly developed countries.
Que?
The actresses involved in the Weinsten scandal couldn't have been that scared for that long.
It is an open secret and known by everyone and nothing was ever done about it.
https://www.nytimes.com/video/movies/100000005500545/harvey-weinstein-hollywoods-open-secret-and-punch-line.html
Montmorency
10-23-2017, 16:28
I don't believe influential women have this fear. Oprah has been talking of her experience for years. The actresses involved in the Weinsten scandal couldn't have been that scared for that long.
Why not? You lack the experience to understand, don't you?
I wouldn't lecture you on how you must really have felt when you visited America - that's your own story. People who visit America don't have a single universal experience.
CrossLOPER
10-23-2017, 16:41
I think what Fragony is trying to say is that he thinks it's really horrible what happened to that Weinstein character. He seems like a really friendly guy and all those sluts got what was coming to them. /src
If someone looks male to me but it identifies as a snail, I didn't insult them and it doesn't warrant any reeducation either.
I just ask if I am unsure, and go from there. I won't go beyond that, since it is an entirely different topic, but I felt the need to recommend this.
Gilrandir
10-23-2017, 17:12
Why not? You lack the experience to understand, don't you?
I wouldn't lecture you on how you must really have felt when you visited America - that's your own story. People who visit America don't have a single universal experience.
What does it have to do with sexual harrassment?
I just ask if I am unsure, and go from there. I won't go beyond that, since it is an entirely different topic, but I felt the need to recommend this.
And that can't backfire heavily when someone thinks they're obviously this or that and then you ask them how they identify?
I'm pretty sure there are bullying tactics based on that, which basically attempt to attack someone's self-worth. So I can see how that can be misconstrued easily. :shrug:
What does it have to do with sexual harrassment?
It only means your argument about these women is disrespectful.
You cannot expect them to react like you think you would because you're not them.
The thing is that if you had made the same experiences, you wouldn't be you either, and might act more like them. Therefore judging their experiences using yours as a basis is nonsensical and one could say you're not taking them seriously as persons.
Monty said that if he declared that your experiences in the US made no sense because they didn't reflect his own experiences and declared you a liar based on this, he'd be doing the same thing to you. He's trying to transform the issue to a topic you might be more involved with in order to make his point clearer.
Montmorency
10-23-2017, 17:48
What does it have to do with sexual harrassment?
It has to do with anything in life. Harassment, losing a parent, playing the new popular game, hearing a song, cooking a meal, living through a popular revolt and national crisis...
Don't try to pre-define what other people go through on idle speculation.
CrossLOPER
10-23-2017, 18:11
And that can't backfire heavily when someone thinks they're obviously this or that and then you ask them how they identify?
I'm pretty sure there are bullying tactics based on that, which basically attempt to attack someone's self-worth. So I can see how that can be misconstrued easily. :shrug:
From my experience with transpeople, it's generally not hard to make inferences and read social cues. I can't predict how every individual will react but you are usually given the benefit of the doubt if you show that you are trying to understand and respect this person. You can easily use common sense and just avoid the subject entirely if there is no need for you to delve into it, but don't overthink it. It is immensely helpful if you show that you are, at the very least, taking this person seriously.
If you are talking about otherkin, however, you're on your own. That is an entirely different subset.
I am going to throw it out there in the topic about trans.
Why do you need to ask, or even care?
If you really think about it, do you need to know what the other persons genitals are?
It is kind of creepy in a way. Why do you really need to know if they go a penis or a vagina? Over 99% of communication does not require you to know unless you are some kind of gender-gestapo.
Montmorency
10-23-2017, 19:17
It is kind of creepy in a way. Why do you really need to know if they go a penis or a vagina? Over 99% of communication does not require you to know unless you are some kind of gender-gestapo.
Most communication is aided by knowing how the interlocutor wants to be addressed. You don't need to ask about their genitals to ask how they want to be addressed.
Ehm, yes, I don't need to care or ask, that's why I also don't need to know anything about gender fluidity or the 50 different types of gender identity or whatever. Wasn't that my original point? :sweatdrop:
Most communication is aided by knowing how the interlocutor wants to be addressed. You don't need to ask about their genitals to ask how they want to be addressed.
You can address them in a gender neutral manner. Common in English is the singular "they" or even using their name. If you think about it, there is very little for when it is needed.
You can address them in a gender neutral manner. Common in English is the singular "they"
I don't agree with they on this?!
Montmorency
10-23-2017, 22:30
I don't agree with they on this?!
Them.
edyzmedieval
10-23-2017, 22:35
How about just use "him" or "her" because people identify in one way or another more closely to a specific gender. Just ask them and be done with it, nobody cares what you consider yourself as, just be a nice person overall.
How about just use "him" or "her" because people identify in one way or another more closely to a specific gender. Just ask them and be done with it, nobody cares what you consider yourself as, just be a nice person overall.
Or use gender neutral instead then no need to ever switch and it says the defaulting of the other as a male which was very common in academia and law. Imagine you are reading something which applies to you and it was saying "woman" all the time, it would come across as rather jarring, then having women argue "well, it means both genders." - this is what they put up with, in the inherent bias.
CrossLOPER
10-23-2017, 23:04
gender-gestapo.
Pronouns, I'm looking for pronouns. As others said, you can default to they, which is what I usually do.
Them.
I'll just stick with "you", thank them very much. :dizzy2: :sweatdrop:
I mean, eh, forget it, I was originally talking about lists like this: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/02/heres-a-list-of-58-gender-options-for-facebook-users/
Why anyone would be insulted if I don't know how they identify on such a list was my original question if I recall correctly. I'm getting confused by them/that/this/it/us/you?!?!? now. :sweatdrop:
I mean I wanted to tell Fragony that it's probably not worth getting bothered by it just because someone thinks that's what the options should be. And no, I usually don't ask anyone what they would pick from that list, what weirdo came up with that idea again? Wasn't me! :creep: :sweatdrop:
Seamus Fermanagh
10-24-2017, 00:37
You can address them in a gender neutral manner. Common in English is the singular "they" or even using their name. If you think about it, there is very little for when it is needed.
The signature blocs of many of the faculty and staff at my school state the preferred pronoun choice of that person. Simple courtesy suggests you should -- barring some label or form of address clearly used solely to be flippant -- address and refer to that person in the manner that person requests.
I'll just stick with "you", thank them very much. :dizzy2: :sweatdrop:
I mean, eh, forget it, I was originally talking about lists like this: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/02/heres-a-list-of-58-gender-options-for-facebook-users/
Why anyone would be insulted if I don't know how they identify on such a list was my original question if I recall correctly. I'm getting confused by them/that/this/it/us/you?!?!? now. :sweatdrop:
I mean I wanted to tell Fragony that it's probably not worth getting bothered by it just because someone thinks that's what the options should be. And no, I usually don't ask anyone what they would pick from that list, what weirdo came up with that idea again? Wasn't me! :creep: :sweatdrop:
Just one example out of many, many examples become a trend. I cannot ignore it unless I stop reading newspapers, magazines, stop watching tv, etc.
Latest one, in England this time, sorry my person can't come to the party, my person is pregnant. 'What is it?', it's a ehhhhh person
Totally necesary as the pregnant woman could be a transgender
Can we talk about sexual-marxism yet? Touchy I know
You still watch TV? ~:eek:
You still watch TV? ~:eek:
Haven't for ten years or so but I do get the tasty bits
Haven't for ten years or so but I do get the tasty bits
Then I can only assume you go to right wing blogs and/like geenstijl and they bombard you with leftist propaganda for you to hate and then you blame the leftists for being pushy because the right wingers show their ideas to you every day. Does that come close?
Then I can only assume you go to right wing blogs and/like geenstijl and they bombard you with leftist propaganda for you to hate and then you blame the leftists for being pushy because the right wingers show their ideas to you every day. Does that come close?
They do that yeah the really obvious and juicy parts at least, but no you don't come close, there are these places called other people's homes and they watch these discussion programs a lot, if you ever come there the guy ready to explode is me handle with care
Gilrandir
10-24-2017, 14:08
It only means your argument about these women is disrespectful.
You cannot expect them to react like you think you would because you're not them.
The thing is that if you had made the same experiences, you wouldn't be you either, and might act more like them. Therefore judging their experiences using yours as a basis is nonsensical and one could say you're not taking them seriously as persons.
Monty said that if he declared that your experiences in the US made no sense because they didn't reflect his own experiences and declared you a liar based on this, he'd be doing the same thing to you. He's trying to transform the issue to a topic you might be more involved with in order to make his point clearer.
It has to do with anything in life. Harassment, losing a parent, playing the new popular game, hearing a song, cooking a meal, living through a popular revolt and national crisis...
Don't try to pre-define what other people go through on idle speculation.
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. Some women (like Oprah) openly admit what happened to them. Others choose to wait for an indefinite time and then start voicing their indignation and other negative emotions. I totally support the first option and I hold the second one under suspicion since I don't believe emotions could linger that long, that is why the latter option seems insincere to me. It sounds more like a desire to join the trend - ice bucket challenge or "who was filthier harrassed" challenge, in this case. I wouldn't much sympathize with a person who having had indigestion after a meal in a restaurant remembers it 10 years later and starts denouncing its staff.
They do that yeah the really obvious and juicy parts at least, but no you don't come close, there are these places called other people's homes and they watch these discussion programs a lot, if you ever come there the guy ready to explode is me handle with care
The question is why does it bother you if they're only pushing in other people's homes?
Is it what they're pushing for and how would that bother you?
And just because you read sites that collect these things from all over the place, doesn't mean other people watch all of it, too.
Cause-starved activists with greasy fingers bother me, this latest hype is articially created and carefully nourished
Montmorency
10-24-2017, 16:34
Just one example out of many, many examples become a trend. I cannot ignore it unless I stop reading newspapers, magazines, stop watching tv, etc.
Latest one, in England this time, sorry my person can't come to the party, my person is pregnant. 'What is it?', it's a ehhhhh person
Totally necesary as the pregnant woman could be a transgender
Can we talk about sexual-marxism yet? Touchy I know
If you're referring to this story (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/23/theresa-may-insists-pregnant-women-term-acceptable-governments/), the UK government denies that it requested the use of "pregnant person" by the UN. This isn't a UK issue as such, but a stance that some medical organizations in multiple countries have adopted in the past few years.
You should realize that trans issues are much more controversial (https://dgrnewsservice.org/civilization/patriarchy/gender/pregnant-person-is-the-all-lives-matter-of-reproductive-healthcare/) among feminists than you let on. It's not new; this has been discussed since at least the 1990s. But in my opinion the simplest compromise is "pregnant women and others"; "expectant mother" is also worth retaining since it actually bypasses the concern of gender-prescription here.
Inclusion has become the ultimate liberal fetish. Unfortunately, the uncritical expansion of categories to protect feelings is less inclusion than dilution. “All Lives Matter” is, after all, a demand for inclusion, specifically the inclusion of white trauma into the narrative of black resistance. The classic line used by men’s rights activists – “Sometimes men get beat up by women too!” – is a demand that efforts against domestic violence be “inclusive” as well. But none of these discussions are improved in the least solely by making language less precise.
Whatever you personally think, it shouldn't be surprising that the issue would have to come up in the conversation about how to integrate "trans" into society. If you refuse to stop and think, you will constantly be shocked by everything you come across. And that's a personal problem, not anybody else's.
Cause-starved activists with greasy fingers bother me, this latest hype is articially created and carefully nourished
Here's the thing: none of these ideas or debates come out of nowhere. Here, the general impetus is the question, 'How do we accommodate trans people in society?" That question will have a lot of threads, because society is a big thing. If you can at least contextualize the questions behind your various outrages, they might at least not get you helplessly worked up.
sorry my person can't come to the party, my person is pregnant. 'What is it?', it's a ehhhhh person
In English you say "my spouse", "my partner", or "my SO (significant other)."
Kadagar_AV
10-25-2017, 04:18
In English you say "my spouse", "my partner", or "my SO (significant other)."
Mind you, USAnians around.
Them be readin't as My SO significant other
As for the topic at large, I wouldn't at all be against feminism if it actually taught the feminine side the real virtues, as in, use your nose to breath - silly.
["women are dumb"]
Gilrandir
10-25-2017, 11:13
It's not like you could ever respect them for their intellectual prowess, as they are rather lackluster in that field.
Too general a claim. In my experience it is rather the opposite.
Gilrandir
10-27-2017, 13:51
#Me too?
http://www.eonline.com/news/889345/kevin-sorbo-alleges-gianni-versace-sexually-harassed-him-in-the-early-1990s
There was this one too:
http://metro.co.uk/2017/10/21/stranger-things-star-finn-wolfhard-fires-agent-after-former-client-alleges-sexual-assault-7016288/
Unfortunately, where there is power, there are people who take advantage of their position to abuse others. Even the current USA President with Pussy-gate.
It's getting a bit much lately, everything seems to be sexual-harassment, all the while women are very aware of their sexuality and are not afraid to use it. I am getting a bit tired, not just of whining women but also of gender-politics and social-justice warriors and nore gender-types than additions in my food.
I am ashamed to say that I was born as a white heterosexual man and always stayed that way. Should I???? What do you want from me ffs.
Should be enough for topic.
I agree!
We need a White Male Liberation Front!
HopAlongBunny
10-27-2017, 22:23
Hanoi Jane and renowned hater of men Gloria Steinem speak out:
http://variety.com/2017/biz/news/jane-fonda-harvey-weinstein-famous-white-victims-1202600709/
Keeping in touch with decades of speaking out "too soon", they're probably right...again
Greyblades
10-27-2017, 22:39
Actress Jane Fonda and activist Gloria Steinem stopped by MSNBC’s “All In With Chris Hayes” Wednesday night to discuss the Harvey Weinstein scandal, where Fonda pointed out that part of the reason Weinstein’s accusers are getting so much attention is because they’re “famous and white” — with the exception of Lupita Nyong’o.
“It feels like something has shifted,” Fonda told Hayes. “It’s too bad that it’s probably because so many of the women that were assaulted by Harvey Weinstein are famous and white and everybody knows them. This has been going on a long time to black women and other women of color and it doesn’t get out quite the same.”
