Principia Discordia

Principia Discordia => Two vast and trunkless legs of stone => Topic started by: Pope Pixie Pickle on August 07, 2012, 11:33:24 AM

Title: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pope Pixie Pickle on August 07, 2012, 11:33:24 AM
Ok, so Cain made a point about feminist theory and then The Squick Master tried to make a thread about it, which got ignored because he's The Squick Master.

I totally still want to discuss it, so I'm starting this thread so we can discuss it without the squicky feeling that comes from being involved in any way with BH.

Cain's point was that in feminist theory, a patriarchal society constrains men too.

I can think of one or two instances right now- Custody battles for kids seem to favour women. Even when you factor out the violent and abusive guys, a lot of the time unless the mother is seriously abusive, or seriously mentally ill, a lot of custody battles favour women.  I've heard anecdotes of single dads being given none of the considerations of single mums when it comes to flexibility and work-related situations, however I don't have any data on it (mostly because I haven't looked).

Another thing I wanted to point out is the attitudes towards tomboyish girls, and how that seems totally fine in our culture, yet when a boy shows interest in more stereotypically feminine pursuits, it's a massive taboo. For a male in the west to be told he's "like a girl" is a massive insult.  I think that homophobia comes from this fear of being feminine whilst male in our society.  This means that women have more scope to express themselves in whatever part of the gender binary spectrum than men do.



Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 07, 2012, 01:48:57 PM
Har!

In Arizona, custody is separate from child support (meaning deadbeat dad pays nothing, still gets to see the kids), and the amount of child support granted is GARBAGE in the first place.

In Arizona, in fact, there are NO disadvantages to being a male in a patriarchy.  None.

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Placid Dingo on August 07, 2012, 02:36:14 PM
I don't have many thought of my own just yet but this is related.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120696816

Edit: The italics.
I totally do have original thoughts. I do, I swear.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: LMNO on August 07, 2012, 02:45:12 PM
They only other thing that comes to mind is that in a similar way that young female minds are warped to fit a patriarchal society's view of them as lesser creatures, young male minds are warped to treat them as such; and in developmental social environments where peer pressure and conformity tends to play a large part, a young male might suffer if they treat a female as an equal.

Such an environment also appeals to a pack dominance/power mentality, and enforces the idea of the "other" as a negative -- which could establish a foundation of xenophobia in general for males.


But let me say that these pale in comparison to the damage done to females.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Faust on August 07, 2012, 03:10:32 PM
There is a stigma on guys to be with a certain type of girl.

I've known plenty of guys who just couldn't fathom guys going out with punk/goth/metal girls.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 07, 2012, 03:34:26 PM
Please don't rely on anecdotal data regarding custody issues. In the US, custody is overall overwhelmingly awarded to the mothers, but when you filter it to include only the cases where the father tried to get custody, it is overwhelmingly awarded to the fathers.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Faust on August 07, 2012, 03:37:48 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 07, 2012, 03:34:26 PM
Please don't rely on anecdotal data regarding custody issues. In the US, custody is overall overwhelmingly awarded to the mothers, but when you filter it to include only the cases where the father tried to get custody, it is overwhelmingly awarded to the fathers.

Do you have the birth cert law, In Ireland a woman doesn't have to name the father on the birth cert. This automatically disqualifies him from any rights whatsoever. I'm fairly certain the EU is forcing us to get that law but it seemed pretty mad to me.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 07, 2012, 03:39:11 PM
I would say that something Alty mentioned, albeit not in this context, that is a symptom of how patriarchy oppresses males, is that if a man falls or appears to fall outside of his expected role in patriarchy, ie. "too feminine", he is in danger of being taunted, ostracised, or assaulted.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 07, 2012, 03:44:45 PM
Quote from: Faust on August 07, 2012, 03:37:48 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 07, 2012, 03:34:26 PM
Please don't rely on anecdotal data regarding custody issues. In the US, custody is overall overwhelmingly awarded to the mothers, but when you filter it to include only the cases where the father tried to get custody, it is overwhelmingly awarded to the fathers.

