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

[Pæs]

Ah, maybe. I read Net's comment as sarcasm; that those things systemically oppress cis white guys. I don't agree. There's a high chance I misinterpreted the post, though.

Admittedly, I was a bit pissed off when I wrote my reply, because people implying that I don't know what's going on in my own country is a bit of a hot button, but that's more to do with my shitty misogynistic family patting me on the head whenever I express a vaguely political opinion and it wasn't really Net's fault that it fucked me off so much. So, yeah, apologies if I missed something blindingly obvious there.

No, he linked to some articles that backed up what you were saying, and ended his argument with "These are all things that cis white men are mostly immune to," which is the same thing you essentially said.

I can understand hot buttons, everybody has them.

I thought "are" was a typo because it didn't fit with how I read his post. Might be I didn't understand his point.

If "are" was supposed to be "aren't," he undermined his own argument with the links he posted, which would have made him look like a huge asshole.  I think you two were trying to read his post that way on purpose, so that you could feel completely indignant and attacked, and continue attacking people who don't totally agree with you.

Um, no, because I didn't express an opinion on his post at all. I don't feel attacked or indignant or even particularly strongly against either interpretation of his post, so either you're misreading something or pulling that out of your arse to support the "you are attacking people" point. I'm not attacking Net and am in fact interested in discussion of his comment once it is cleared up... I'm open to either reading.

It seemed to me to be a criticism of the dismissive attitude toward oppression of white cis straight males that could be read into Signora's post (or was actually in her post, idk). This criticism would be supported, via kyriarchy, by evidence of oppression that affects cis males which a submission to only patriarchy would blind someone to.

Does anyone who has been attacked by me for their opinion (rather than for perceived conduct in this conversation, which has been addressed and is the only intentional attack I recall) want to express that or nominate Freeky as their advocate?

If I wanted to misinterpret Net and attack him based on that, I'd have actually responded more substantially than by saying I wasn't clear on his point... but go ahead and do exactly that, misrepresenting me and attacking me for it... that's cool if that's the conversation you want to have.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

But, fuck, why should anyone respond to attempts to communicate after being butthurt has served us so well this far.

If we ever reach the stars, it will be by the power of butthurt.

Hell, my entire country was formed from butthurt.

[Pæs]

But, fuck, why should anyone respond to attempts to communicate after being butthurt has served us so well this far.

If we ever reach the stars, it will be by the power of butthurt.

Hell, my entire country was formed from butthurt.

Truly it is a beautful thing.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

But, fuck, why should anyone respond to attempts to communicate after being butthurt has served us so well this far.

If we ever reach the stars, it will be by the power of butthurt.

Hell, my entire country was formed from butthurt.

Truly it is a beautful thing.

Sure as hell is.

The Puritans moved here because they were butthurt that the crown wouldn't allow them to execute members of their own church.

We rebelled because we were butthurt that we didn't have a vote in parliament, obstensibly over a minor tax that nobody outside of Boston gave a shit about.

We then fought a monstrous civil war because the South was butthurt that Lincoln won the election (contrary to myth, he had pledged to leave the slavery issue alone).

Then we joined WWI because we were butthurt that a passenger liner full of artillery shells bound for England got sunk.

Our entire history is based on the very same sort of assholishness that goes on here at PD.

BEHOLD, THE POWER OF BUTTHURT!

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

But, fuck, why should anyone respond to attempts to communicate after being butthurt has served us so well this far.

If we ever reach the stars, it will be by the power of butthurt.

Hell, my entire country was formed from butthurt.

Truly it is a beautful thing.

Sure as hell is.

The Puritans moved here because they were butthurt that the crown wouldn't allow them to execute members of their own church.

We rebelled because we were butthurt that we didn't have a vote in parliament, obstensibly over a minor tax that nobody outside of Boston gave a shit about.

We then fought a monstrous civil war because the South was butthurt that Lincoln won the election (contrary to myth, he had pledged to leave the slavery issue alone).

Then we joined WWI because we were butthurt that a passenger liner full of artillery shells bound for England got sunk.

Our entire history is based on the very same sort of assholishness that goes on here at PD.

BEHOLD, THE POWER OF BUTTHURT!

but this needs to be taught in the schools. Seriously.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

But, fuck, why should anyone respond to attempts to communicate after being butthurt has served us so well this far.

If we ever reach the stars, it will be by the power of butthurt.

Hell, my entire country was formed from butthurt.

Truly it is a beautful thing.

Sure as hell is.

The Puritans moved here because they were butthurt that the crown wouldn't allow them to execute members of their own church.

We rebelled because we were butthurt that we didn't have a vote in parliament, obstensibly over a minor tax that nobody outside of Boston gave a shit about.

We then fought a monstrous civil war because the South was butthurt that Lincoln won the election (contrary to myth, he had pledged to leave the slavery issue alone).

Then we joined WWI because we were butthurt that a passenger liner full of artillery shells bound for England got sunk.

Our entire history is based on the very same sort of assholishness that goes on here at PD.