That must be why there wasnt this much fuss those times those child actors started complaining about paedophiles in hollywood.
Macaulay Culkin, Elijah Wood, Corey Feldman, Corey Haim, Joey Coleman, Mara Wilson, Samantha Geimer, Jessica Biel, Michael Egan, Evan Henzi, Alison Arngrim, Dylan Farrow and Mia Farrow, yeah, they didnt get this attention because they werent famous or white!
Fonda deserves the bile our moderaters fear.
Tristuskhan
10-28-2017, 00:09
Here in France the hashtag "metoo" was quite roughly translated "balancetonporc". We don't like understatements. It was brewing for months anyway.
The dictionnaries told me: "rat on your pig" or "chuck out your pig". Roughly, so to say. Always nice to learn some new english words.
Beeing France, no need to say that it's almost a bloodbath. Pity beeing that I still know quite a lot of ladies who would never chuck out their pig(s), and the pigs still roam unchecked.
Having been a trade union representative for years, I heard a basketfull of confessions from disoriented women with their lives made awfull by male superiors. I came to hate the way women so easily talk to me and beg me to shut the hell up, also.
One year ago I got a new errrh... captain, 24 years young and attractive cuttie, fresh out of school. I told her a few names: the radioactive ones. Men she should never trust because I know very well they are very very talented snakes. And that she shall tell her two 24 years, etc etc classmates on other teams to do so. Have I been right doing that?
Frag, I don't think feminism is out of control when a proven feminist as I am still hesitates.
Debates on grammar and spelling are minor nuisance. Drunk students overacting gender annihilation are just drunk students. Smokescreens, nothing to write home about for an heterosexual white european male.
Yeah you have been right doing that, predators do exist.
As for not worrying, I am not worried I am annoyed. Ironically it are fake-feminists and SJW-types who like to see society devided and they are too self-rightious to see the hypocracy. Everything is too male, everything is too white. I wouldn't want to live in their utopia, they see sexism and facism/racism everywhere but don'tvrecognise it when looking in the mirror.
Kadagar_AV
10-28-2017, 04:51
Mind you, USAnians around.
Them be readin't as My SO significant other
As for the topic at large, I wouldn't at all be against feminism if it actually taught the feminine side the real virtues, as in, use your nose to breath - silly.
Got to respect the girls for their heads, you know. It's not like you could ever respect them for their intellectual prowess, as they are rather lackluster in that field.
Too general a claim. In my experience it is rather the opposite.
Now is it...
*purrs like a kitten*
Well then, I have a week off...
Can you then, throughout history, explain how any sane individual would put mere women (as a group) side to side to our outstanding men?
["women are dumb"]
In all honesty, Cleopatra is one of very few women who actually accomplished things, and let's remember she made it by being all "Lova ya long time". She also killed herself.
owwwww don't do that, I can say no other thing other than saying that there is nothjng wrong with the intelligence of women and that they are indeed hold back by society as real! feminists claim
Kadagar_AV
10-28-2017, 05:47
owwwww don't do that, I can say no other thing other than saying that there is nothjng wrong with the intelligence of women and that they are indeed hold back by society as real! feminists claim
I haven't said there's anything wrong with female intelligence..
My point is that there is no RIGHT-with it, that men can't do better, and already have since history started.
Us white men have tried to really listen to the female perspective lately.
Result: Women didn't have much to say ["women are dumb"]
Kadagar_AV
10-28-2017, 07:32
I haven't said there's anything wrong with female intelligence..
My point is that there is no RIGHT-with it, that men can't do better, and already have since history started.
Us white men have tried to really listen to the female perspective lately.
Result: Women didn't have much to say ["women are dumb"].
fair enough
It's absolutely not fair.
As a side-toss the European white women gave the white men an absolute load of Africans and Islamic people to deal with.
Not just bad gene-stock, bad religion with it.
"Fair enough" - for what, so absolutely WHAT - would that be a redeemed factor?
For us having their say of the matter as the first actual men of the world?
No such thing as 'us' Kads
Montmorency
10-28-2017, 10:39
Someday soon the white man shall cede the solemn duty of raping the :daisy: out of his women to the subhuman mud creatures, who he is oddly certain don't have superior genes.
Those stupid, stupid, women who are much worse than men at everything cool and who don't have a clue just how good they have it here by our side (though they should definitely have it less good).
I didn't know Trump's rhetoric level was so common in Sweden.
The things Sweden invented and was overlooked for, fascinating.
Gilrandir
10-28-2017, 14:41
Now is it...
*purrs like a kitten*
Well then, I have a week off...
Can you then, throughout history, explain how any sane individual would put mere women (as a group) side to side to our outstanding men?
If you read my post carefully you couldn't have missed the words "in my experience". I teach University students and due to the type of my department about 90% of them are female. The scarce male ones are 80-90% dumb (to use your terminology) while among females the percentage of dumbness is about 50-60.
As for history, I guess it is unfair to compare the achievements of sexes since women (as a group, not considering singular outstanding individuals) are "out for achievement" for a much shorter span. It is like comparing Brazilian and USAnian (to use your terminology) national football teams.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-28-2017, 20:34
If you read my post carefully you couldn't have missed the words "in my experience". I teach University students and due to the type of my department about 90% of them are female. The scarce male ones are 80-90% dumb (to use your terminology) while among females the percentage of dumbness is about 50-60.
As for history, I guess it is unfair to compare the achievements of sexes since women (as a group, not considering singular outstanding individuals) are "out for achievement" for a much shorter span. It is like comparing Brazilian and USAnian (to use your terminology) national football teams.
Dumbness as in not capable of comprehending or as in choosing ignorance by focusing on irrelevancies?
In the UK, White Males are a minority in University due to under performing academically and other key factors.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/may/12/university-gender-gap-scandal-thinktank-men
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/9484597/White-males-now-classed-as-a-minority-group-at-university.html
https://www.offa.org.uk/universities-and-colleges/guidance/topic-briefings/topic-briefing-white-british-students/
Seems to be a trend in the USA too...
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/08/why-men-are-the-new-college-minority/536103/
Gilrandir
10-29-2017, 06:12
Dumbness as in not capable of comprehending or as in choosing ignorance by focusing on irrelevancies?
Sometimes one of the two, sometimes both.
HopAlongBunny
10-29-2017, 06:42
Here's a look at the Wests grand experiment since the end of WW2.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2017/10/27/let_s_ban_men_from_workplaces.html
Should we just admit that "men in the workplace" was just a bad idea?
Or is it perhaps, simply the reaction of all apes given power and authority?
John Smith
10-31-2017, 20:14
Remember the days when a woman's place was in the kitchen?
I don't.
Feminism in control.
rory_20_uk
10-31-2017, 20:37
Here's a look at the Wests grand experiment since the end of WW2.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2017/10/27/let_s_ban_men_from_workplaces.html
Should we just admit that "men in the workplace" was just a bad idea?
Or is it perhaps, simply the reaction of all apes given power and authority?
Placental mammals mean one parent has to carry the offspring. The greater the burden between the genders, the greater the difference. Our babies have proportionally massive heads and come out under-developed. This again means that the lactating parent has to spend more time nurturing.
~:smoking:
https://i.imgur.com/KgEh6Q5.jpg
Montmorency
10-31-2017, 21:50
Placental mammals mean one parent has to carry the offspring. The greater the burden between the genders, the greater the difference. Our babies have proportionally massive heads and come out under-developed. This again means that the lactating parent has to spend more time nurturing.
~:smoking:
That's the great vulnerability that admits the subjugation of women, but we can stand to cut against the grain.
rory_20_uk
10-31-2017, 21:53
https://i.imgur.com/KgEh6Q5.jpg
Indeed. And if he has children and gets divorced, the fight he will have to be a parent will be vastly in excess of what the mother has to.
Those who went to private schools have greater advantage than those that didn't. Those whose parents didn't go to University and do not see the point have it tougher.
There is no facet of the world that any two people are equal.
~:smoking:
Montmorency
10-31-2017, 22:01
Indeed. And if he has children and gets divorced, the fight he will have to be a parent will be vastly in excess of what the mother has to.
Those who went to private schools have greater advantage than those that didn't. Those whose parents didn't go to University and do not see the point have it tougher.
There is no facet of the world that any two people are equal.
~:smoking:
What you say is true. What now?
rory_20_uk
10-31-2017, 22:11
What you say is true. What now?
Sort of my point to what I quoted...
Back to the topic - some times in some places yes. On average it still has some way to go.
~:smoking:
Indeed. And if he has children and gets divorced, the fight he will have to be a parent will be vastly in excess of what the mother has to.
What ever happened to cause you to separate from your wife in the first place? Always made me curious especially as you providing her with child support is a sore point for you.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-01-2017, 16:30
Bit personal, that?
I suppose the question is whether we need "Feminism" or whether we've come far enough that we can just accept women should be equal and move on as a society. If we accept women should be equal then we no longer need "Feminism" to tackle inequality.
That could go like when we thought we wouldn't need Nazi hunters anymore and now the Nazis are everywhere.
Or like when we thought we wouldn't need unions anymore and wage slavery returned.
Every time conservatives say we don't need something they don't like anymore, it's just a ruse for reactionist measures to be implemented again.
Even apart from that, women aren't equal in society yet. That will more likely be the case once they have more space in the institutions of government/power, including in corporations. That is not to say they have to have 50%. http://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/leadership-and-political-participation/facts-and-figures
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/01/14/chapter-1-women-in-leadership/
~20% seems a bit low though. Especially if you combine it with the reports about men in corporate leadership positions abusing them.
Always easy to say that maybe they're less ambitious, perhaps they're less ambitious after getting abused by their bosses.
Hooahguy
11-01-2017, 17:02
I mean to be fair, the Nazis that were hunted a few decades ago are not the same ones of today. The fight evolved with time. Same goes for feminism. There are new fights today that feminists of 20 years ago probably would not have imagined.
Bit personal, that?
It is his choice to answer, but it would help give context to why it is such a sore point. I could fabricate twenty different reasons easily, but that won't increase understanding if none of those situations are applicable. It is also difficult to engage, as I would have to make assumptions on what happened which might be more offensive to Rory than the truth.
I suppose the question is whether we need "Feminism" or whether we've come far enough that we can just accept women should be equal and move on as a society. If we accept women should be equal then we no longer need "Feminism" to tackle inequality.
Could also say I am curious with your post. You have previously stated on this topic that you believe in traditional gender roles and that a woman's place is in the kitchen and as a mother, taking care of the household, with the man being the sole provider. Have you since embraced feminism yourself?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-01-2017, 17:32
Could also say I am curious with your post. You have previously stated on this topic that you believe in traditional gender roles and that a woman's place is in the kitchen and as a mother, taking care of the household, with the man being the sole provider. Have you since embraced feminism yourself?
Sorry, what?
Pretty sure I never said that. I have said that in the first few years of life I think most children benefit more from their mothers than their fathers. I have also observed that whilst women wake when their babies cry in the night men quite often don't. I know one friend who would insist on his wife waking him because he would always sleep through their son crying and she wouldn't. As I recall her response was that it was pointless for them both to literally lose sleep over it.
As regards Rory's personal situation, he's a big boy but I would have thought it he wanted to share he would have, and as you note it's a sore point.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-01-2017, 17:54
I mean to be fair, the Nazis that were hunted a few decades ago are not the same ones of today. The fight evolved with time. Same goes for feminism. There are new fights today that feminists of 20 years ago probably would not have imagined.
If these are fights feminists never imagined, are they still feminist fights?
Was feminism not historically ambitious enough, or is it the case that "feminism" is now a lobbyist group as opposed to a genuine civil rights movement?
There does seem to be an assumption today that everyone has a right not to be offended and any offence caused is always grievous and cripplying.
The current sexual harassment scandal engulfing Westminster has now caught Damien Green, Theresa May's Deputy - he's accused of briefly touching a woman's knee and a year later telling her she looked good in a corset and inviting her out for a drink via text. He's apparently a friend of her father.
Is that sort of behaviour appropriate? No, certainly not, but I'm not convinced it can be called "sexual harassment" either, and the knee touch was apparently so fleeting even the alleged victim says it was "almost deniable".
There is a danger, I think, that we can create an environment where we take behaviour which should be deemed inappropriate and we elevate it to an extent that we end up making it much worse than it is for the recipient.
In this case I'm a bit confused why this girl didn't tell her father - I imagine if he's known his daughter was being "admired in a corset" he'd have knocked Green's block off.
Article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/01/damian-green-investigated-alleged-inappropriate-advance-female/
If these are fights feminists never imagined, are they still feminist fights?
Was feminism not historically ambitious enough, or is it the case that "feminism" is now a lobbyist group as opposed to a genuine civil rights movement?
There does seem to be an assumption today that everyone has a right not to be offended and any offence caused is always grievous and cripplying.
Well, "No plan survives contact with the enemy.", so it's not entirely unheard of that a movement doesn't die down right away after its first goal. Perhaps that is because movements tend to focus on a big, very important goal first, which doesn't mean they don't have more goals for later. And perhaps solving the initial problems makes the others become more visible as their relative impact grows with the removal of much bigger issues.
I'd see it a bit like a logarithmic function that makes more progress in the beginning and then continues with smaller steps until a certain ceiling (equality) is reached. I also won't doubt that some goals espoused by some feminists are about superiority or just going too far, but that doesn't automatically make all goals of feminism wrong. The goals should be judged individually and blanket statements can't do all of them justice.
Sorry, what? Pretty sure I never said that.
Got as far as Nov 2014 then gave up looking for informational purposes. I remember you expressing a viewpoint similar to that as a proponent of traditional gender roles.
Not that it matters as you have confirmed you no longer hold that position (which I am pleased about) and I won't hold you to it to defend it.
I did find this (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?141576-Woman-who-lied-about-rape-asks-for-bygones-to-be-bygones&p=2053455832&viewfull=1#post2053455832), where you did express the view point.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-01-2017, 18:32
Got as far as Nov 2014 then gave up looking for informational purposes. I remember you expressing a viewpoint similar to that as a proponent of traditional gender roles.
Not that it matters as you have confirmed you no longer hold that position (which I am pleased about) and I won't hold you to it to defend it.