Do you have the birth cert law, In Ireland a woman doesn't have to name the father on the birth cert. This automatically disqualifies him from any rights whatsoever. I'm fairly certain the EU is forcing us to get that law but it seemed pretty mad to me.

Likewise is true in the US; however, a man may file for paternity at any time, and it's not an expensive process. I believe that in most states here, if the father is in the birth center at the time of birth and claims paternity, his name will be placed on the birth record.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Faust on August 07, 2012, 03:47:33 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 07, 2012, 03:44:45 PM
Quote from: Faust on August 07, 2012, 03:37:48 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 07, 2012, 03:34:26 PM
Please don't rely on anecdotal data regarding custody issues. In the US, custody is overall overwhelmingly awarded to the mothers, but when you filter it to include only the cases where the father tried to get custody, it is overwhelmingly awarded to the fathers.

Do you have the birth cert law, In Ireland a woman doesn't have to name the father on the birth cert. This automatically disqualifies him from any rights whatsoever. I'm fairly certain the EU is forcing us to get that law but it seemed pretty mad to me.

Likewise is true in the US; however, a man may file for paternity at any time, and it's not an expensive process. I believe that in most states here, if the father is in the birth center at the time of birth and claims paternity, his name will be placed on the birth record.

Here you need to have the name on the birth cert to file for paternity, visitation, etc. But I wen't looking and it seems this is a human rights violation according to the EU so it being revised as fast as possible.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 07, 2012, 03:53:47 PM
Quote from: Faust on August 07, 2012, 03:47:33 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 07, 2012, 03:44:45 PM
Quote from: Faust on August 07, 2012, 03:37:48 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 07, 2012, 03:34:26 PM
Please don't rely on anecdotal data regarding custody issues. In the US, custody is overall overwhelmingly awarded to the mothers, but when you filter it to include only the cases where the father tried to get custody, it is overwhelmingly awarded to the fathers.

Do you have the birth cert law, In Ireland a woman doesn't have to name the father on the birth cert. This automatically disqualifies him from any rights whatsoever. I'm fairly certain the EU is forcing us to get that law but it seemed pretty mad to me.

Likewise is true in the US; however, a man may file for paternity at any time, and it's not an expensive process. I believe that in most states here, if the father is in the birth center at the time of birth and claims paternity, his name will be placed on the birth record.

Here you need to have the name on the birth cert to file for paternity, visitation, etc. But I wen't looking and it seems this is a human rights violation according to the EU so it being revised as fast as possible.

Wow, yeah, that's totally bullshit and I'm glad it's being rectified.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 07, 2012, 04:28:11 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 07, 2012, 03:39:11 PM
I would say that something Alty mentioned, albeit not in this context, that is a symptom of how patriarchy oppresses males, is that if a man falls or appears to fall outside of his expected role in patriarchy, ie. "too feminine", he is in danger of being taunted, ostracised, or assaulted.

That's when it's time to choke a motherfucker.

I once watched some yahoo decide that it would be a good idea to mock/harrass 3 transvestites on the street.  It wasn't pretty.

In any case, the man in question has one option that women don't have...IE, he can put on an act, and drop right off the radar.  Not saying that he should ever HAVE to, just that he has a method closed to women.

I don't agree that patriarchies are any real burden on men, at least on the whole.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 07, 2012, 05:07:12 PM
Look, being a man in a man's world is really simple, if you know The Rules.

Quote from: Rashneesh Uday SalizorAmong my people, you would be called a Sleep Talker, because you say to be blind to the nature world. To have the boner is a man way to be.  All the person have the poop, and it is good to have the poop. Do you not have the poop?  I think maybe so not.  It tell many about you, that you maybe so not have the good poop.  The poop have the spirit and the power in it.  You talk in child way, to have fears of the poop power spirit.  Sing to the poop power spirit to have the good poop and not fear of that. I will sing for you to have the good poop.  Then you can have the power and the life in the man way.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Salty on August 07, 2012, 05:44:15 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 04:28:11 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 07, 2012, 03:39:11 PM
I would say that something Alty mentioned, albeit not in this context, that is a symptom of how patriarchy oppresses males, is that if a man falls or appears to fall outside of his expected role in patriarchy, ie. "too feminine", he is in danger of being taunted, ostracised, or assaulted.

