Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Shrek plays off on novelty, novelty always sells, and dont forget the CONTEXT of that movie, its a comedy, its entertainment

the princess knowing martial arts or whatever is supposed to be funny (temporary cognitive dissonance?), in the sense of "haha, no way a princess can do THAT"

Also an excellent point.

[The Johnny]

One example of reinterpreting female essence COULD be films starring Milla Jovovich.

-An evil giant asteriod is gonna crush the Earth? We need the 5th element to save us!

-A crapsack world infested by zombies? She's fine, dont worry.

Of course she had to be white and with light eyes, but thats another issue.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Also, just to reiterate, if we are trying to look at things from an evidential perspective, the Webster 1913 etymology of the variance "pussy" as a derogatory term derived from "pursy" occurred only in that single edition and was removed from subsequent editions, and has no other support. It seems like a funny thing to latch onto so hard, and reminds me of when in the early 1990's it was common for grrrl power chicks to latch onto the widely-repeated piece of (erroneous) folklore that "Cunt" was actually derived from Sumerian "Kundi" and means "Goddess".

FYI, erroneous and invented etymologies are typically removed from dictionaries when further research finds no support for them. A typical red flag for an erroneous or invented etymology is when there are no other sources or references, and the entry is removed from subsequent editions rather than being adopted into subsequent editions and other dictionaries.

As I mentioned, it was incredibly common for dictionary editors of that time to "pad" their content with inventive etymologies in order to create a selling point for their dictionary.

[Placid Dingo]

Shrek plays off on novelty, novelty always sells, and dont forget the CONTEXT of that movie, its a comedy, its entertainment

the princess knowing martial arts or whatever is supposed to be funny (temporary cognitive dissonance?), in the sense of "haha, no way a princess can do THAT"

It's cool I dont have beef with Shrek.

The article in question was a lot bigger. It spoke of more, and said it better.

I guess a great example is the comedian-i think Dave Chapelle or Eddie Murphy- used to have a routine about black people vs niggers. They stopped using it because it was becoming a part of standard white racist rhetoric.

Another; South Parks mocking of redheads was a joke about the stupidity of racism. Now through the redhead meme is big enough that kids in schools are unironically mocked with the terminology from that episode.

Does the intention of these things matter? Theyre both opposing prejudice using parody or humour, but do they ultimately just buy into the existing structures? Or is it just too easy to lose control of the message once it goes into the wild?

[Placid Dingo]

One example of reinterpreting female essence COULD be films starring Milla Jovovich.

-An evil giant asteriod is gonna crush the Earth? We need the 5th element to save us!

-A crapsack world infested by zombies? She's fine, dont worry.

Of course she had to be white and with light eyes, but thats another issue.

Shes also Bruce Willis's sex reward for saving the day.


I should have seen more films before doing a popular culture studies course. That shit ruins films forever.

Edit: I missed that this was about her filns in general. There might be a good point with some if the Resident Evil franchise.

[Bu🤠ns]

So I finally just read this whole thread and I hope to not derail it terribly with this post.  One of the things that has drawn me into discordianism is the idea about understanding the difference between thinking one's thoughts and one's thoughts thinking them.  What's really cool about this thread is that it's unearthing a lot of those thoughts thinking me.  Even when looking at Pixie's facebook posts and threads in here I reacted much like Pee Wee Herman did to the snakes when he was saving the animals from the burning pet shop. This is really uncomfortable shit as it forces me to confront a rather patriarchal lineage and extract some fundamental assumptions.

So here I go with what I can't quite get my head around...

I'm not sure how I feel about the approach to gender equality.  This is echoing what Vex was talking about initially with using the word feminism.  I understand that the society favors men and that the counterbalance should be an emphasis toward the injustices against feminine and thus "Feminism." I also don't think changing the name at this point would really make a difference as Nigel pointed out that it would just become 'hidden feminist agenda' to the idiots.

I still think vex was on to something there, however.  As I read through this thread a lot of it makes sense but some of it seems oppressive to my biology or nature.  I don't feel that I'm a misogynist nor do I feel that women are in any way inferior to men.  I never felt that way.  My body, though, reacts in a very unique sort of way. 

Say I'm walking down the street and see this beautiful woman with these appealing curves and all the right things that cause my body to want to create more people with her.

It might sound something like, "mmm mmmm mmmm."

To a feminist that appears to be objectification but to my body it's biology...it's the national geographic channel.  I don't think of her as an object and certainly wouldn't rape her.  I don't understand how that's rape culture. IS it? How does feminism distinguish between biological desires and rape culture?