Actually, it does matter because I say I never expressed such a viewpoint, which is entirely different from saying I "no longer" hold such a viewpoint.
It is much more likely that you either misunderstood me, or you are miss-remembering and conflating my views with someone else's. In any case, I would say that having admitted you can turn up no evidence to the contrary you will, perforce, have to accept that you miss-represented my opinion on the matter.
It is an open secret and known by everyone and nothing was ever done about it.
https://www.nytimes.com/video/movies/100000005500545/harvey-weinstein-hollywoods-open-secret-and-punch-line.html
And now for the Kevin Spacey one...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irMSNXrgN_U
rory_20_uk
11-01-2017, 23:10
What ever happened to cause you to separate from your wife in the first place? Always made me curious especially as you providing her with child support is a sore point for you.
She left without notice one morning. I put him in his buggy and waved him goodbye. I have no idea why she left. Was everything perfect?No. But to vanish without warning, without ultimatum with a 6 month old child? The reasons kept changing. I begged. I pleaded. I asked for counselling. I did not see my son for c. 8 months. I had no idea if he was alive or dead. I had no idea where he was. The police did nothing. Many nights I cried myself to sleep since I was so worried he was dead. His cot was next to my bed but I couldn't bear to look at it nor dismantle it. My brother had to come and help me dismantle it. Has it scarred me...? Why, yes it has!
The woman's refuge gave her several pointers and phrases to raise "concerns" at court to delay seeing him. I missed his first birthday. She made several accusations - none found to be true. Her conduct has raised several concerns with Social Services but none enough to let me have my son full time - or more time when it is not convenient.
She's taken him out of school without telling me, she's moved away from where I live without telling me. She threw me out of the house when I came to see my son on his 4th birthday. She seems to care little beyond the money she can get for him. Now he's seven and he's having to deal with an unstable parent who is constantly demanding more money and is jealous of the relationship who he refers to as his step-mother.
The sore point is the hypocritical system that has the mother as the best carer and all evidence to the contrary is studiously ignored - but any concerns raised are to be fully investigated before the father can see his child.
This whole issue is rarely acknowledged. BUT we do hear constantly about the number of women who are on Company Board of Directors - even though no effort is made to see what proportion of women even want these roles and the personal sacrifices they require. Perhaps I am the only father in this position who cares about his child. I doubt it. And which is more important?
~:smoking:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-01-2017, 23:19
Are you discussing gender-neutral in how language is biased against women and the movement to make it gender-neutral as not to imply a preference? This would be changing statements from "A man's personal right to freedom of expression shall not to be infringed upon" to "A person's personal right to freedom of expression shall not be infringed upon" then there are words such as man-kind, his-story, etc.
Then there are things like the 'worst insult' apparently refers to a woman's vagina. As a heterosexual male, do you dislike a women's vaginas that you use the c-word to insult other people? You really have to question what those people are actually saying sometimes.
Did you know, the word "Vagina" is inherently sexist?
So is the word "person".
Isn't Latin great?
There is, in fact, no such thing as a "Gender-Neutral" word because all words, in all languages, have gendered roots.
She left without notice one morning. I put him in his buggy and waved him goodbye. I have no idea why she left. Was everything perfect?No. But to vanish without warning, without ultimatum with a 6 month old child? The reasons kept changing. I begged. I pleaded. I asked for counselling. I did not see my son for c. 8 months. I had no idea if he was alive or dead. I had no idea where he was. The police did nothing. Many nights I cried myself to sleep since I was so worried he was dead. His cot was next to my bed but I couldn't bear to look at it nor dismantle it. My brother had to come and help me dismantle it. Has it scarred me...? Why, yes it has!
The woman's refuge gave her several pointers and phrases to raise "concerns" at court to delay seeing him. I missed his first birthday. She made several accusations - none found to be true. Her conduct has raised several concerns with Social Services but none enough to let me have my son full time - or more time when it is not convenient.
She's taken him out of school without telling me, she's moved away from where I live without telling me. She threw me out of the house when I came to see my son on his 4th birthday. She seems to care little beyond the money she can get for him. Now he's seven and he's having to deal with an unstable parent who is constantly demanding more money and is jealous of the relationship who he refers to as his step-mother.
The sore point is the hypocritical system that has the mother as the best carer and all evidence to the contrary is studiously ignored - but any concerns raised are to be fully investigated before the father can see his child.
This whole issue is rarely acknowledged. BUT we do hear constantly about the number of women who are on Company Board of Directors - even though no effort is made to see what proportion of women even want these roles and the personal sacrifices they require. Perhaps I am the only father in this position who cares about his child. I doubt it. And which is more important?
~:smoking:
Thank you for sharing your story. :bow: This is definitely an example where you are being failed by the system.
Sorry to hear all that, that must be maddening
Montmorency
11-01-2017, 23:49
She left without notice one morning. I put him in his buggy and waved him goodbye. I have no idea why she left. Was everything perfect?No. But to vanish without warning, without ultimatum with a 6 month old child? The reasons kept changing. I begged. I pleaded. I asked for counselling. I did not see my son for c. 8 months. I had no idea if he was alive or dead. I had no idea where he was. The police did nothing. Many nights I cried myself to sleep since I was so worried he was dead. His cot was next to my bed but I couldn't bear to look at it nor dismantle it. My brother had to come and help me dismantle it. Has it scarred me...? Why, yes it has!
The woman's refuge gave her several pointers and phrases to raise "concerns" at court to delay seeing him. I missed his first birthday. She made several accusations - none found to be true. Her conduct has raised several concerns with Social Services but none enough to let me have my son full time - or more time when it is not convenient.
She's taken him out of school without telling me, she's moved away from where I live without telling me. She threw me out of the house when I came to see my son on his 4th birthday. She seems to care little beyond the money she can get for him. Now he's seven and he's having to deal with an unstable parent who is constantly demanding more money and is jealous of the relationship who he refers to as his step-mother.
The sore point is the hypocritical system that has the mother as the best carer and all evidence to the contrary is studiously ignored - but any concerns raised are to be fully investigated before the father can see his child.
This whole issue is rarely acknowledged. BUT we do hear constantly about the number of women who are on Company Board of Directors - even though no effort is made to see what proportion of women even want these roles and the personal sacrifices they require. Perhaps I am the only father in this position who cares about his child. I doubt it. And which is more important?
~:smoking:
A sad story, but the reasons for this are well-known to rest in stereotypical role differences - i.e. if a mother is not manifestly unsuited, then by default she is a better candidate for primary custody. The problem is then not one with the courts per se; latent expectations have to change over time for family-court participants to bring that change with them. There's no quick resolution to your pain.* And it's not clear to me that this issue is acknowledged (By whom? Where?) any less than one such as corporate representation.
*I wonder if there are legal avenues to push the matter further in the system, but that's beyond me and I'm sure you have already discussed the possibilities with legal representation
Did you know, the word "Vagina" is inherently sexist?
So is the word "person".
Isn't Latin great?
What's sexist, let alone inherently sexist here?
There is, in fact, no such thing as a "Gender-Neutral" word because all words, in all languages, have gendered roots.
Equivocating on grammatical gender is a bad idea.
Also, it is plainly false to say all words in all languages have gendered roots.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-02-2017, 00:35
What's sexist, let alone inherently sexist here?
Equivocating on grammatical gender is a bad idea.
Also, it is plainly false to say all words in all languages have gendered roots.
Vagina - a sword-sheath.
Persona - a mask, a character - feminine.
"Persona non grata" is as sexisst as "homocide".
The fact is gender-neutral language is a crock.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-02-2017, 00:37
As far as Rory's story goes, I think it's sad and unfair, and not uncommon because of the assumption men are more violent than women. Nothing to do with parenting specifically, just basic sexism.
Montmorency
11-02-2017, 01:28
Vagina - a sword-sheath.
Persona - a mask, a character - feminine.
"Persona non grata" is as sexisst as "homocide".
The fact is gender-neutral language is a crock.
Vagina: Argument from distant etymology (meaning) is irrelevant to the living. You'd be better off focusing on the word's nature as the label of a sex feature.
Persona: I just warned you about equivocating on grammatical gender.
Homo: An inclusive word, like anthropos.
The fact is gender-neutral language is a crock.
Language is certainly not neutral - but that has to do with speakers and nothing to do with etymology or grammar.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-02-2017, 02:03
Vagina: Argument from distant etymology (meaning) is irrelevant to the living. You'd be better off focusing on the word's nature as the label of a sex feature.
Persona: I just warned you about equivocating on grammatical gender.
Homo: An inclusive word, like anthropos.
Language is certainly not neutral - but that has to do with speakers and nothing to do with etymology or grammar.
It's not a distant etymology, and "homo" isn't an inclusive word, it means "man" in exactly the same way that "man" means "man."
So if "Homocide" has no gender then neither does "chairman" and this is my point.
I am not the one equivocating here.
Seamus Fermanagh
11-02-2017, 02:52
It's not a distant etymology, and "homo" isn't an inclusive word, it means "man" in exactly the same way that "man" means "man."
So if "Homocide" has no gender then neither does "chairman" and this is my point.
I am not the one equivocating here.
I wasn't much of a fan of the PC languaging thing at first, as I have always trended toward traditionalist. Over the years, saying "chair" instead of chairman, or firefighter instead of fireman etc. has become almost second nature. I find that it encumbers me very little while doing...perhaps...some good.
What yanks my chain is grammar and writing skills. Be PC all you wish, but please learn to write a grammatically sound sentence and...dare I hope...put 3 or 4 of them together in a paragraph that is a more or less connected thought. THAT is what this university teacher truly desires most, that the language be CORRECT, and as politically correct as you will in addition.
P.S. The modern English term 'cunt' is closest to the correct Latin cunnus term for what some label the vulva. That term, however closer to its Latin roots, is likely to cause someone to take umbrage. To a modern audience, the etymological considerations are of less note than the current connotations of any of these terms. Languages change as their users dictate. After all, the symbols we use -- words -- only have meaning because we ascribe meaning to them.
P.P.S When I was a young lad, the word 'disrespect' had no verb form.
It's not a distant etymology, and "homo" isn't an inclusive word, it means "man" in exactly the same way that "man" means "man."
So if "Homocide" has no gender then neither does "chairman" and this is my point.
I am not the one equivocating here.
The 'Homo' prefix is greek and it means same. So Homosexual means Same-sexual.
Homicide means the the killing of one human by another. The homi/homo meaning we are from the same species.
Man means Man/Male. So Chairman, Fireman, Policeman, etc are roles of a male. Chair, Firefighter, Police Officer, etc are gender-neutral in the role, as the person being ascribed is not directly assumed as being a male.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-02-2017, 12:48
The 'Homo' prefix is greek and it means same. So Homosexual means Same-sexual.
Homicide means the the killing of one human by another. The homi/homo meaning we are from the same species.
Man means Man/Male. So Chairman, Fireman, Policeman, etc are roles of a male. Chair, Firefighter, Police Officer, etc are gender-neutral in the role, as the person being ascribed is not directly assumed as being a male.
I made the effort to check the Oxford Latin Dictionary and you're definitely wrong - your etymologies are the result of the "false friend" phenomenon. You might want to consider that I'm a Classicist and a Medievalist who spends all day doing Latin next time, I don't just make this stuff up, I actually had to learn it.
Homo is Latin for "man", cognate with the English goom with it displaced and the Hebrew adam. Without qualification is can mean either "a man" or " a human", depending on context.
The word "human" and thence "man" come from the Latin humanus which is literally "a thing a man holds" from homo and manus. Your derivation for "homocide" and "hominem" are also wrong because they are Latin words.
As far as "homosexual" is a relatively modern word formed from two parts and it may actually be derived from the Greco-Latin "homo-sexual" meaning "same-sex" but it might also have been "man-sex" because likely when the term was coined there was little interest in the sexuality of women.
Compare discus from the Greek diskos "a quoit" and Latin discus "a learning".
Edit: Homo isn't a prefix, it's a noun.
Your reply is supporting an earlier comment I made which you quoted which was "Are you discussing gender-neutral in how language is biased against women and the movement to make it gender-neutral as not to imply a preference?". Your examples from classic latin reinforce this point being made.
Where I disagree is where I agree with Montmorency in the changing nature and evolution of language, so whilst some words do have origins in latin such as the vagina, it has now sufficiently changed to represent the physiological terminology labelling, losing its original concoctions of sword-sheath.
However, there are still words in play which have not evolved or their meanings changed. It is this aspect of the language which should be modified reflect the equality of the different sexes.
Gilrandir
11-02-2017, 14:09
There is, in fact, no such thing as a "Gender-Neutral" word because all words, in all languages, have gendered roots.
Also, it is plainly false to say all words in all languages have gendered roots.
The fact is gender-neutral language is a crock.
Language is certainly not neutral - but that has to do with speakers and nothing to do with etymology or grammar.
It seems to me that you both (at least PFH) mix up grammatical gender and gender as a social construct. In the case of the former languages don't manifest a universal pattern. There are languages which don't have this grammatical category (like modern English which has lost it as an aftermath of the Norman conquest) while others have it. The number of genders also differs - some languages have a three member gender opposition (Ukrainian or German -
feminine::masculine::neuter) others only two (like in Spanish - feminine::masculine). Moreover, the term "grammatical category" is erroneously applied in relation to nouns while it is quite accurate in relation to adjectives.
Montmorency
11-02-2017, 14:11
Peeves, you hold a pretty strange view, so as a trained hermeneute of the Latin language back it up with some exegetics and explain why it is wrong to consider homo a substantively inclusive word, and rightly a synonym of vir.
An interesting tidbit from an essay (https://www.jstor.org/stable/40266240?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents) on femina vs. mulier:
In Republican prose and comedy it is almost exclusively mulier
that is used to place emphasis on the sex of a woman, both in
explicit and implied contrasts with vir.