That's when it's time to choke a motherfucker.

I once watched some yahoo decide that it would be a good idea to mock/harrass 3 transvestites on the street.  It wasn't pretty.

In any case, the man in question has one option that women don't have...IE, he can put on an act, and drop right off the radar.  Not saying that he should ever HAVE to, just that he has a method closed to women.

I don't agree that patriarchies are any real burden on men, at least on the whole.

Some men can do this. I can run right along those kind of gender lines. Some men can't. There have been, and always will be, those who cannot confine of warp themselves to gender roles. There are men who are physically more likely to pass as a straight female than they ever could as any kind of male, as far as prescribed gender roles go. The same goes for some women who express themselves as male. Some body types and mannerisms can't be hidden. And these people were once completely cast out of society because they could not fit the mold.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Salty on August 07, 2012, 05:48:21 PM
Also, I would argue that due to an ever constant fear or rape or assault present in many women, it makes it difficult for men to just be people around women, at times. I've started to notice recently just how many women refuse to make eye contact while walking, or even biking in public. This isn't so much harm to men in our society as much as its a shame. For example: I am totally fucking harmless. I'm still a pacifist at heart. And yet I evoke this same reaction because I am a guy. Again, this is less a tragedy and more a damned shame that women have to live in such fear without the ability to tell who is harmless and who is not.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: CarvedWood on August 07, 2012, 05:54:52 PM
It's going to be difficult to discuss this topic in any meaningful way if every post is pussyfooting around the subject because no one wants to be seen as someone who could mistakenly think that it's not harder for women.  Can we all just agree that this is true, without having to add disclaimers, or come at the topic sideways?
I, at least, have no intention of skewing everything I post on this topic in the hopes that I don't get jumped on for being anti-feminist.  If you believe that of me, fuck you, you're retarded.


I remember watching an episode of "Wife Swap," in which one of the wives that was swapped, was an executive.  She was the breadwinner of the family, and had a househusband to take care of the home and their daughter.  She was swapped with a wife that was a "traditional" homemaker. 
Wife #2 had a husband that was the breadwinner, they had several kids, the wife had some sort of stay-at-home job at the same time she took care of the house, meals, and kids.  It was also quite obvious that she took pride in her role, and although her husband seemed equally stuck in his gender-role, it was also obvious that the wife was largely responsible for his attitude.  This was proven when the first wife forced him to start taking on more responsibilities in the household, like dealing with the kids.  He took to nurturing pretty well, for someone who'd never been allowed to do it before, and surprised himself.  It was something that he and his wife, in equal measure, had been denying him all that time, just because of their strict adherence to their gender roles.

Wife #2, however, made Husband #1's life miserable.  Wife #1 was a successful businesswoman, bringing home plenty of money, and the househusband was a damned good nurturer who totally had his shit together.  Then along comes Wife #2, with her "traditional values" and her strict gender roles, and tried to force him to leave the house and get a job.  She even arranged, through the network, interviews and a job, get this, doing manual labor as a janitor.  Seriously, she made him get a job cleaning lockers and shit.  And he wasn't having it.  I don't blame him - some strange woman is taking care of his house, his daughter, and he's out earning minimum wage at a menial labor job that he didn't need because his wife was bringing home the whole damn pig, not just some bacon?  I'd be pissed about that, too.  He wasn't stupid, or lazy, even though that woman was trying to make him feel that way; he wouldn't have been a failure in the job market, he was just better at being a homemaker.
I seriously hated Wife #2 by the end of the show.  I believe in giving credit where it's due, and giving blame where it's due, as well.  It's hard for me to blame "patriarchy" for a person like her, who helped her husband deny his need to nurture because she hogged that role for herself, who then turns around and tries to do the same thing to someone else's family.

Househusbands are an area where it's obvious to see that patriarchy hurts men as well as women.  Bad enough that society wants to deny a woman the right to a successful career, but let's face it, some men are better at nurturing than the women they marry.  Even in a family where the husband and wife are completely in accord in their flipped roles, where each of them is successful and happy doing what they do, society wants to come along and call that man a weakling, lazy, stupid, not good enough to make it in a career.  But he IS making a career - as a homemaker. 