So back to vex's point...when a man confronts these ideas, it seems like what is being asked of him is to act entirely counter to his nature.  To ask a man to change certain views that are deeply rooted is asking a lot...I guess you'd have to be a really strong man to be able to confront one's own fundamental assumptions. And it CAN be done, but I doubt in a mass amount.

With that in mind, it seems that the direct approach can only take a culture so far.  I think a real effectual change comes through slowly nipping away at the structure and tweaking this idea here and destroying that injustice there. Kind of like the parable The Camel's Nose In The Tent.  Now I agree that Feminism does do that, but it also tends to alienate men who matter by setting up an opposition.  The men who matter are ALL men, not just the few who think for themselves.

I like the idea that there are behaviors that people are doing that are Feminsim and not know that there was a word for it.  Roger's dad being the cook being the example ITT.  My wife and I have lived in a partnership model of marriage much in the way that Riane Eisler describes the partnership society...but we never knew we were doing it.  When things like that come up in normal society, to me, it's indicative of progress.

I have a few other things I'd love to get off my chest but I'll save them for later.  I don't want to derail this tread too terribly at the moment.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

One thought and then I'm off to bed... the principles of equality don't ask men (or women) to deny their biology. They don't ask us to stop being attracted to the desired sex, or to stop appreciating their physical attractiveness. It only asks that we not try to own, devalue, or subjugate them.

[Placid Dingo]

I remember there was a discussion about 50 shades of Grey on the radio (for now we can bypass the point that theres a lot legitimately objectionable about it), and they were taking to a guy who was into dominating women, sexually. The presenter was getting quite aggressive about things, telling him he was anti-women, was the kind of person who would see women controlled by men and not voting or leaving the house.

His answer was this; you can't politicise sexual attraction. Or rather you can, but you'll continue making wrong impressions. Some men see a woman and think ' love to get her naked'. Some think, love to tie her up. Some men feel those things for men, some women for women. Some think, love to cover her in cheese and eat bread off her. People have impulsive sexual desires that dint always link coherently to their cognitive, rationalised beliefs. Impulses do not mean youre opposing feminism. The way the thinking part negotiates those impulses is what matters and defines you as a human.

In other words, a really long version of what Nigel just said.

[Signora Pæsior]

Does the intention of these things matter? Theyre both opposing prejudice using parody or humour, but do they ultimately just buy into the existing structures? Or is it just too easy to lose control of the message once it goes into the wild?

Oh hey, this reminds me of something I was going to say earlier in the thread, but I forgot. I come from a land down undah, and I think it would be fair to say that most high schoolers here have no real understanding of the incredibly complex and fraught racial relations in the United States. I mean, sure, we learn about the Civil Rights movement in history and To Kill a Mockingbird is usually taught in English at some level, but a lot of that more insidious stuff we really have no clue about.

Anyway, when I was twelve or thirteen, one of the many trends in our high school became to use the word "n***er" as a synonym for "steal". And in, "Oi, you n***ered my eraser!" or "I totally n***ered this eyeshadow from the chemist". Now, were we consciously and actively saying 'black people steal and that's why this is a valid comparison'? Fuck no. Most of us had never even heard the word used in a derogatory manner towards a black person; we certainly weren't aware of the power the n-word has in the States. We were ignorant little morons who thought we were being edgy. And a space alien who was dropped into my third form science class who saw someone grab my pencil sharpener off my desk and heard me yell "stop n***ering my stuff!" would come to the reasonable conclusion that "n***er" means "take with asking permission" with no cultural context for comparison.

None of which changes the fact that I think about it now and want to smack 12-year-old Signora quite hard in the back of the head. I guess my point, if I haven't lost it, is: sure, contextually, what we were saying was not an active message of hate, but that doesn't change the fact that the language we were using was hateful and oppressive.

[Bu🤠ns]

Shrek plays off on novelty, novelty always sells, and dont forget the CONTEXT of that movie, its a comedy, its entertainment

the princess knowing martial arts or whatever is supposed to be funny (temporary cognitive dissonance?), in the sense of "haha, no way a princess can do THAT"

It's cool I dont have beef with Shrek.

The article in question was a lot bigger. It spoke of more, and said it better.

I guess a great example is the comedian-i think Dave Chapelle or Eddie Murphy- used to have a routine about black people vs niggers. They stopped using it because it was becoming a part of standard white racist rhetoric.