[Quintilian] comments on viri et feminae in terms which imply that it had
become a fixed phrase
The use of homo here in opposition to mulier wnere vir is expected
well illustrates the decline which vir underwent in vulgar Latin in favour
of homo, which alone enters the Romance languages. The use of homo to
designate a man as distinguished from a woman is found as early as Plautus
(Cist. 723 mi homo et mea mulier, vos saluto), but first occurs with frequency
in late vulgar Latin
Assumed in another paper (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148068581963739):
Homo and femina are not parallel terms etymologically. The usage arises from the mis-translation of homo as man
in English. Homo in Latin, derived from the same root as the Latin humanus meaning human, signifies human being in
the generic sense. Thus homo faber, homo sapiens, etc. should include femina, or Latin for woman, female gender,just as
they would include vir, the Latin for man, male gender. English, in translating both homo and vir as man, erases the
distinction made in Latin, thereby incorporating the male gender meaning into the English usage of homo
I don't think many support your version of humanus as a portmanteau of homo + manus; they're just cognate (https://linguistlist.org/ask-ling/message-details2.cfm?asklingid=200434605), distinct. They've meant a few things (http://www.jstor.org/stable/2709633?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents), but not that.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-02-2017, 14:14
God God, man, are you now completely incapable of admitting you're wrong?
This is now the second time in one thread.
My point was that the word "homocide" was no more or no less sexist that the word "chairman".
You argued that I was wrong in this point because my etymology for the word "homocide" was wrong, your evidence for this was a faulty etymology from Greek, you argued that "homocide" was not "man killing" but "same killing" and likewise that "hominids" are not "man like" but "like us."
All language is inherently gendered with reference to people, all "gender-neutral" language tends to take a different word (usually from another language) and use that to replace the supposedly sexist word.
Then "Chairman" becomes not "chairman/chairwoman" but "chairperson" even though "person" is a feminine gender noun and "human" is a masculine gender noun. So we're not really any better off, we just think we are.
However, there are gender-neutral words, those that are derived from verbs instead of nouns.
In the case of "Chairman" you have two options -
1. "The (one who is) Sitting (in the) Chair"
2. "president" - from Latin "Presidi" - one who presides.
As regards the word Vagina, in the Iberian Peninsula (except Basque country) the word for "scabbard" is "vaina" and their word for "vagina" is, shockingly "vagina"; the difference in pronunciation is a half-sounded "h", essentially a glottal. So your argument there only really holds up in a monoglot English context. It doesn't work in Iberia, or for anyone who learns Latin - which is still a lot of people in Classics, Medieval history, the Church or Law.
Montmorency
11-02-2017, 14:20
All language is inherently gendered with reference to people
But it's not.
Then "Chairman" becomes not "chairman/chairwoman" but "chairperson" even though "person" is a feminine gender noun and "human" is a masculine gender noun. So we're not really any better off, we just think we are.
The real question is, why do you think we're not? You are muddled on two separate points: first, that the form in another, ancient, language has any present significance in the context of de-sexing language; second that grammatical gender is a form of sexed language in the way that we care about.
So your argument there only really holds up in a monoglot English context. It doesn't work in Iberia, or for anyone who learns Latin - which is still a lot of people in Classics, Medieval history, the Church or Law.
Presumably these people speak languages and lead lives outside Classics.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-02-2017, 15:06
It seems to me that you both (at least PFH) mix up grammatical gender and gender as a social construct. In the case of the former languages don't manifest a universal pattern. There are languages which don't have this grammatical category (like modern English which has lost it as an aftermath of the Norman conquest) while others have it. The number of genders also differs - some languages have a three member gender opposition (Ukrainian or German -
feminine::masculine::neuter) others only two (like in Spanish - feminine::masculine). Moreover, the term "grammatical category" is erroneously applied in relation to nouns while it is quite accurate in relation to adjectives.
Well, most languages I'm aware of originally have three genders, they tend to lose Neuter first irrc - like Spanish. The point I am arguing is that in the fight for "gender neutral language" we inconsistently apply the rules of grammatical and semantic gender. In general terms, it's often the word of which the people are more ignorant which is found to be more acceptable.
Seamus made this point above - really we should be more offended by "vagina" than by **** but I can't even bring myself to type the latter word.
My bugbear is, these arguments annoy me because they are almost always trivial, made over small gramatical or linguistic points and the basis for the argument is fundamentally wrong.
Peeves, you hold a pretty strange view, so as a trained hermeneute of the Latin language back it up with some exegetics and explain why it is wrong to consider homo a substantively inclusive word, and rightly a synonym of vir.
An interesting tidbit from an essay (https://www.jstor.org/stable/40266240?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents) on femina vs. mulier:
Assumed in another paper (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148068581963739):
I don't think many support your version of humanus as a portmanteau of homo + manus; they're just cognate (https://linguistlist.org/ask-ling/message-details2.cfm?asklingid=200434605), distinct. They've meant a few things (http://www.jstor.org/stable/2709633?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents), but not that.
I apologise, I got a little over-excited replying to Beskar and took is a step too far deriving "humanus" directly from "homo-manus", which I had read somewhere. However, it remains true that "humanus" is the adjective form of "homo" just as "feminine" is the adjective for "muelier" and "masculine" for "vir". I was correct in the meaning "the thing a man holds/the quality of a man" because it's an adjective, not a noun, in Latin.
So in any case, Beskar's derivation for "homocide" etc. was still utterly wrong.
The original English word for "man" was "wer" cognate Latin "vir", hence "werrior", also "werewolf".
If "homo" is found in Plautus in the context of "man" as a gendered person than that put the usage as far back as the Middle Republic, which supports my point that "homo" had the same meaning in Rome as "man" does today, it depends on the context.
"Mankind" is in no way a gendered term, although some like to argue that it is, it simply means "all of humanity" - both words ultimately derived from the same Latin root, except that the first is more anglicised than the latter and as a result has acquired more baggage through longer usage.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-02-2017, 15:17
But it's not.
We've back-formed "man" from "human" - and it is - or we wouldn't be worried about it.
The real question is, why do you think we're not? You are muddled on two separate points: first, that the form in another, ancient, language has any present significance in the context of de-sexing language; second that grammatical gender is a form of sexed language in the way that we care about.
As I have already said, people are happier with the language they're more ignorant of - because they feel it's de-sexed. They don't fully understand all the connotations of the word they're using, so they're happy with it.
The word "vagina" is just a great example, because it's so inherently sexist, reducing a woman's intimate parts to their function with relation to a man. People like the word, though, because they don't understand it. By contrast they dislike English words such as cwim which I tried to find a reputable reference for and can't because it's relegated to "slang".
Presumably these people speak languages and lead lives outside Classics.
Ja, some of them speak Spanish or Catalan. The defence that the word is so divorced from modern English that it's origin is no longer relevant only works in English. Which was the sole point of those examples.
Seamus Fermanagh
11-02-2017, 15:36
...As I have already said, people are happier with the language they're more ignorant of - because they feel it's de-sexed. They don't fully understand all the connotations of the word they're using, so they're happy with it....
They enact the meaning of the word(s) they use through their use of it and the acceptance of same by the message receiver. The word of itself is an arbitrary symbol with an ascribed meaning that alters as the mass of language users come to alter it based on their shared sense of what that symbol should signify.
I find the history of a word and how it developed interesting, sometimes fascinating. But I am an academic and history buff who plays alternative military history games for entertainment.
Most language users really don't give a hoot. They are content to use some form of the "f-word" as virtually any part of speech and it has little or no connection to its original denotative meaning. It is used like some kind of flavor enhancer to conversation.
Disrespect was seldom used as a verb -- and now it is commonly used so, and has generated an abbreviated version for quick use since three syllables are so much work.
Humongous is now in the dictionaries, though when I was in high school it was a slang neologism.
Gay used to be the term for hedonistic heterosexual behavior, but now the term is used almost exclusively to indicate same sex sexuality.
All the meanings exist only in our heads anyway.
Montmorency
11-02-2017, 16:42
Let me clear this up on homo and "man" as an aside.
Here's what the OED has to say about the Old English sense of "man":
I.1 A human being (irrespective of sex or age); = L. homo
English "man (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_(word))" is from the PIE root, not from Latin or Romance.
It's not a contraction or back-formation of "human". It doesn't even seem to be cognate.
Now, whether in English, a Romance language, or other, etymological descent still does not matter, and you have not explained why it should. It's bizarre to allege ignorance, when clearly language is self-contained and doesn't depend on history. Turn it around, and you might well argue that "nigger" is not a slur since it derives from a word merely meaning "black" or "dark-colored". Either way, why?
Just for fun:
The best Greek linguist that now exists does not understand Greek so well as a Grecian plowman did, or a Grecian milkmaid; and the same for the Latin, compared with a plowman or milkmaid of the Romans
Well, most languages I'm aware of originally have three genders, they tend to lose Neuter first irrc - like Spanish. The point I am arguing is that in the fight for "gender neutral language" we inconsistently apply the rules of grammatical and semantic gender. In general terms, it's often the word of which the people are more ignorant which is found to be more acceptable.
It's not predominant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_type_of_grammatical_genders).
My bugbear is, these arguments annoy me because they are almost always trivial, made over small gramatical or linguistic points and the basis for the argument is fundamentally wrong.
What do you think you are doing?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-02-2017, 17:34
Let me clear this up on homo and "man" as an aside.
Here's what the OED has to say about the Old English sense of "man":
English "man (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_(word))" is from the PIE root, not from Latin or Romance.
It's not a contraction or back-formation of "human". It doesn't even seem to be cognate.
Now, whether in English, a Romance language, or other, etymological descent still does not matter, and you have not explained why it should. It's bizarre to allege ignorance, when clearly language is self-contained and doesn't depend on history. Turn it around, and you might well argue that "nigger" is not a slur since it derives from a word merely meaning "black" or "dark-colored". Either way, why?
Just for fun:
It's not predominant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_type_of_grammatical_genders).
What do you think you are doing?
OK, my Latin is better than My Old English, but Wikipedia also says this:
"In Old English the words wer and wīf (and wīfmann) were used to refer to "a man" and "a woman" respectively, while mann had the primary meaning of "adult male human" but could also be used for gender neutral purposes (as is the case with modern German man, corresponding to the pronoun in the English utterance "one does what one must")."
The fact that I fell into the "Latin, everything Latin!" trap isn't actually germain to my point, because "man" and "homo" still mean what I said they did.
The word "vagina" is just a great example, because it's so inherently sexist, reducing a woman's intimate parts to their function with relation to a man.
But that's their primary biological function and biology is science.
I also find it odd to confuse grammatical gender with biological gender. In German a chair is male, a shovel is female and a baby is neutral because neutral is the third grammatical "gender". When we use English words like German ones, e.g. in Computer Science, we have to give them a gender for the article. There can be fights about that as some genders with some words just sound odd or wrong, but it's also hard to prove anything, at best you can derive the gender from a similar German word or so in some cases. By the way, a computer is male, a drive is neutral and a disc is female. A joystick is male, mouse and keyboard female, speakers are female, the screen is male and so on.
I find it quite odd to derive too much from that. Subconscious effects that are minuscule hardly sound like a reason to do a lot. In that case it would make more sense to spray our food with estrogene instead of or in addition to insect killers to solve gender issues. :sweatdrop:
And yes, I know you weren't saying the concerns are valid, but even the grammatical stuff you mention seems a biot overblown to me in general. :shrug:
Gilrandir
11-03-2017, 16:36
I also find it odd to confuse grammatical gender with biological gender.
Properly speaking, there is no biological gender. There is biological sex, while gender is a social construct.
Kagemusha
11-03-2017, 16:41
I wish we still had female members active at backroom. Im sure this discussion would be lot more interesting, rather then focused at sexual bias of IE languages.
Greyblades
11-04-2017, 19:40
Properly speaking, there is no biological gender. There is biological sex, while gender is a social construct.
No there are just people who want to change genders meaning to "adherance to stereotype" and those foolish enough to believe it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsXC1_ZoVdg
How the mail lists sex offenders in a list with consensual relationships and kinky consensual sexual behaviours.
HopAlongBunny
11-04-2017, 20:53
No there are just people who want to change genders meaning to "adherance to stereotype" and those foolish enough to believe it.
Take a deep breath and try to relax:
https://youtu.be/yKTo4OftzbE
CrossLOPER
11-06-2017, 04:21
I wish we still had female members active at backroom. Im sure this discussion would be lot more interesting, rather then focused at sexual bias of IE languages.
Isn't frogwoman still around?
Isn't frogwoman still around?
In the Backroom?
Barely, that I remember. Magnoliawoman posted in the Backroom now and then but hasn't been around in a long time either.
The closest thing to women here are effeminate leftists like you, me and Fragony. :clown:
Perhaps some are lurking, but the more we call them out of control, the less likely they are to say anything I'd guess.
How DARE you disrespect me in such a way I am extremily disapointed in a way you can't understand, I feel abused
How could you???? I am not feminime at all I ju-
wait
CrossLOPER
11-07-2017, 04:23
The closest thing to women here are effeminate leftists like you, me and Fragony. :clown:
I prefer to think of myself as centrist, but I suppose I can't argue with effeminate. I spend more time on my hair than most of the women I know, haha.
Perhaps some are lurking, but the more we call them out of control, the less likely they are to say anything I'd guess.
Gee I wonder why.
Seamus Fermanagh
11-07-2017, 17:32
...Perhaps some are lurking, but the more we call them out of control, the less likely they are to say anything I'd guess.
Really? A dearth of women in the 'all-politics-all-the-time' sub-forum of a website devoted to an electronic game series with "Total War" featured prominently in all its titles? Shocking...
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=youtube+i+am+shocked+&&view=detail&mid=B924D8F5F3084F3E99EFB924D8F5F3084F3E99EF&rvsmid=11F6C4E3FB19CE02462911F6C4E3FB19CE024629&FORM=VDRVRV
Really? A dearth of women in the 'all-politics-all-the-time' sub-forum of a website devoted to an electronic game series with "Total War" featured prominently in all its titles? Shocking...
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=youtube+i+am+shocked+&&view=detail&mid=B924D8F5F3084F3E99EFB924D8F5F3084F3E99EF&rvsmid=11F6C4E3FB19CE02462911F6C4E3FB19CE024629&FORM=VDRVRV
Didn't we just talk about gender stereotypes? :whip::stare:
Seamus Fermanagh
11-07-2017, 21:23
Didn't we just talk about gender stereotypes? :whip::stare:
NOT stereotyping. While there are as many if not more women playing electronic and online games as men, women do not tend to favor games centering on strategic warfare. Source (http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/12/15/gaming-and-gamers/) Source2 (http://www.pcgamer.com/researchers-find-that-female-pc-gamers-outnumber-males/) Source3 (https://www.aarp.org/research/topics/technology/info-2016/electronic-gaming-research-adults-50plus.html) Source4 (https://gigaom.com/2010/02/17/average-social-gamer-is-a-43-year-old-woman/)
And I am not the one resorted to a flogging reference.