BEHOLD, THE POWER OF BUTTHURT!

but this needs to be taught in the schools. Seriously.

We went to the moon because we were butthurt that the Soviets beat us into space.  169% fact.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

But, fuck, why should anyone respond to attempts to communicate after being butthurt has served us so well this far.

If we ever reach the stars, it will be by the power of butthurt.

Hell, my entire country was formed from butthurt.

Truly it is a beautful thing.

Sure as hell is.

The Puritans moved here because they were butthurt that the crown wouldn't allow them to execute members of their own church.

We rebelled because we were butthurt that we didn't have a vote in parliament, obstensibly over a minor tax that nobody outside of Boston gave a shit about.

We then fought a monstrous civil war because the South was butthurt that Lincoln won the election (contrary to myth, he had pledged to leave the slavery issue alone).

Then we joined WWI because we were butthurt that a passenger liner full of artillery shells bound for England got sunk.

Our entire history is based on the very same sort of assholishness that goes on here at PD.

BEHOLD, THE POWER OF BUTTHURT!

but this needs to be taught in the schools. Seriously.

We went to the moon because we were butthurt that the Soviets beat us into space.  169% fact.

Yep. 

Everybody forgot they were allies in WWII. I was grown before I even heard they helped us liberate the camps. All you heard was "RUSSIA NO GOOD".

[Juana]

It's all pointless semantics and wankery if you ask me.  For fuck's sake, either people work together to right wrongs or they don't.  But if they DO step up to help out, who the fuck cares if they are a cis male, an svu male, whatever.  What fucking difference does it make?


Territorial pissings is what it amounts to in the end.  At least, that's what it has smelled like in this thread.

Heirarchies must be established, for we are primates.

In the beginning, this was about eglatarianism.  Now it's about who gets to have an opinion, and who doesn't.

Mmm, no. No one tried to limit who could have an opinion. Not even at the wankiest part of the thread was there UR A MAN U NO CAN HAS OPINION (it was, empathy yes, the actual living it, no, or "you're not actually allowed to tell a woman what it's like to be a woman and women need to lead the bits of third wave feminism specifically related to their causes and issues").

I also think I explained that I think we got knotted up on women's issues within feminism, but that doesn't invalidate the whole attempt by third-wave feminists to dismantle the kyriarchy that fucks us all up, whether that's making people think it's okay to keep pressing when she politely says no or building entire local economies on the jailing men of color at an astronomically absurd number.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

And you, Roger, you can't magically exist in a world where sexism doesn't affect you and your son and daughter, just by saying you don't identify with mainstream society. So the question is, what do you DO about it?

I actually do believe that a powerful way to change society is simply to talk.

What do I do about it?  I don't tolerate it.  I have taught my children not to tolerate it.  I learned the hard way that "No" is the most important tool to maintain your personal freedom.

Yes, it does impact me.  There is simply no question about this.  However, I fight every battle (when I realize that there is something to fight, which is another thing, entirely), I make no allowances, even for myself.

Example, and I'm not trying to brag, here, just saying:  After our discussion, I have retrofitted myself with an entirely different set of obscenities, and refuse to use the objectionable ones.  Why?  Because I do not tolerate sexism.

Do I win every battle?  No.  I'm not superman.  But I also won't allow myself to quit.

So there is no magical world, as you say.  But there is "No" and "SHUT UP" and "Take your bullshit and get out of my house."...And there is mockery.  That is also a tool that is quite useful in discouraging that sort of crap.

I am fortunate that my current job doesn't tolerate that sort of shit, either, at least - and this is really important - that I can see happening.  If it did, I'd either change that shit or get fired trying.

I think you're right in ALL of those ways. Yeah, it might seems small, but individuals changing the way they live (and talking about it) is how culture shift happens.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

That opens another can of worms that does need addressed, that is a very good question.
Are you your orientation? I think different groups of orientation feel this way. As gay being more and more accepted into society which is a big step at least in American Culture, means you have to put less importance on being gay. It requires less and less, over time, of "I'm gay yes, I've been fighting for my right to sleep with and love whoever I please and feel attacked constantly so I attack back."

Bingo.  If you're under attack, you'd BETTER band together in common cause.  But not just with your own subgroup.  An attack on one is an attack on all.  If I stand by while a Gay person or an Hispanic person or whatever is being mistreated, then I am complicit in the attack.

To ignore bad behavior is to condone it.  This includes - ESPECIALLY includes - behavior exhibited by people when the people they are targetting is not present.  That's when people develop bad information loops like racism, etc...If they are around the people they would target, then they are less likely to behave that way.  But when it's "just the boys" hanging around, you can reinforce a lot of bad behavior.

THIS!

Seconded.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

But since they DO exist, we do need things like feminism, the marches and what have you, as long as it stays educational and not empowerment.

I am by no means suggesting that people should not find common cause.  I am also not telling anyone to reject their identity, whether it be cis, Gay, whatever.  Instead, I am saying that people should not allow themselves to be defined by such a minor thing, and labels are just that.