Another; South Parks mocking of redheads was a joke about the stupidity of racism. Now through the redhead meme is big enough that kids in schools are unironically mocked with the terminology from that episode.

Does the intention of these things matter? Theyre both opposing prejudice using parody or humour, but do they ultimately just buy into the existing structures? Or is it just too easy to lose control of the message once it goes into the wild?

Paul Mooney talks about how he feels about using the N-word in the context of Michael Richards racist comments shoutings (ETA) .  You remember that bit right? Everytime I read about the use of these oppressive words I think about this interview. He said that when he wrote for Richard Pryor they wanted to "depower the word" after using it for so many years.  And he chooses to not use it despite it being used in hip-hop and in the black community.

With that said I would never stop another from saying those words but I think my choice to not say a particular word is a louder statement that choosing to say that word or even "take it back."

[Bu🤠ns]

I remember there was a discussion about 50 shades of Grey on the radio (for now we can bypass the point that theres a lot legitimately objectionable about it), and they were taking to a guy who was into dominating women, sexually. The presenter was getting quite aggressive about things, telling him he was anti-women, was the kind of person who would see women controlled by men and not voting or leaving the house.

His answer was this; you can't politicise sexual attraction. Or rather you can, but you'll continue making wrong impressions. Some men see a woman and think ' love to get her naked'. Some think, love to tie her up. Some men feel those things for men, some women for women. Some think, love to cover her in cheese and eat bread off her. People have impulsive sexual desires that dint always link coherently to their cognitive, rationalised beliefs. Impulses do not mean youre opposing feminism. The way the thinking part negotiates those impulses is what matters and defines you as a human.

In other words, a really long version of what Nigel just said.

One thought and then I'm off to bed... the principles of equality don't ask men (or women) to deny their biology. They don't ask us to stop being attracted to the desired sex, or to stop appreciating their physical attractiveness. It only asks that we not try to own, devalue, or subjugate them.

Okay, so that's what i thought too.  It's not necessarily apparent  at first.

[Signora Pæsior]

Say I'm walking down the street and see this beautiful woman with these appealing curves and all the right things that cause my body to want to create more people with her.

It might sound something like, "mmm mmmm mmmm."

To a feminist that appears to be objectification but to my body it's biology...it's the national geographic channel.  I don't think of her as an object and certainly wouldn't rape her.  I don't understand how that's rape culture. IS it? How does feminism distinguish between biological desires and rape culture?

For me, it's the difference between admiring that woman with all the appealing curves in your own head, and feeling the need to comment on the fact. If I walk past you in the street and you think, to yourself, "Man, I'd like to get up on that" -- all power to you. I am literally not affected at all by that.

However. If I walk past you in the street and you feel the need to articulate your desire to put your penis inside me, that is where we start to have a problem. Because as women, we're told that our worth is innately tied to how fuckable men find us and it's supposed to be a compliment when we're deemed worthy of taking your dick. But if I'm walking past you on the street, I might not want to be deemed fuckable. I might be on my way home after a long day of work and just want to make dinner, or I might be on my way to meet a friend I haven't seen in years, or I might be on the rag... or, actually, I might not need to justify it at all. Because "I want to fuck you" is not the highest compliment a woman can receive, no matter how much society may try to convince us otherwise. I can think of a ton of qualities that I would rather have people define me by than "fuckable".

If I walk past you in the street and you make a comment like "Mmmm yeah, shake that ass baby" when all I am doing is walking like I normally walk, it might start off a whole chain reaction in my head of 'was I shaking my ass too much? Does he think I was doing it on purpose? To try and attract him?' In a society where we are constantly told that doing/saying/wearing the wrong things can "invite" rape, it can be quite an uncomfortable experience to suddenly wonder if you are, in fact, "asking for it", and whether this stranger is going to be the person who interprets it as such.

If you make a lewd comment about my body and I tell you to fuck off, or even that I don't actually care what you think about my body, I'm branded a stuck-up bitch that can't take a fucking compliment. I leave myself open to further harassment and/or abuse, all because I don't consider "Fuck yeah, I want to stick my dick in you" or any variations thereof to be a compliment.

**I hope this is obvious, but just in case: all examples of "I" and "you" in this post are generic examples and definitely not meant to be accusatory!