Been deprived of your needed 'discipline' of late by mistress? ~;)
Renata, Prole, Scienter, Frogeggbeast...
Seamus Fermanagh
11-08-2017, 00:45
Rineta, Prole, Scienter, Frogeggbeast...
And a sharp lot they are....but that's 4 of how many backroom frequenters over that same time frame?
To take the topic away from just the gender in language...
So if we were to look at the Backroom as a government branch or business how should we *fix* this lack of female participants? Is there a culture that isn't allowing their participation, should female gamers be given special encouragement for playing historical strategy games?
Is the 'Babe Thread' so sexist that it discourages females from participating in the off-topic forum parts?
Is it wrong to just accept that there are differences between the sexes and that their interests and abilities may not be equal? There are already exceptions to the rule of course. Access, wages, legal rights etc... should of course be equal for females but why is a preponderance of males in any group considered something that needs to be fixed.
A lack of female CEOs, Generals or any leadership position always is presented as a problem to be fixed instead of just a reflection of interests, abilities, personal ambition.
So if we were to look at the Backroom as a government branch or business how should we *fix* this lack of female participants? Is there a culture that isn't allowing their participation, should female gamers be given special encouragement for playing historical strategy games?
Is the 'Babe Thread' so sexist that it discourages females from participating in the off-topic forum parts?
Is it wrong to just accept that there are differences between the sexes and that their interests and abilities may not be equal? There are already exceptions to the rule of course. Access, wages, legal rights etc... should of course be equal for females but why is a preponderance of males in any group considered something that needs to be fixed.
A lack of female CEOs, Generals or any leadership position always is presented as a problem to be fixed instead of just a reflection of interests, abilities, personal ambition.
You have to remember that Frogeggbeat and Secura were admins, Prole was a moderator of the Backroom (of all places). They got those positions based upon merit, their gender/sex was never a issue or hindered their choice. There is no stigma on the organisational side of the Org (which is great).
As for the Backroom, it is not comparable to the issues such as female CEOs, etc as the Backroom has a significantly smaller sample size and interest from females in general. On the otherside, there are many females who are interested in becoming CEOs for example but they are limited by essentially by stigma. One field with a lot of stigma is Software Design and Development. I remember reading a post by one of the most qualified females in the field and she is constantly challenged to prove that she deserves to be there, as she is a female, with males using excuses (cognitive defences) to explain her existence as someone simply letting her in due to being female rather than having actual talent. It is rather shocking how the world can be.
Though if you want to apply to the Backroom. There was a time a female poster put forward their opinion and another member mentioned their partner and said "I think she escaped the kitchen". That said poster ended up with a big infraction and unfortunately that female poster didn't return as she felt uncomfortable due to hostilities. Sometimes it only takes that one person to be nasty and it tars opinions greatly.
Oh, I don't doubt their qualification at all, this was just a thought exercise. Frog was a great admin of the Arena and I'm well aware there is no discrimination in the Org. Having seen enough other forums (gaming, politics, military) this is the only one I return to after all these years due to the civil atmosphere brought about by good moderators.
The point was why do people think that the demographics at the top must be representative of society's demographics. Not everyone is qualified for the top and those skills are not distributed evenly either. Ambition is a key part. The fact that men don't get pregnant is also another leg up in pursuing a career which maternity leave will not fix. There will be discrimination of course but it works two ways as well. When that discrimination is systematic of course it needs to be opposed but constantly seeing the status quo as problem due to demographics causes discrimination in reverse.
I have friends that didn't pursue nursing or administrative careers because they weren't manly enough careers. One of my friends is the stay at home husband and dad while his wife is active duty Army and he gets crap from the wives in the FRG (family readiness group) for doing the woman's job.
To go back to the gender discussion and stray into the gender ID fray: Gender roles do exist, yes there are exceptions to the norm but they exist in every society with each have its own set of roles. Not all of them are are artificial constructs, to pretend that a man who wants to be a woman does not make him one. He may be very effeminate and get all the surgery to do so which is fine but he will never have a womb or bear children either (Life of Brian anyone?).
It would not surprise me to see in the future to see divorce lawsuits going into the discrimination realm because some man married a woman and then wants a divorce upon finding out his wife wasn't always a woman. While one would hope she would have informed him of that beforehand I'm sure the above situation will happen and she will claim she's being discriminated against for being transgender and in our society of litigation will probably get rewarded handsomely for the claim.
Germany's recent ruling which would let this person claim to be a man or transgender I guess is a solution but actually changing her designation to female seems disingenuous.
Greyblades
11-09-2017, 00:50
When that discrimination is systematic of course it needs to be opposed but constantly seeing the status quo as problem due to demographics causes discrimination in reverse.
In this age too many people consider the mere existance of an imbalance as proof of intent. It is a mix of people who believe in equality of the sexes requires equality of outcome and the ambitious women who want to exploit those beliefs to side step competition.
I rarely see campaigns calling for equality extend to menial jobs not considered glamorous or high status in society.
Montmorency
11-09-2017, 00:53
To take the topic away from just the gender in language...
So if we were to look at the Backroom as a government branch or business how should we *fix* this lack of female participants? Is there a culture that isn't allowing their participation, should female gamers be given special encouragement for playing historical strategy games?
Is the 'Babe Thread' so sexist that it discourages females from participating in the off-topic forum parts?
Is it wrong to just accept that there are differences between the sexes and that their interests and abilities may not be equal? There are already exceptions to the rule of course. Access, wages, legal rights etc... should of course be equal for females but why is a preponderance of males in any group considered something that needs to be fixed.
A lack of female CEOs, Generals or any leadership position always is presented as a problem to be fixed instead of just a reflection of interests, abilities, personal ambition.
Can't think of a policy for our situation since we don't have a real inflow here to manage. This is more like a rural village with all the young people moved out, the old ones dead or out to pasture, and the middle-aged ones left to bicker in the dank pub.
It is possible for our culture to reduce female participation, but I'm not sure how to assess it retroactively in the Org context. Most of the women here, and most of the newer arrivals overall, I have interacted with over games of Mafia.
In many cases, a preponderance has less to do with differences in interests than with differences in external messaging and stereotypes combined with exclusionary internal practices.
In living memory the fields of social work, nursing, and clinical therapy have been dominated by women. We have no reason to believe that women are intrinsically more interested or suited for these professions; it's mostly gerrymandering. We can change it over time, open up the fields for men - as has been happening to various extents.* In technical fields, especially Computer Science, men are the ones who dominate, and retrenchment (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/04/why-is-silicon-valley-so-awful-to-women/517788/)in the late 20th century has regressed the ratio today. To repeat, both external (upbringing, messaging, and conditioning) and internal (professional and academic culture) factors can and should be addressed to even out the proportions.
It is not that having equal proportions in all things is ideal in itself, but that very frequently unequal proportions have more to do with harmful ideas and practices than with "choices and preferences".
*Note that even in these fields men have remained over-represented in the upper ranks, administration, and management.
A lack of female CEOs is not a problem from the standpoint that we should not be encouraging more people to be CEOs (or financiers, for example) - but the generic issue of power imbalance and representation in leadership remains. Leadership selection in business and the workplace, at least as much as in politics and the military, relies on networking over merit. We don't have much reason to reflect on "interests, abilities, and personal ambitions" while chauvinism prevails.
rory_20_uk
11-09-2017, 11:53
In this age too many people consider the mere existance of an imbalance as proof of intent. It is a mix of people who believe in equality of the sexes requires equality of outcome and the ambitious women who want to exploit those beliefs to side step competition.
I rarely see campaigns calling for equality extend to menial jobs not considered glamorous or high status in society.
Nurses are over 80% female
Human Resources is over 80% female
Midwives are over 95% female
Primary school teachers are over 80% female.
These are not menial and why is being a city trader making numbers move more "glamorous" than these other professions. Is it that men don't like them? But why should that itself matter?
~:smoking:
I have seen adverts to get women into plumbing, construction and other more hands-on typical male careers. Not exactly glamorous.
Then again, I am in a female dominated career and that doesn't bother me, neither does having female bosses. What is kind of interesting is that their bosses boss tends to be male though during the last couple of decades, they are now becoming females.
CrossLOPER
11-09-2017, 20:03
I have seen adverts to get women into plumbing, construction and other more hands-on typical male careers. Not exactly glamorous.
Then again, I am in a female dominated career and that doesn't bother me, neither does having female bosses. What is kind of interesting is that their bosses boss tends to be male though during the last couple of decades, they are now becoming females.
I think the alt-right would call it being "cucked".
I think the alt-right would call it being "cucked".
They would be alternatively-correct(right) as always, better known as being wrong.
Being a male in that field is rather invaluable and the fact they are a minority and the stereotype of the role is a female means there are missed opportunities. In the same vein, there are many male dominated careers which are stereotyped as such which should have a greater number of females for similar reasons.
An example is female police officers helping to handle rape cases as many female feel vulnerable and victimised, and having a big muscled bloke questioning them and towering over them can be intimidating. The female officer in that circumstance is more uniquely positioned to act like a bridge to ensure the law is done. At the same exact time, having a male officer there too provides a positive male role model for the victimised rolemodel who might be scared of men, but having a safe male presence means they can adapt better to that situation and recognise that there some bad people but also good people too.
a completely inoffensive name
11-10-2017, 06:38
...
Seamus Fermanagh
11-10-2017, 15:51
I think the alt-right would call it being "cucked".
I believe you meant ot suggest "*****-whipped." "Cucked" suggests the spouse is stepping out with others, which is not a necessary prerequisite to Beskar's having been 'topped' by females.
I am 'whipped' as well. Though I would point at that the quality of the whipping is rather enjoyable. Perhaps Beskie enjoys the same? I know not.
Greyblades
11-11-2017, 13:18
Feminism is out of control because they ruined the career of my favorite actors and comedians.
Roy Moore is innocent by the way, that one is fake news.
Speaking of which.
'Mary was a teenager and Joseph was an adult.' Ally's extraordinary defense for senate candidate Roy Moore (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5070247/Moore-ally-cites-bible-contest-pedophile-claims.html)
https://i.imgur.com/P3fxu5f.jpg
Somehow my head confused Roy Moore in ACIN's post with Roger Moore, but now that I realize that the alabama senate candidate is meant, it makes perfect sense.
Also, Mary and Joseph isn't biblical pedophilia because she got the baby without sexual intercourse. Get your facts straight!
Montmorency
11-12-2017, 18:39
Feminism is out of control because they ruined the career of my favorite actors and comedians.
Roy Moore is innocent by the way, that one is fake news.
Hooahguy
"I guess that's why they call him Baby Driver" joke.
George Takei got accused too.
Greyblades
11-12-2017, 20:51
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/757/622/dff.gif
I'm sorry I just had to.
Hooahguy
11-12-2017, 22:19
@Hooahguy (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/member.php?u=25201)
"I guess that's why they call him Baby Driver" joke.
Spacey used to be one of my all time favorite actors. Hearing about all the accusations hurt.
Seamus Fermanagh
11-13-2017, 19:21
Spacey used to be one of my all time favorite actors. Hearing about all the accusations hurt.
And Sinatra was a hitter, Mozart was spendthrift drunk, more musicians of fame were addicts than you can shake that proverbial stick at...
Being good at your craft is not the same as being a good person.
I thought Jimmy Carter was a lousy POTUS. He is, demonstrably, a good and decent human being.
Martin Luther King Jr. was a powerful and effective civil rights leader who advanced the cause of Blacks in America further through non violence in a shorter period of time than any of the other US civil rights leaders before or since. He was also a womanizer.
Life does not present itself in neat little packages -- that only happens if a PR rep is involved and nobody has caught on to the spin yet.
rory_20_uk
11-13-2017, 20:23
I know it sounds very old fashioned, but might we await due process on these charges (although in many cases they stop at accusations).
It is all getting rather Salem-y.
~:smoking:
Montmorency
11-13-2017, 21:35
I know it sounds very old fashioned, but might we await due process on these charges (although in many cases they stop at accusations).
It is all getting rather Salem-y.
~:smoking:
In most cases, the (criminal) legal process is of no help due to lack of evidence or expiry of limitations. Not that it would apply to the rich and famous anyway, if they refuse to abide.
So you either take the accusers at their word, or at the merit of their word - and many of the claims have merit. You can't live agnosia*.
*Doesn't apply to cases of neurological damage
rory_20_uk
11-13-2017, 21:50
So we just have justice of the mob - in fact why report things and get into the whole "evidence" and just make accusations along with everyone else...
We have these people doing it for decades. And microphones / cameras that can be extremely small. And no one appears to have recorded anything. Ever. not even to blackmail the people to get ahead.
Sorry - sort out the system. And start with getting men / women to report the cases and for there to be a National Database of charges.
~:smoking:
So you either take the accusers at their word, or at the merit of their word - and many of the claims have merit. You can't live agnosia*.
*Doesn't apply to cases of neurological damage
Well, Kevin Spacey didn't deny it and instead use it as covering out as gay as a cover. Harvey Weinstein is well known 'open-secret'. A few of the others such as MPs patting female aides on the ass, most likely true too. Trump? Didn't touch him other than galvanise his opposition whilst those who support him have less than moral scruples anyway. One which surprised me was George Takei, mostly as he has been supporting and eliciting victims to speak out, so having one call him out... well.. "Oh my!"
On one hand, victim blaming is a serious thing which many guilty people try to do, because they feel the intimidation will get them to back off, but there cases where there are 'false victims' and these unfortunately do exist. On the other, there is a clear demonstration that there needs to be more transparency in a great many of these cases and there are real victims who need their voices to be heard. There is clear there are no absolutes on the matter.
rory_20_uk
11-13-2017, 21:56
If Kenvin Spacy had denied it, people would be rightly asking how the hell he has crystal clear memory of one party about 30 years ago where he was probably on at least alcohol and a few other narcotics.