And yes, this "minor" thing may not be very minor in the eyes of mainstream society.  But I do not identify in any way with mainstream society.  They are not on my side, so why should I be on theirs?

Leaving the effects of society aside, are you your orientation?  Are you your "race"?  Your gender?  Isn't that the same thing as becoming your job?

The thing is, it's really really hard to opt out of society. Human beings need societies. And this part of the conversation particularly makes me want to cry, because it's not like I can avoid discrimination, or rape, just by waving a magic wand and saying I don't recognize it.

Perhaps I didn't explain my position well enough.  What I meant by "not tolerating it" is that I control my environment to the best of my ability (We Holy Men™ call this "politics") to prevent these things from occurring.  It isn't always successful...I have lost a job on religious grounds (ie, I wasn't a Calvinist, and when the owner found out, I suddenly couldn't do anything right, and was fired after an argument on the subject).

As far as rape goes, I don't know what to say.  Nothing I do can prevent assault outside of my sphere of influence.  I term that a crime of violence, and there's nothing I can do with a label that will increase my ability to prevent it.  After all, "getting the word out" isn't going to keep some frat bastard from roofying up a drink or two.  If they were the kind of person that would listen, they wouldn't be doing that shit in the first place.  About the only thing I CAN do is not tolerate anyone trying to make it less serious of an issue as it is.  Inside my sphere of influence, there is no shortage of nasty things I can do, should the assault happen in my presence, etc.

So my question is, what can I do by recognizing it, that I'm not already doing?  This isn't an argument, it's an honest question.

In my opinion, basically, what we can all do by recognizing things that are fucked up and wrong is just kind of just what you said earlier about calling shit out that's wrong. Talking about things and not letting them be hidden or swept under the rug or ignored or tolerated just because they make people uncomfortable. I'm a big believer in talking about things, and maybe even shouting about things, especially if they're the kinds of things that make other people feel brave enough to start talking about if they hear you talking about them.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Correct me if need be but I think I'm typical cis because I'm a dude who thinks of himself as a dude. What I do with my jiggly bits or anything else is irrelevant.

Yeah, but what does that entail?  If it isn't to do with sexuality at all, and Nigel (I think) mentioned something about your brain matches up with social customs of the body you have, that just further confused me as to what it means. 

I am definitely a woman, and that's the body I have, but I'd rather act like the guys than a dainty little flower. I'd rather tell an attractive guy "Hey, guy, you want me to take you home and make you call me Daddy?"  I'd rather be curmudgeonly and smart as a whip than something to look at (meh at that) and Nicey McDoormat.

Part of it might be my own set of defense mechanisms, and part of it is that I don't feel feminine enough (by that I mean the standard of femininity in our culture, whatever the hell it means to be a woman) to act like a female.  So what does that make me?

If you're a woman, and you have a female body, then you're cis. Standards of femininity don't come into it (which is good, because they're a bit shit). A cisgender person is someone who identifies as they gender/sex they were assigned at birth.

So you're including the intersex babies who were maimed and ended up being mostly okay with the gender/sex they got?  I swear I'm not being obtuse on purpose, but you need to type slowly and with small words when you talk to me. I'm a bit dense when I don't grasp something.

I would. I recently read a book on the subject and that's what I got out of it, although there are still people who end up transitioning (either naturally, since sometimes people pretty much legit go through a sex change at puberty for a variety of complicated reasons*, or choose to later)

Yo dog, what is up with the asterisks with no footnote? I've seen it a few times now and it's driving me bonkers. I'm about to start reading it as  .

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I agree that forcing a kid into a perceived gender when they have the faculty to start choosing that for themselves is dead wrong, but what are we supposed to do for the first couple years, call it "it?"

My default is that you treat the kid as the gender that they are born with, until they tell you otherwise.

They aren't really born with a "gender", they are born with a "sex".

Interestingly enough, until around shortly after the turn of the 20th century, children in America were dressed in unisex smocks and commonly referred to as "it" until they were three or four.

Even within our own culture, people have not always been so strongly gender-binary. In some other cultures, there are more than two genders. We tend to think of it as completely normal to think of gender as inextricably connected to sex, but it isn't really.

There is nothing inherently wrong with social constructs. We need them, as a society. But they aren't usually perfect, and over time may outlast their usefulness within the changing framework of a living culture.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

A lot of the time, I agree that the doctors are overstepping their bounds. Medical ethics right now doesn't even require that a doctor consult the parents about what to do with the baby. Which is ridiculous and wrong and I would sue the shit out of a hospital that gave my kid radical surgery without even fucking ASKING me what I wanted to do about it.

OK, no. What source did you get that information from? It's flat-out false, and I would use that to red-flag everything else from that source.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

So you'd say no to surgery? That doesn't always work out well, in terms of the kid being happy as an adult.

No? I only just heard of it, it sounds pretty serious, so obviously something would have to be done just to fix the problem. Also being sexless would make for a miserable childhood because everyone would exclude you.

I would disagree. How often did other kids ask you to verify your sex before playing with you?