If a man cooks food outside of the home, he's a chef; if he does it inside the home, he's stupid.  If a man cleans outside of the home, he's a "janitor" or "custodian," but if he does it inside the home, he's lazy.  If a man nurtures a child outside the home, he's a teacher, a nurse, a care-giver; if he does it inside the home, for his own kid, he's weak.
WTF?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on August 07, 2012, 05:57:35 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 01:48:57 PM
Har!

In Arizona, custody is separate from child support (meaning deadbeat dad pays nothing, still gets to see the kids), and the amount of child support granted is GARBAGE in the first place.

In Arizona, in fact, there are NO disadvantages to being a male in a patriarchy.  None.



In fact I disagree with this conclusion. My brother, who is neither a deadbeat nor a drug addict with so few teeth they had to invent a new real number under zero just to count them, both of which describe his currently estranged spouse with undeserved generosity, is currently fighting The Man for custody of his kids, despite repeated proofs of her unfitness to parent (or live, for that matter). Apparently the act of being female entitles a person to certain advantages in the child-custody industry, and can atone for a plethora of personal shortcomings and character flaws. The judge admits as much with his ignorant use of such phrases as "children should always know their mother, regardless of the mistakes she has made."
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 07, 2012, 06:04:17 PM
Quote from: CarvedWood on August 07, 2012, 05:54:52 PM
It's going to be difficult to discuss this topic in any meaningful way if every post is pussyfooting around the subject because no one wants to be seen as someone who could mistakenly think that it's not harder for women.  Can we all just agree that this is true, without having to add disclaimers, or come at the topic sideways?
I, at least, have no intention of skewing everything I post on this topic in the hopes that I don't get jumped on for being anti-feminist.  If you believe that of me, fuck you, you're retarded.


I remember watching an episode of "Wife Swap," in which one of the wives that was swapped, was an executive.  She was the breadwinner of the family, and had a househusband to take care of the home and their daughter.  She was swapped with a wife that was a "traditional" homemaker. 
Wife #2 had a husband that was the breadwinner, they had several kids, the wife had some sort of stay-at-home job at the same time she took care of the house, meals, and kids.  It was also quite obvious that she took pride in her role, and although her husband seemed equally stuck in his gender-role, it was also obvious that the wife was largely responsible for his attitude.  This was proven when the first wife forced him to start taking on more responsibilities in the household, like dealing with the kids.  He took to nurturing pretty well, for someone who'd never been allowed to do it before, and surprised himself.  It was something that he and his wife, in equal measure, had been denying him all that time, just because of their strict adherence to their gender roles.

Wife #2, however, made Husband #1's life miserable.  Wife #1 was a successful businesswoman, bringing home plenty of money, and the househusband was a damned good nurturer who totally had his shit together.  Then along comes Wife #2, with her "traditional values" and her strict gender roles, and tried to force him to leave the house and get a job.  She even arranged, through the network, interviews and a job, get this, doing manual labor as a janitor.  Seriously, she made him get a job cleaning lockers and shit.  And he wasn't having it.  I don't blame him - some strange woman is taking care of his house, his daughter, and he's out earning minimum wage at a menial labor job that he didn't need because his wife was bringing home the whole damn pig, not just some bacon?  I'd be pissed about that, too.  He wasn't stupid, or lazy, even though that woman was trying to make him feel that way; he wouldn't have been a failure in the job market, he was just better at being a homemaker.
I seriously hated Wife #2 by the end of the show.  I believe in giving credit where it's due, and giving blame where it's due, as well.  It's hard for me to blame "patriarchy" for a person like her, who helped her husband deny his need to nurture because she hogged that role for herself, who then turns around and tries to do the same thing to someone else's family.