[Juana]

What Nige said. Appreciating a pretty lady not rape culture. It becomes rape culture when your expression of it becomes threatening or possessive or degrading. (Basically, what Signora said while I was lol'ing at Fifty Shades quotes)

Shrek plays off on novelty, novelty always sells, and dont forget the CONTEXT of that movie, its a comedy, its entertainment

the princess knowing martial arts or whatever is supposed to be funny (temporary cognitive dissonance?), in the sense of "haha, no way a princess can do THAT"

It's cool I dont have beef with Shrek.

The article in question was a lot bigger. It spoke of more, and said it better.

I guess a great example is the comedian-i think Dave Chapelle or Eddie Murphy- used to have a routine about black people vs niggers. They stopped using it because it was becoming a part of standard white racist rhetoric.

Another; South Parks mocking of redheads was a joke about the stupidity of racism. Now through the redhead meme is big enough that kids in schools are unironically mocked with the terminology from that episode.

Does the intention of these things matter? Theyre both opposing prejudice using parody or humour, but do they ultimately just buy into the existing structures? Or is it just too easy to lose control of the message once it goes into the wild?

Paul Mooney talks about how he feels about using the N-word in the context of Michael Richards racist comments shoutings (ETA) .  You remember that bit right? Everytime I read about the use of these oppressive words I think about this interview. He said that when he wrote for Richard Pryor they wanted to "depower the word" after using it for so many years.  And he chooses to not use it despite it being used in hip-hop and in the black community.

With that said I would never stop another from saying those words but I think my choice to not say a particular word is a louder statement that choosing to say that word or even "take it back."

I can agree here. I'm still taking back "bitch" and "slut", but this, largely.

Does the intention of these things matter? Theyre both opposing prejudice using parody or humour, but do they ultimately just buy into the existing structures? Or is it just too easy to lose control of the message once it goes into the wild?

Oh hey, this reminds me of something I was going to say earlier in the thread, but I forgot. I come from a land down undah, and I think it would be fair to say that most high schoolers here have no real understanding of the incredibly complex and fraught racial relations in the United States. I mean, sure, we learn about the Civil Rights movement in history and To Kill a Mockingbird is usually taught in English at some level, but a lot of that more insidious stuff we really have no clue about.

Anyway, when I was twelve or thirteen, one of the many trends in our high school became to use the word "n***er" as a synonym for "steal". And in, "Oi, you n***ered my eraser!" or "I totally n***ered this eyeshadow from the chemist". Now, were we consciously and actively saying 'black people steal and that's why this is a valid comparison'? Fuck no. Most of us had never even heard the word used in a derogatory manner towards a black person; we certainly weren't aware of the power the n-word has in the States. We were ignorant little morons who thought we were being edgy. And a space alien who was dropped into my third form science class who saw someone grab my pencil sharpener off my desk and heard me yell "stop n***ering my stuff!" would come to the reasonable conclusion that "n***er" means "take with asking permission" with no cultural context for comparison.

None of which changes the fact that I think about it now and want to smack 12-year-old Signora quite hard in the back of the head. I guess my point, if I haven't lost it, is: sure, contextually, what we were saying was not an active message of hate, but that doesn't change the fact that the language we were using was hateful and oppressive.

I think you might be my favorite noob since Phoxxy or Waffles.

I remember there was a discussion about 50 shades of Grey on the radio (for now we can bypass the point that theres a lot everything is legitimately objectionable about it), and they were taking to a guy who was into dominating women, sexually. The presenter was getting quite aggressive about things, telling him he was anti-women, was the kind of person who would see women controlled by men and not voting or leaving the house.

His answer was this; you can't politicise sexual attraction. Or rather you can, but you'll continue making wrong impressions. Some men see a woman and think ' love to get her naked'. Some think, love to tie her up. Some men feel those things for men, some women for women. Some think, love to cover her in cheese and eat bread off her. People have impulsive sexual desires that dint always link coherently to their cognitive, rationalised beliefs. Impulses do not mean youre opposing feminism. The way the thinking part negotiates those impulses is what matters and defines you as a human.

In other words, a really long version of what Nigel just said.

(eta) Fix't
Having read some sporkings/MSTings of Fifty Shades, if this is all you know of the BDSM community, it's really not a stretch to think so. Take the unhealthiness of Twlight's D/s up to eleven and you have Ana and Christian. I mean, if a guy says he's into flogging petite brunettes because they look like his dead mom, there's kind of a problem.

[Signora Pæsior]

Does the intention of these things matter? Theyre both opposing prejudice using parody or humour, but do they ultimately just buy into the existing structures? Or is it just too easy to lose control of the message once it goes into the wild?