When people spuriously claim to have seen a UFO, other people will call in to say they saw a similar UFO. Knowing that, I'm not prepared to convict with evidence being accusations.
~:smoking:
So we just have justice of the mob - in fact why report things and get into the whole "evidence" and just make accusations along with everyone else...
We have these people doing it for decades. And microphones / cameras that can be extremely small. And no one appears to have recorded anything. Ever. not even to blackmail the people to get ahead.
Sorry - sort out the system. And start with getting men / women to report the cases and for there to be a National Database of charges.
~:smoking:
Ehm, isn't that to a large extent what we have in politics as well? Were Putin or Kim Jong Un ever proven guilty in a court of law? Should we treat them as flawless democrats until they are?
Of course improving the system is a good idea regardless. It's just that the whole proof thing cannot always be applied unfortunately.
rory_20_uk
11-13-2017, 22:54
Ehm, isn't that to a large extent what we have in politics as well? Were Putin or Kim Jong Un ever proven guilty in a court of law? Should we treat them as flawless democrats until they are?
Of course improving the system is a good idea regardless. It's just that the whole proof thing cannot always be applied unfortunately.
No one ever has thought of North Korea or Russia as countries where the rule of Law applies. Both are Dictatorships / Plutocracies / Kleptocracies.
When we start suspending Habeus Corpus because it is convenient, who makes this call?
~:smoking:
Montmorency
11-13-2017, 23:01
If Kenvin Spacy had denied it, people would be rightly asking how the hell he has crystal clear memory of one party about 30 years ago where he was probably on at least alcohol and a few other narcotics.
When people spuriously claim to have seen a UFO, other people will call in to say they saw a similar UFO. Knowing that, I'm not prepared to convict with evidence being accusations.
~:smoking:
No one is being convicted of anything, as I pointed out, though some individuals have more potential liability than others.
As always, multiple and mutually-corroborating accusations are inherently more credible.
UFOs qua extraterrestrials can be categorically rejected. On the other hand, sex and abuse are an immediate and well-known part of human life.
This the the court of public opinion and nothing more. The unfortunate dichotomy is, for any given case you either believe at least some of the accusations, or you functionally disbelieve them. Either the accused is some kind of predator, or a bunch of people have all come out to spread lies. You have to pick one of these, in your own mind.
If you believe someone is a predator, it is still up to you how you want to consume their work or their legacy. But remember that the alternative is always to malign the alleged victims.
rory_20_uk
11-13-2017, 23:13
No one is being convicted of anything, as I pointed out, though some individuals have more potential liability than others.
As always, multiple and mutually-corroborating accusations are inherently more credible.
UFOs qua extraterrestrials can be categorically rejected. On the other hand, sex and abuse are an immediate and well-known part of human life.
This the the court of public opinion and nothing more. The unfortunate dichotomy is, for any given case you either believe at least some of the accusations, or you functionally disbelieve them. Either the accused is some kind of predator, or a bunch of people have all come out to spread lies. You have to pick one of these, in your own mind.
If you believe someone is a predator, it is still up to you how you want to consume their work or their legacy. But remember that the alternative is always to malign the alleged victims.
I do not think that this is a digital situation - some or indeed most might well be true. But that does not instantly mean all are. The courts are supposed to be there for exactly this purpose. And no, a verdict of not guilty is not the same as innocent. Mud sticks irregardless of the outcomes, irregardless whether they was guilt or not.
And it is also perfectly possible that the man sincerely believes he did nothing wrong and the woman sincerely believes he did - how exactly can one ensure that consent is absolutely without coercion when the person asking has vast amounts of power? Just like at work one can give an honest opinion when asked by one's boss for a warts and all feedback... but one might still not dare do so.
The Court of Public Opinion can and does wreck lives: The actress who plays Wonder Woman has demanded that one actor who is playing a role is removed due to the accusations. So we have had men abusing their power over other men and women. This was Bad. And yet no one has pointed out to her that her behavior is very similar.
~:smoking:
No one ever has thought of North Korea or Russia as countries where the rule of Law applies. Both are Dictatorships / Plutocracies / Kleptocracies.
When we start suspending Habeus Corpus because it is convenient, who makes this call?
~:smoking:
But who is suspending anything? I don't think anyone is getting jailed here, or did I miss something?
If someone does however make his money by being in the favor of the public, then you can't force the public to continue to like them until they're proven guilty. The public or industry may dislike them over anything, including the choice of partner, amount of money donated or children kissed in front of a camera. When politicians are caught lying you don't force people to continue to vote for them until they're proven guilty of lying in a court, do you?
I would even agree that this isn't always fair, but in some cases it is. Remember this American girl who was convicted/not convicted of murder in Italy? I think neither the courts nor the public were sure what to do there, so what would one do there? Of course saying she's guilty because he eyes are cold was a bit much... :shrug:
Montmorency
11-13-2017, 23:30
I do not think that this is a digital situation - some or indeed most might well be true. But that does not instantly mean all are.
The point is that if you accept one claim, it is difficult to reject others without being arbitrary. If you accept no claims, then perhaps you are irrevocably biased.
The first option is therefore less fraught, but as you recognize it requires one to make a personal judgment as to how their relationship (whether consumer, professional, or friendly) with the accused must change.
The courts are supposed to be there for exactly this purpose.
The courts are there to apportion justice and interpret the laws. The courts do not tell you what or how to feel about anyone or anything. These are exclusive purposes.
And it is also perfectly possible that the man sincerely believes he did nothing wrong and the woman sincerely believes he did
It would then be better for the accused to show penitence, rather than offering sleazy 'if-then' non-apologies that try to shift the narrative or shrug off accountability.
Personally though, I do believe we should be more lenient to people who try to engage with accusations and don't demonstrate conscience of guilt.
how exactly can one ensure that consent is absolutely without coercion when the person asking has vast amounts of power?
Certainly a tough question, so the best practice (not a new thought here) is simply to avoid such entanglements in situations of power imbalance: clinician-client, teacher-student, parent-child, boss-employee, rich power broker-up and coming professional, etc.
Not that they are always wrong or abusive, but that the very nature of the relationship weighs down that end of the scale.
The Court of Public Opinion can and does wreck lives: The actress who plays Wonder Woman has demanded that one actor who is playing a role is removed due to the accusations. So we have had men abusing their power over other men and women. This was Bad. And yet no one has pointed out to her that her behavior is very similar.
If she feels that this man is a predator, and she doesn't want to work with a predator, then why shouldn't she use her power to change the situation?
Seamus Fermanagh
11-14-2017, 03:28
...When we start suspending Habeus Corpus because it is convenient, who makes this call?
Abe Lincoln
a completely inoffensive name
11-14-2017, 03:42
Abe Lincoln
This is an odd meme. There was literally a rebellion happening, which the Constitution allows as a condition for suspending it.
Anti-war Democrats were acting more or less as saboteurs in Congress. It was necessary and I believe in the spirit of what the clause was written for. Simply pointing out that the words themselves are in Article I, not II is not convincing.
Seamus Fermanagh
11-14-2017, 19:17
This is an odd meme. There was literally a rebellion happening, which the Constitution allows as a condition for suspending it.
Anti-war Democrats were acting more or less as saboteurs in Congress. It was necessary and I believe in the spirit of what the clause was written for. Simply pointing out that the words themselves are in Article I, not II is not convincing.
Whyever not? It is not as though the framers weren't aware of which article was relevant to which branch of government.
Prompted by the problems in Maryland at the outset of the rebellion, Lincoln issues a sweeping suspension of habeas corpus -- which was NOT written exclusively to address any particular area -- in 1861. It was promptly struck down by the SCOTUS. Lincoln enforced it anyway, flipping off the court. Congress did not pass an act ordering the suspension of HC until 1863.
At no point was "copperhead" opposition in the Congress or elsewhere of numerical importance enough to have held up this legislation if it was deemed needful (very likely it was and it would certainly have passed with ease).
However good the intent and the ultimate outcome, Lincoln was operating outside the bounds of his legitimate power with that effort.
a completely inoffensive name
11-16-2017, 04:59
At no point was "copperhead" opposition in the Congress or elsewhere of numerical importance enough to have held up this legislation if it was deemed needful (very likely it was and it would certainly have passed with ease).
This is not true. At the time filibuster rules did not have what we now call closure. As long as the Democratic Senators kept filibustering, they could deny any legislation they wanted to kill.
I looked up the 1863 bill you mentioned, and it seems that this is exactly what happened. Even though Dem's controlled 25% of the Senate (at the time) they had to be borderline cheated out of their time on the floor for the Republicans to pass the bill.
Also keep in mind that in 1861 at the war's outbreak, the Dems share of the Senate was much higher (40%+). So this bill only passed under sketchy means after 2 years of expulsions and vacancies which reduced the number of Democrats in the chamber by 45%.
I would say the lack of closure gives Lincoln the justification to do what he did. As long as 1 Democratic senator was loyal to the rebel cause, Congress was at risk of sabotaging the war effort through delay and inaction.
Such is the nature of Civil War, that these situations give rise to bending the rules dramatically.
Seamus Fermanagh
11-16-2017, 05:24
This is not true. At the time filibuster rules did not have what we now call closure. As long as the Democratic Senators kept filibustering, they could deny any legislation they wanted to kill.
I looked up the 1863 bill you mentioned, and it seems that this is exactly what happened. Even though Dem's controlled 25% of the Senate (at the time) they had to be borderline cheated out of their time on the floor for the Republicans to pass the bill.
Also keep in mind that in 1861 at the war's outbreak, the Dems share of the Senate was much higher (40%+). So this bill only passed under sketchy means after 2 years of expulsions and vacancies which reduced the number of Democrats in the chamber by 45%.
I would say the lack of closure gives Lincoln the justification to do what he did. As long as 1 Democratic senator was loyal to the rebel cause, Congress was at risk of sabotaging the war effort through delay and inaction.
Such is the nature of Civil War, that these situations give rise to bending the rules dramatically.
The peace democrats were a much bigger political problem in 1863 and 1864 -- up until "little Napoleon" was beaten by absentee balloting....passed by Congress without demur. There were Democrats on the roster in 1861 but they were not a real factor. Certainly there wasn't enough of an active effort by them to derail anything else Lincoln was doing for the war effort. I simply do not see why it took them (and it should have been them not Abe) to issue the suspension resolution.
You are absolutely correct that a lot of things get tossed on their ear in a civil war.
Shaka_Khan
11-23-2017, 00:49
This is more than just feminism. It should be a basic human right to express and oppose what's being wrongly done to them.
There's something that I noticed, though. I'd like to know the opinions of the members in this forum. Do you think of chivalry towards women as one of the reasons for gender inequality? Some feminists are being unfair to the men who act in chivalric ways to a woman. Not every woman has the same taste. There are a lot of women out there who prefer a boyfriend to open the car door for them, pay for her meal, offer a hand, etc. These are some of the ways that a guy expresses care to his girlfriend. Many feminists accuse this type of guy of being sexist. I think people who include chivalry as an issue have no idea how men think and why gender inequality happens. They're distracting away the solutions to gender inequality.
I never gave it any thought it's just what I do, I wouldn't understand it if it isn't apreciated
Montmorency
11-23-2017, 05:19
This is more than just feminism. It should be a basic human right to express and oppose what's being wrongly done to them.
There's something that I noticed, though. I'd like to know the opinions of the members in this forum. Do you think of chivalry towards women as one of the reasons for gender inequality? Some feminists are being unfair to the men who act in chivalric ways to a woman. Not every woman has the same taste. There are a lot of women out there who prefer a boyfriend to open the car door for them, pay for her meal, offer a hand, etc. These are some of the ways that a guy expresses care to his girlfriend. Many feminists accuse this type of guy of being sexist. I think people who include chivalry as an issue have no idea how men think and why gender inequality happens. They're distracting away the solutions to gender inequality.
It's certainly a matter of sexism if you have a special class of behaviors just for 'female romantic interest'. But for now simply ask her what she wants, or how she feels about each issue.
With paying for meals, there's actually a huge variety of attitudes: man pays all the time, man pays most of it all of the time, men pays for most or all of it it some or most of the time (and the woman pays fully the rest of the time), the famous "Dutch" split down the middle, the split down the middle with the man paying the tip, etc. Each woman I've interacted with on this subject has expressed a different preference. Make a habit of asking - and do ask before the bill comes up, that's just gauche.
Another personal rule may be to always pay in full when you are the one who invited the other diner(s), man or woman.
Some complain that discussing these things makes them look bad in front of the woman, but here you should adjust your values. As the saying goes, if the girl looks down on you for seeking her opinion, she isn't the girl for you.
That famous Dutch split doesn't exist irl
Gilrandir
11-23-2017, 16:33
It's certainly a matter of sexism if you have a special class of behaviors just for 'female romantic interest'. But for now simply ask her what she wants, or how she feels about each issue.
Just imagine this: every time when occasion comes asking her "Do you want me to hold a door open for you?", "Would you be offended if I helped you on with your coat?", "Should I give you a hand to help you out from the bus?", "Will you be mad if I carry heavy bags for you?". You will make a perfect picture of a very unconfident bore. Or, to avoid asking them every now and then, do you suggest giving her a list of such questions and having her tick the boxes so you should know beforehand what to do in every particular situation?
In Ukraine you don't ask about such things - you do them, otherwise the girl will consider you a boor.
Gilrandir
11-23-2017, 16:34
That famous Dutch split doesn't exist irl
Oh, those Dutch uncles! :no:
Oh, those Dutch uncles! :no:
hey that's just me
That 'going Dutch' always kinda amuses me, reality is that the Dutch really don't go Dutch, you will have a miserable time here if you try. For hilarity, we call that stuff Americans call 'going Dutch' going American here
Montmorency
11-23-2017, 18:06
Just imagine this: every time when occasion comes asking her "Do you want me to hold a door open for you?", "Would you be offended if I helped you on with your coat?", "Should I give you a hand to help you out from the bus?", "Will you be mad if I carry heavy bags for you?". You will make a perfect picture of a very unconfident bore. Or, to avoid asking them every now and then, do you suggest giving her a list of such questions and having her tick the boxes so you should know beforehand what to do in every particular situation?