Househusbands are an area where it's obvious to see that patriarchy hurts men as well as women.  Bad enough that society wants to deny a woman the right to a successful career, but let's face it, some men are better at nurturing than the women they marry.  Even in a family where the husband and wife are completely in accord in their flipped roles, where each of them is successful and happy doing what they do, society wants to come along and call that man a weakling, lazy, stupid, not good enough to make it in a career.  But he IS making a career - as a homemaker. 

If a man cooks food outside of the home, he's a chef; if he does it inside the home, he's stupid.  If a man cleans outside of the home, he's a "janitor" or "custodian," but if he does it inside the home, he's lazy.  If a man nurtures a child outside the home, he's a teacher, a nurse, a care-giver; if he does it inside the home, for his own kid, he's weak.
WTF?

I don't see that, an example from "reality" teevee notwithstanding.  My father did and does all the cooking in his household, and that's going back to the 60s.  My brother in law cooks like a mad bastard.  And I can't remember the last time I saw a man embarrassed to change his child's diaper in the restroom on one of those "Koala" tables (whomever thought that up should be fucking sainted).

And I haven't made any disclaimers.  I've called them as I've seen them.  Hell, even Gay men don't have it so rough anymore - and let me stress this last part - in Tucson.  Can't speak for anywhere else, except of course for the glaring counter-example up in the greater Phoenix area, and even THAT isn't that bad.

So, yeah, let's talk about how hard it is to be a guy in the patriarchy.  I get paid, on average, 20% more than a female doing the same level of work.  Waiters look at ME when it's my wife's turn to order, like she's some kind of retard.  They rarely do that twice, it should be noted, for Jenne takes no shit.  Mechanics at the Brakemax don't talk to me like I'm thick-witted, as they do to women who are there to pick up their cars.  I can walk into a job interview for a technical job, and get the job even if there's a woman applying who knows twice as much as me, because A) "guys are more technically-oriented" (actually heard our assistant plant manager say this, for which, granted, he was reprimanded), and B) I won't get pregnant and "goof off for 7-9 months" (heard that one, too).

So, I gotta say, speaking solely from my own experience and observations, the patriarchy isn't exactly Keeping Me Down.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Salty on August 07, 2012, 06:15:23 PM
CW: that shit starts at home. If you don't want to see pussyfooting perhaps you should call out exactly what you see that's hindering this discussion instead of making vague accusations.

I don't know if you were talking about my posts, and if you are I have no problem them being put into question. But it's kind of hard to tell since, you know...
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 07, 2012, 06:32:37 PM
I second Alty regarding wife number two; gender roles are set by men (and the "woman stays at home" is relatively recent and, random historical fact of the day, courtesy of the Dutch).

The patriarchy is what stereotypes men as, basically, cavemen incapable of controlling themselves, who think exclusively with their dicks (which, coincidely links into rape culture, since women/females are supposed to know this and take care if ourselves accordingly).
Feminism holds you to be capable of being more than that.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: CarvedWood on August 07, 2012, 06:33:49 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 06:04:17 PM
Quote from: CarvedWood on August 07, 2012, 05:54:52 PM
It's going to be difficult to discuss this topic in any meaningful way if every post is pussyfooting around the subject because no one wants to be seen as someone who could mistakenly think that it's not harder for women.  Can we all just agree that this is true, without having to add disclaimers, or come at the topic sideways?
I, at least, have no intention of skewing everything I post on this topic in the hopes that I don't get jumped on for being anti-feminist.  If you believe that of me, fuck you, you're retarded.


I remember watching an episode of "Wife Swap," in which one of the wives that was swapped, was an executive.  She was the breadwinner of the family, and had a househusband to take care of the home and their daughter.  She was swapped with a wife that was a "traditional" homemaker. 
Wife #2 had a husband that was the breadwinner, they had several kids, the wife had some sort of stay-at-home job at the same time she took care of the house, meals, and kids.  It was also quite obvious that she took pride in her role, and although her husband seemed equally stuck in his gender-role, it was also obvious that the wife was largely responsible for his attitude.  This was proven when the first wife forced him to start taking on more responsibilities in the household, like dealing with the kids.  He took to nurturing pretty well, for someone who'd never been allowed to do it before, and surprised himself.  It was something that he and his wife, in equal measure, had been denying him all that time, just because of their strict adherence to their gender roles.