Oh hey, this reminds me of something I was going to say earlier in the thread, but I forgot. I come from a land down undah, and I think it would be fair to say that most high schoolers here have no real understanding of the incredibly complex and fraught racial relations in the United States. I mean, sure, we learn about the Civil Rights movement in history and To Kill a Mockingbird is usually taught in English at some level, but a lot of that more insidious stuff we really have no clue about.

Anyway, when I was twelve or thirteen, one of the many trends in our high school became to use the word "n***er" as a synonym for "steal". And in, "Oi, you n***ered my eraser!" or "I totally n***ered this eyeshadow from the chemist". Now, were we consciously and actively saying 'black people steal and that's why this is a valid comparison'? Fuck no. Most of us had never even heard the word used in a derogatory manner towards a black person; we certainly weren't aware of the power the n-word has in the States. We were ignorant little morons who thought we were being edgy. And a space alien who was dropped into my third form science class who saw someone grab my pencil sharpener off my desk and heard me yell "stop n***ering my stuff!" would come to the reasonable conclusion that "n***er" means "take with asking permission" with no cultural context for comparison.

None of which changes the fact that I think about it now and want to smack 12-year-old Signora quite hard in the back of the head. I guess my point, if I haven't lost it, is: sure, contextually, what we were saying was not an active message of hate, but that doesn't change the fact that the language we were using was hateful and oppressive.

I think you might be my favorite noob since Phoxxy or Waffles.

I'm not 100% sure I know who either of them are (so many naaaaames, I'm still getting my head around y'all), so I'm going to pretend this is a Good Thing whether it actually is or not.

[Bu🤠ns]

Say I'm walking down the street and see this beautiful woman with these appealing curves and all the right things that cause my body to want to create more people with her.

It might sound something like, "mmm mmmm mmmm."

To a feminist that appears to be objectification but to my body it's biology...it's the national geographic channel.  I don't think of her as an object and certainly wouldn't rape her.  I don't understand how that's rape culture. IS it? How does feminism distinguish between biological desires and rape culture?

For me, it's the difference between admiring that woman with all the appealing curves in your own head, and feeling the need to comment on the fact. If I walk past you in the street and you think, to yourself, "Man, I'd like to get up on that" -- all power to you. I am literally not affected at all by that.

However. If I walk past you in the street and you feel the need to articulate your desire to put your penis inside me, that is where we start to have a problem. Because as women, we're told that our worth is innately tied to how fuckable men find us and it's supposed to be a compliment when we're deemed worthy of taking your dick. But if I'm walking past you on the street, I might not want to be deemed fuckable. I might be on my way home after a long day of work and just want to make dinner, or I might be on my way to meet a friend I haven't seen in years, or I might be on the rag... or, actually, I might not need to justify it at all. Because "I want to fuck you" is not the highest compliment a woman can receive, no matter how much society may try to convince us otherwise. I can think of a ton of qualities that I would rather have people define me by than "fuckable".

If I walk past you in the street and you make a comment like "Mmmm yeah, shake that ass baby" when all I am doing is walking like I normally walk, it might start off a whole chain reaction in my head of 'was I shaking my ass too much? Does he think I was doing it on purpose? To try and attract him?' In a society where we are constantly told that doing/saying/wearing the wrong things can "invite" rape, it can be quite an uncomfortable experience to suddenly wonder if you are, in fact, "asking for it", and whether this stranger is going to be the person who interprets it as such.

If you make a lewd comment about my body and I tell you to fuck off, or even that I don't actually care what you think about my body, I'm branded a stuck-up bitch that can't take a fucking compliment. I leave myself open to further harassment and/or abuse, all because I don't consider "Fuck yeah, I want to stick my dick in you" or any variations thereof to be a compliment.

**I hope this is obvious, but just in case: all examples of "I" and "you" in this post are generic examples and definitely not meant to be accusatory!

Oh that's a great answer!  It makes perfect sense.  It clarifies the motivations. Say I DO come up to you and begin a conversation, it defines the difference between my intent on getting to know YOU vs. ONLY wanting to get into your pants even though that also might be a part of it.  Because if you do stir my biology, it would be a lie to say that I wouldn't want to to have sex.

In this context, then, does my wanting to approach you for the sole purpose of getting laid be indicative of rape culture? How does casual sex fit in....ack! like i said i have a lot of questions but I should stop here.  Perhaps I should research a bit more before continuing.


Actually i gotta go to bed but thanks for reply