In Ukraine you don't ask about such things - you do them, otherwise the girl will consider you a boor.
Most of these you don't need to be doing as a general rule, so of course there's no need to ask.
If someone looks like they need help with bags, you should ask. At least notify them that you intend to help. But it can be relationship-dependent, if for example you share a destination or share the bags - so it would make sense for you to carry some.
If a woman thinks you're a boor for this, invite her to revise her expectations.
Seamus Fermanagh
11-23-2017, 18:08
Just imagine this: every time when occasion comes asking her "Do you want me to hold a door open for you?", "Would you be offended if I helped you on with your coat?", "Should I give you a hand to help you out from the bus?", "Will you be mad if I carry heavy bags for you?". You will make a perfect picture of a very unconfident bore. Or, to avoid asking them every now and then, do you suggest giving her a list of such questions and having her tick the boxes so you should know beforehand what to do in every particular situation?
In Ukraine you don't ask about such things - you do them, otherwise the girl will consider you a boor.
And I vividly and painfully recall holding a door open for one lass in the early 80's...and having her step on my instep while asserting "I don't need YOUR help." Ah the joys of the old over-the-top feminist days.
And I vividly and painfully recall holding a door open for one lass in the early 80's...and having her step on my instep while asserting "I don't need YOUR help." Ah the joys of the old over-the-top feminist days.
I hold doors for men as well maybe that helps. I would force that chick into a marriage with a fat baron in France for diplomatical reasons geez bye princess bye. What is wrong with good manners I scream
That famous Dutch split doesn't exist irl
Or you just live on that side of the famous dutch split. ~;)
Inclusive Writing row in France
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42073148
Shaka_Khan
11-24-2017, 03:12
Inclusive Writing row in France
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42073148
If they're talking about neutralising all the genders in the French nouns, then that would really simplify my French studies if it gets done.
Inclusive Writing row in France
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42073148
Talk about taking things too far. I am really not aprociable for those who insist they aren't radicalised but come up with things like that
Gilrandir
11-26-2017, 06:59
Most of these you don't need to be doing as a general rule, so of course there's no need to ask.
Weren't it you who said
But for now simply ask her what she wants, or how she feels about each issue.
If someone looks like they need help with bags, you should ask. At least notify them that you intend to help. But it can be relationship-dependent, if for example you share a destination or share the bags - so it would make sense for you to carry some.
Not someone - we are discussing helping women. The ones that your are building relationship with.
If a woman thinks you're a boor for this, invite her to revise her expectations.
... or move to a different country with different gender expectations.
Gilrandir
11-26-2017, 07:01
Inclusive Writing row in France
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42073148
Now it's about Bible and prayers as well - in different corners of the world.
http://www.prophecynewswatch.com/article.cfm?recent_news_id=973
https://www.catholic.org.nz/about-us/bishops-statements/gender-inclusive-language/
CrossLOPER
11-29-2017, 07:00
Inclusive Writing row in France
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42073148
Why do people siding with "conservative values" always look like the sleezeballs from 1990s era family movies?
Gilrandir
12-22-2017, 15:30
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/22/leading-lady-theresa-may-calls-for-woman-to-play-james-bond
My name is Bond. Jessica Bond.
I hope they don't make Bond a female. There's plenty of good action movies with female leads, why change one franchise just to placate women that aren't even the primary audience.
Milla Jovovich in the Resident Evil franchise is plenty good for my fix.
Greyblades
12-22-2017, 19:47
Things like this makes me take the people who accused May of being Cameron's diversity hire more seriously.
I hope they don't make Bond a female. There's plenty of good action movies with female leads, why change one franchise just to placate women that aren't even the primary audience.
Milla Jovovich in the Resident Evil franchise is plenty good for my fix.
Oh these lips, she's quite beautiful. Movies are terrible though
You wouldn't like it even if it were as good as No One Lives Forever?
Other than that it seems typically British, they already wanted to have a female Dr. Who.
Female Sherolina Holmes is next. It all started when they wanted to have a female king... ~;)
Oh you know how to talk to me I adore No one lives Forever and it's protagonist. They may be fishing from the same pool as Cate and Bond are both very Brittish superspies but James Bond is just a different character
Gilrandir
01-02-2018, 10:20
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/sweden-rape-law-consent-new-pm-backing-stefan-lofven-a8117471.html
I wonder how they will figure out if the consent was worded clearly enough. Will they invite linguistic expertise? Anyway, it will be her word against his word in most cases. Who will the judge believe?
It's Sweden, the judge will believe the immigrant that did it, and if it is a Swedish male the woman. Problems can't exist in Sweden they aren't allowed to exist
All Swedes secretly know that what I say is true
It's Sweden, the judge will believe the immigrant that did it, and if it is a Swedish male the woman. Problems can't exist in Sweden they aren't allowed to exist
All Swedes secretly know that what I say is true
The solution should be obvious: Give all immigrants citizenship upon entry.
The solution should be obvious: Give all immigrants citizenship upon entry.
Entry for all in what exactly, in Sweden or in Swedish women. Ah well they won't mind and shouldn't mind, they run the place after all they shouldn't mind unwanted kilometers on the counter in the first place as they won't recognise where they are comming from because they have leftiist, Leftist isn't something you are it's something you have, especially in Sweden you can see what leftist can do to essential organs, they fail. Ugly dystopia to me but suit yourself Sweden, hoping for some very consentual sex tommorow without saying anything, all fine by me
Gilrandir
01-11-2018, 16:32
A point of view:
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/jan/09/catherine-deneuve-men-should-be-free-hit-on-women-harvey-weinstein-scandal
Gilrandir
01-18-2018, 16:52
These French are definitely out of fashion:
http://variety.com/2018/film/news/brigitte-bardot-denounces-metoo-movement-1202667900/
rory_20_uk
01-18-2018, 17:06
The brutal reality is that 100 very attractive women go for the same "first in industry" job. 90 refuse initial advances, 9 refuse more than a drink. One screws the brains out of the producer.
Guess which gets the job?
Possibly the same for some male roles but less in power would be interested.
If all women had refused and immediately gone to the police their career(s) would be over of course. But ends for some justify the means.
~:smoking:
Montmorency
01-21-2018, 16:49
Two good articles on the case of Aziz Ansari (https://babe.net/2018/01/13/aziz-ansari-28355). What he did may not have been criminal, but "bad sex" and aggressive disregard for women's participation is one of the most prominent symptoms of a culture of misogyny.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/16/aziz-ansari-story-missed-opportunity
This will only happen if we move beyond being reactively “sex positive” and recognize that human sexual interactions are not always clearcut: yes or no, good or bad, empowering or not, either assault and worth worrying about or technically consensual and therefore not at a problem.
https://www.vox.com/first-person/2018/1/19/16907246/sexual-consent-educator-aziz-ansari
The need for affirmative consent education shouldn’t be taken to imply that perpetrators of sexual violence are just hopelessly confused. Studies show that most rapists are perfectly aware their victims aren’t into what’s happening. And social science has also clearly demonstrated that men (and women!) are perfectly capable of understanding social cues, even ones where someone is saying “no” without using that actual word.
It’s impossible to know for sure what Ansari was thinking on the night in question, but this is a seasoned performer who knows how to read a crowd, and a “relationship expert” to boot. It strains credulity to imagine he truly thought she was excited about what was happening between them. What’s much more likely is that he didn’t care how she felt one way or the other and treated her boundaries as a challenge. Either way, his alleged behavior was dehumanizing.
Teaching affirmative consent does something profound: It shifts the acceptable moral standard for sex, making it much clearer to everyone when someone is violating that standard.
a completely inoffensive name
01-22-2018, 06:29
...
Montmorency
01-22-2018, 07:13
Sorry Monty, I think your sources miss the mark.
My understanding of the Aziz Ansari night (I don't wish to read the babe article and give them the traffic they want) looks to be a story where the woman in question was consenting up to a point after which she did not make the necessary efforts to communicate the line with Aziz.
What we want out of the MeToo movement is a recognition of the instances where the line has been drawn and deliberately crossed by men and women against other men and women to constitute sexual assault and harassment.
Your quote sources put too much of the onus on Aziz to interpret the situation and "read the room" by himself. This is a common path left leaning 4th wave feminist authors seem to go towards.
We can't go down this path, mainly because putting all of the blame of Aziz who received a consenting blow job from the women for not reading non-verbal hints about escalation is a great way to return to patronizing male behavior under previous patriarchal societies. The unidentified woman quite frankly gave conflicting messages, and she did not act in good faith if she believed that "non-verbal clues" were sufficient to chill a sexual encounter at that stage.
Take for instance another quote from the guardian article:
This ignores the heavy socialization that men are subjected to as well. Men must be the hunters, we must make the first moves, we must test the waters and start the conversation. These are also symptoms of toxic masculinity that feminism aims to dismantle.
Quite frankly, this is the wrong message being attached to the wrong example. I think Margaret Atwood is onto something here ,when she received some feminist backlash about her comments on the treatment of an employee at the University of British Columbia.
This is extremist behavior being snuck into an outlet of feminist expression. If we do not call it out for what it is, we risk going backwards. We should make the effort to maintain the balance of respecting female agency while avoiding victim blaming.
[/FONT][/COLOR]
So, I don't think any of that is in discord with the perspectives I posted.
Men are taught to ignore clear female discomfort (taking the Grace account, if a hetero guy you wanted to ask out for beer or just talk to were responding the way Grace was, you would get the message as a non-autistic person; yet somehow this changes in sexual contact), because discomfort or hesitation is natural for women and men ought to be aggressive in overcoming it. Women are taught find the balance between being nice and accommodating, and setting clear boundaries to "defend their virtue", leaving little room for development or assertion of their own wants and needs.
This conditioning needs to change on both ends. And you need a rational, institutional path for sorting out those instances "where the line has been drawn and deliberately crossed", i.e. assault/harassment; intermittent episodes of Internet shaming are not adequate as an enduring solution.
In other words, from the Guardian article:
This will only happen if we move beyond being reactively “sex positive” and recognize that human sexual interactions are not always clearcut: yes or no, good or bad, empowering or not, either assault and worth worrying about or technically consensual and therefore not at a problem.
My understanding of the Aziz Ansari night (I don't wish to read the babe article and give them the traffic they want) looks to be a story where the woman in question was consenting up to a point after which she did not make the necessary efforts to communicate the line with Aziz.
I get a different impression, that Aziz correctly interpreted her behavior as anxious demurral, and worked to break it down - again, not because he's necessarily a predator, but because that's how he understands sex. Let me repost here the scene between their arrival at the apartment and Grace's departure:
ey walked the two blocks back to his apartment building, an exclusive address on TriBeCa’s Franklin Street, where Taylor Swift has a place too. When they walked back in, she complimented his marble countertops. According to Grace, Ansari turned the compliment into an invitation.
“He said something along the lines of, ‘How about you hop up and take a seat?’” Within moments, he was kissing her. “In a second, his hand was on my breast.” Then he was undressing her, then he undressed himself. She remembers feeling uncomfortable at how quickly things escalated.
When Ansari told her he was going to grab a condom within minutes of their first kiss, Grace voiced her hesitation explicitly. “I said something like, ‘Whoa, let’s relax for a sec, let’s chill.’” She says he then resumed kissing her, briefly performed oral sex on her, and asked her to do the same thing to him. She did, but not for long. “It was really quick. Everything was pretty much touched and done within ten minutes of hooking up, except for actual sex.”
She says Ansari began making a move on her that he repeated during their encounter. “The move he kept doing was taking his two fingers in a V-shape and putting them in my mouth, in my throat to wet his fingers, because the moment he’d stick his fingers in my throat he’d go straight for my vagina and try to finger me.” Grace called the move “the claw.”
Ansari also physically pulled her hand towards his penis multiple times throughout the night, from the time he first kissed her on the countertop onward. “He probably moved my hand to his dick five to seven times,” she said. “He really kept doing it after I moved it away.”
But the main thing was that he wouldn’t let her move away from him. She compared the path they cut across his apartment to a football play. “It was 30 minutes of me getting up and moving and him following and sticking his fingers down my throat again. It was really repetitive. It felt like a fucking game.”
Throughout the course of her short time in the apartment, she says she used verbal and non-verbal cues to indicate how uncomfortable and distressed she was. “Most of my discomfort was expressed in me pulling away and mumbling. I know that my hand stopped moving at some points,” she said. “I stopped moving my lips and turned cold.”
Whether Ansari didn’t notice Grace’s reticence or knowingly ignored it is impossible for her to say. “I know I was physically giving off cues that I wasn’t interested. I don’t think that was noticed at all, or if it was, it was ignored.”
Ansari wanted to have sex. She said she remembers him asking again and again, “Where do you want me to fuck you?” while she was still seated on the countertop. She says she found the question tough to answer because she says she didn’t want to fuck him at all.
“I wasn’t really even thinking of that, I didn’t want to be engaged in that with him. But he kept asking, so I said, ‘Next time.’ And he goes, ‘Oh, you mean second date?’ and I go, ‘Oh, yeah, sure,’ and he goes, ‘Well, if I poured you another glass of wine now, would it count as our second date?’” He then poured her a glass and handed it to her. She excused herself to the bathroom soon after.
Grace says she spent around five minutes in the bathroom, collecting herself in the mirror and splashing herself with water. Then she went back to Ansari. He asked her if she was okay. “I said I don’t want to feel forced because then I’ll hate you, and I’d rather not hate you,” she said.
She told babe that at first, she was happy with how he reacted. “He said, ‘Oh, of course, it’s only fun if we’re both having fun.’ The response was technically very sweet and acknowledging the fact that I was very uncomfortable. Verbally, in that moment, he acknowledged that I needed to take it slow. Then he said, ‘Let’s just chill over here on the couch.’”
This moment is particularly significant for Grace, because she thought that would be the end of the sexual encounter — her remark about not wanting to feel “forced” had added a verbal component to the cues she was trying to give him about her discomfort. When she sat down on the floor next to Ansari, who sat on the couch, she thought he might rub her back, or play with her hair — something to calm her down.
Ansari instructed her to turn around. “He sat back and pointed to his penis and motioned for me to go down on him. And I did. I think I just felt really pressured. It was literally the most unexpected thing I thought would happen at that moment because I told him I was uncomfortable.”
Soon, he pulled her back up onto the couch. She would tell her friend via text later that night, “He [made out] with me again and says, ‘Doesn’t look like you hate me.’”
Halfway into the encounter, he led her from the couch to a different part of his apartment. He said he had to show her something. Then he brought her to a large mirror, bent her over and asked her again, “Where do you want me to fuck you? Do you want me to fuck you right here?” He rammed his penis against her ass while he said it, pantomiming intercourse.
“I just remember looking in the mirror and seeing him behind me. He was very much caught up in the moment and I obviously very much wasn’t,” Grace said. “After he bent me over is when I stood up and said no, I don’t think I’m ready to do this, I really don’t think I’m going to do this. And he said, ‘How about we just chill, but this time with our clothes on?’”
They got dressed, sat side by side on the couch they’d already “chilled” on, and he turned on an episode of Seinfeld. She’d never seen it before. She said that’s when the reality of what was going on sank in. “It really hit me that I was violated. I felt really emotional all at once when we sat down there. That that whole experience was actually horrible.”
While the TV played in the background, he kissed her again, stuck his fingers down her throat again, and moved to undo her pants. She turned away. She remembers “feeling in a different mindset at that point.”
“I remember saying, ‘You guys are all the same, you guys are all the fucking same.’” Ansari asked her what she meant. When she turned to answer, she says he met her with “gross, forceful kisses.”
After that last kiss, Grace stood up from the couch, moved back to the kitchen island where she left her phone, and said she would call herself a car. He hugged her and kissed her goodbye, another “aggressive” kiss. When she pulled away, Ansari finally relented and insisted he’d call her the car. “He said, ‘It’s coming, but just tell them your name is Essence,’” she said, a name he has joked about using as a pseudonym in his sitcom.
She teared up in the hallway, outside his place, pressing the down button on the elevator. The Uber was waiting when she left the building. He asked if she was Essence, she said yes, and then she rode back to her Brooklyn apartment. “I cried the whole ride home. At that point I felt violated. That last hour was so out of my hand.”
a completely inoffensive name
01-22-2018, 07:38
Hmmm, that scenario played out differently than accounts in the media would have you think.
I refused to read the source based on a prejudice stemming from videos like this:
https://youtu.be/y4bAULTwAJU
Maybe I'm reading too much reddit.
Strike For The South
01-22-2018, 17:35
Half of the problem is the way the story is written. I understand why the author would try and conflate not choosing the wine with what later transpired, power imbalances being what they are. Unfortunately, every rebuttal seems to lead with that. It was a very poor framing choice. By the end of the story the author makes the inexplicable choice to insert herself into the story and comment that it was in fact a very cute dress. The whole thing was very poorly put together. Coupled with her tantrum on twitter a few days later, it made for some low hanging fruit.
How to move beyond the toxic masculinity that makes a man "press the advantage" when confronted with a less than enthusiastic woman is a problem that I do not have a solution for. The earliest media both boys and girls consume hammers a powerful narrative into our head. Men are to go out and impress while women are to be to discerning. There is also a disconnect between what people advocate for and roles within their own relationships. I have known many a feminist who wouldn't take the trash and many an ally who would end up eating a tide pod.
Something that can be done is helping men with emotional intelligence. The rallying cry for many men seems to be "just say something". Considering how much of human communication isn't verbalized, this is a poor excuse for bad behavior.
Montmorency
01-22-2018, 17:59
Half of the problem is the way the story is written. I understand why the author would try and conflate not choosing the wine with what later transpired, power imbalances being what they are. Unfortunately, every rebuttal seems to lead with that. It was a very poor framing choice. By the end of the story the author makes the inexplicable choice to insert herself into the story and comment that it was in fact a very cute dress. The whole thing was very poorly put together. Coupled with her tantrum on twitter a few days later, it made for some low hanging fruit.
It's arguable (https://jezebel.com/babe-what-are-you-doing-1822114753) that the publication pursued this story as a feather in its cap. Apparently almost all the writing/editing staff of Babe are college-age; seems to be the new colloquial style. You can see the like in this CNN article, though it's authored by a middle-aged guy:
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Why no one knows anything as the government nears a shutdown (http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/19/politics/trump-shrug-shutdown-analysis/index.html)
Here's what we do know:
The Senate will come back into session at 11 a.m. ET
Sometime soon-ish(?) after that, the motion to end debate -- cloture in Senate slang -- and bring the House-passed bill to fund the government for another month will be brought up for a vote.
It will fail. (Republicans, based on current whip counts, need a dozen Democrats to cross over and vote for the so-called continuing resolution. That is, um, not happening.)
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Something that can be done is helping men with emotional intelligence. The rallying cry for many men seems to be "just say something". Considering how much of human communication isn't verbalized, this is a poor excuse for bad behavior.
Here's one take (the TLDR is in the title):
Mythcommunication: It’s Not That They Don’t Understand, They Just Don’t Like The Answer (https://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2011/03/21/mythcommunication-its-not-that-they-dont-understand-they-just-dont-like-the-answer/)
I just read a paper from the discipline of conversation analysis. It dovetails nicely with what I wrote in Talking Past Each Other, and I’m going to go through some of the findings (I can’t redistribute the paper itself), and talk about some conclusions. Long story short: in conversation, “no” is disfavored, and people try to say no in ways that soften the rejection, often avoiding the word at all. People issue rejections in softened language, and people hear rejections in softened language, and the notion that anything but a clear “no” can’t be understood is just nonsense. First, the notion that rape results from miscommunication is just wrong. Rape results from a refusal to heed, rather than an inability to understand, a rejection. Second, while the authors of the paper say that this makes all rape prevention advice about communicating a clear “no” pointless, I have a different take. Clear communication of “no” isn’t primarily going to avoid miscommunication — rather, it’s a meta-message. Clear communication against the undercurrent that “no” is rude and should be softened is a sign of the willingness to fight, to yell, to report.
Seamus Fermanagh this is your discipline. Any thoughts?
many an ally who would end up eating a tide pod.
?????
Is this the new "jenkem scare (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenkem)"?
EDIT: Here's a source (http://mashable.com/2018/01/15/what-is-babe-aziz-ansari-sexual-misconduct-allegation/) for the Babe staff ages.
"Most of our hires are recent grads, and I think having a team this young — our average age is 23 — and this talented and hardworking is what’s been the most important part of our growth," Mitzali said.
Indeed, the oldest editorial staffer at Babe is 25.
DO NOT search for "college age Babe".
Seamus Fermanagh
01-22-2018, 19:17
... Seamus Fermanagh this is your discipline. Any thoughts?
Buddy of mine in grad school used conversation analysis as his prime methodology. I was also fortunate enough to have a class with Robert Hopper [RIP] who was probably it's foremost practitioner for a time. It is an incredibly intense focus on conversational exchanges and how sounds, gestures, utterances and very minute changes therein alter the course, tone, and content of a conversational exchange. What impact does a 1.3 second pause following a surprise revelation during a phone call have when compared to a 1.7 second pause? Very meticulous stuff, but the combinations of 'move/countermove' are endless and fascinating.
This can be used to emphasize the potential for people to end up "talking past each other," (hopefully Thomas, the author you quote above, referenced J.F. Lyotard's Le Differend in writing the piece he refers to. If not, he's stealing the idea on a nearly word for word basis) when there is no shared decision rule for how to interpret an exchange or when people do not clearly identify the decision rule they seek to evoke. Thomas references it positively, suggesting (correctly) that there are more ways to say no than a simple bald declarative. On the other hand, he is completely underplaying the role of context and culture in determining the decision rules we as listeners will use to interpret an utterance.
e.g. In Japan (a classic example of the high context/indirect communication style of culture), at least prior to the turn of the 20th, a businessman would say a mild/qualified/lukewarm in tone "Yes" in order to indicate "No" or "Hell No" while not causing the other party to lose face by being denied in a bald, outright fashion. This caused no end of problems with US (low context, direct communication culture) business people who took the intended no as an actual yes and tried to move forward contractually from there.
e.g. My wife (then fiancée) was propositioned at a party (At Hopper's house btw) by a woman grad student from English writing whom she'd met in an English Rhetoric class. My wife said thanks but no thanks, then pointed to me across the room and noted that she was here with her fiancée [subtext of message. No, and I don't go for same sex]. Response was along the lines of "congratulations, but it doesn't matter what you do with a male, I am interested in expressing REAL physical love with you [subtext of message being men and penetrative sex are irrelevant, are you interested/do you really mean no?]. There are whole layers of co-cultural and situational influences on the correct interpretation of these messages.
For Lyotard and the other Post-modernists, there was an essential emphasis on the pastiche -- that communicative meaning could be achieved but only in, of, and for that moment. Contrastingly, Habermas would suggest that the difference in message, and the effort to resolve and bring them together, are the source of communicative structure (and by extension all societal structure). I'm more on the Habermas side, as I don't view everything as fleeting and connected only haphazardly.
Either way, though, saying no is clearest when it is a bald declarative. Not all are comfortable being so blunt, however, as cultural mores and/or situational concerns may be driving their choice of message every bit as much or more than does the specific discrete message objective.
And that's not even focusing on the axiom that all messages have both a content [subject material of the exchange] and a relational [implied status of the nature of the relationship between conversants] that are going on, and which very much DO affect how we seek to communicate a specific message.
Enough to chew on for now?
Montmorency
01-22-2018, 23:26
Enough to chew on for now?
It's useful, but somewhat tangential...
I was confused, but it looks like you were replying strictly to the quoted paragraph. I don't follow the linked blog or know anything about it's proprietor/contributors. To summarize the article and its relevance:
The author (Thomas) was expanding on Kitzinger & Frith. "Just Say No? The Use of Conversation Analysis In Developing A Feminist Perspective On Sexual Refusal", Discourse & Society 1999 10:293. Which paper basically:
Drawing on the conversation analytic literature, and on our own data, we claim that both men and women have a sophisticated ability to convey and to comprehend refusals, including refusals which do not include the word ‘no’, and we suggest that male claims not to have ‘understood’ refusals which conform to culturally normative patterns can only be heard as self-interested justifications for coercive behaviour.
In sum, these young women’s talk about the rudeness and arrogance which would be attributed to them, and the foolishness they would feel, in saying clear and direct ‘no’s, indicates their awareness that such behaviour violates culturally accepted norms according to which refusals are dispreferred actions.
[Y]oung women responding to unwanted sexual pressure are using absolutely normal conversational patterns for refusals: that is, according to the research literature (and our own data) on young women and sexual communication, they are communicating their refusals indirectly; their refusals rarely refer to their own lack of desire for sex and more often to external circumstances which make sex impossible; their refusals are often qualified (‘maybe later’), and are accompanied by compliments (‘I really like you, but . . .’) or by appreciations of the invitation (‘it’s very flattering of you to ask, but . . .’); and sometimes they refuse sex with the kind of ‘yes’s which are normatively understood as communicating refusal. These features are all part of what are commonly understood to be refusals.
The problem of sexual coercion cannot be fixed by changing the way women talk.
From his own work Thomas adds,
Indeed it is evident that these young men share the understanding that explicit verbal refusals of sex per se are unnecessary to effectively communicate the withholding of consent to sex.
All of this is taken to demonstrate that "It’s Not That [Men] Don’t Understand, They Just Don’t Like The Answer." Being also that most rapes are committed by dedicated predators and serial rapists, men who rely on alcohol and try to isolate the most pliant and vulnerable women in a given space or environment, it has been suggested that teaching women to say "No" more forcefully is fruitless. Here Thomas disagrees, because
I’m no communications theorist, but communications are layered things. As we’ve seen, the literal meaning of a message is only one aspect of the message, and the way it’s delivered can signal something entirely different. Rapists are not missing the literal meaning, I think it’s clear. What they’re doing is ignoring the literal message (refusal) and paying very close attention to the meta-message. I tell my niece, “if a guy offers to buy you a drink and you say no, and he pesters you until you say okay, what he wants for his money is to find out if you can be talked out of no.” The rapist doesn’t listen to refusals, he probes for signs of resistance in the meta-message, the difference between a target who doesn’t want to but can be pushed, and a target who doesn’t want to and will stand by that even if she has to be blunt. It follows that the purpose of setting clear boundaries is not to be understood — that’s not a problem — but to be understood to be too hard a target.
If rapists are "rational and opportunistic", forceful refusals may be an effective means of self-defense for a woman in a particular situation, even as "the only lasting answer is to change the culture".
Now we can see for ourselves the implications for the thread at-large. I mean, that's what I was getting at with the query.
Montmorency
01-22-2018, 23:45
many an ally who would end up eating a tide pod.
?????
Is this the new "jenkem scare (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenkem)"?
This gives me such joy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pM6wanZOLtk
CrossLOPER
01-23-2018, 05:59
This gives me such joy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pM6wanZOLtk
Why? Because the social media frenzy has finally culminated in giving people who are so desperate for attention that they are willing to do something that will either kill them or leave them with lifelong medical problems just for views or likes?
Montmorency
01-23-2018, 12:32
Why? Because the social media frenzy has finally culminated in giving people who are so desperate for attention that they are willing to do something that will either kill them or leave them with lifelong medical problems just for views or likes?
The skit video is funny. People hurting themselves isn't funny.
Gilrandir
01-23-2018, 14:25
e.g. My wife (then fiancée) was propositioned at a party (At Hopper's house btw) by a woman grad student from English writing whom she'd met in an English Rhetoric class. My wife said thanks but no thanks, then pointed to me across the room and noted that she was here with her fiancée [subtext of message. No, and I don't go for same sex]. Response was along the lines of "congratulations, but it doesn't matter what you do with a male, I am interested in expressing REAL physical love with you [subtext of message being men and penetrative sex are irrelevant, are you interested/do you really mean no?].
If you rendered your wife's response accurately, it is clear why that woman's advances at her were continued. Pointing at you she should have said "fiance" instead of "fiancee". ~;)
Seamus Fermanagh
01-23-2018, 17:13
If you rendered your wife's response accurately, it is clear why that woman's advances at her were continued. Pointing at you she should have said "fiance" instead of "fiancee". ~;)
My typo I fear....verdamt froggie language
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.