Wife #2, however, made Husband #1's life miserable.  Wife #1 was a successful businesswoman, bringing home plenty of money, and the househusband was a damned good nurturer who totally had his shit together.  Then along comes Wife #2, with her "traditional values" and her strict gender roles, and tried to force him to leave the house and get a job.  She even arranged, through the network, interviews and a job, get this, doing manual labor as a janitor.  Seriously, she made him get a job cleaning lockers and shit.  And he wasn't having it.  I don't blame him - some strange woman is taking care of his house, his daughter, and he's out earning minimum wage at a menial labor job that he didn't need because his wife was bringing home the whole damn pig, not just some bacon?  I'd be pissed about that, too.  He wasn't stupid, or lazy, even though that woman was trying to make him feel that way; he wouldn't have been a failure in the job market, he was just better at being a homemaker.
I seriously hated Wife #2 by the end of the show.  I believe in giving credit where it's due, and giving blame where it's due, as well.  It's hard for me to blame "patriarchy" for a person like her, who helped her husband deny his need to nurture because she hogged that role for herself, who then turns around and tries to do the same thing to someone else's family.

Househusbands are an area where it's obvious to see that patriarchy hurts men as well as women.  Bad enough that society wants to deny a woman the right to a successful career, but let's face it, some men are better at nurturing than the women they marry.  Even in a family where the husband and wife are completely in accord in their flipped roles, where each of them is successful and happy doing what they do, society wants to come along and call that man a weakling, lazy, stupid, not good enough to make it in a career.  But he IS making a career - as a homemaker. 

If a man cooks food outside of the home, he's a chef; if he does it inside the home, he's stupid.  If a man cleans outside of the home, he's a "janitor" or "custodian," but if he does it inside the home, he's lazy.  If a man nurtures a child outside the home, he's a teacher, a nurse, a care-giver; if he does it inside the home, for his own kid, he's weak.
WTF?

I don't see that, an example from "reality" teevee notwithstanding.  My father did and does all the cooking in his household, and that's going back to the 60s.  My brother in law cooks like a mad bastard.  And I can't remember the last time I saw a man embarrassed to change his child's diaper in the restroom on one of those "Koala" tables (whomever thought that up should be fucking sainted).

And I haven't made any disclaimers.  I've called them as I've seen them.  Hell, even Gay men don't have it so rough anymore - and let me stress this last part - in Tucson.  Can't speak for anywhere else, except of course for the glaring counter-example up in the greater Phoenix area, and even THAT isn't that bad.

So, yeah, let's talk about how hard it is to be a guy in the patriarchy.  I get paid, on average, 20% more than a female doing the same level of work.  Waiters look at ME when it's my wife's turn to order, like she's some kind of retard.  They rarely do that twice, it should be noted, for Jenne takes no shit.  Mechanics at the Brakemax don't talk to me like I'm thick-witted, as they do to women who are there to pick up their cars.  I can walk into a job interview for a technical job, and get the job even if there's a woman applying who knows twice as much as me, because A) "guys are more technically-oriented" (actually heard our assistant plant manager say this, for which, granted, he was reprimanded), and B) I won't get pregnant and "goof off for 7-9 months" (heard that one, too).

So, I gotta say, speaking solely from my own experience and observations, the patriarchy isn't exactly Keeping Me Down.

Did you miss the part where I said "househusband?"  Unless you, your dad, and your brother-in-law are stay-at-home dads.  If they are, you need to say so, because I didn't opt for the telepathy upgrade along with the IE9.  If not, then they're not valid examples.  If you have a job AND you cook, that just makes you "accomplished."
I have a nephew who is a stay-at-home dad.  Everyone gives him shit for this, says he's stupid and lazy.  And he's had to fight this prejudice since the beginning of his family.  His wife sucks at homemaking, and, although they would be better off financially if he had a job, it's a proven fact that everytime he's left the home to go to work, his household takes a sharp turn for the worse. 
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: CarvedWood on August 07, 2012, 06:41:41 PM
Quote from: Just Alty, Actually. on August 07, 2012, 06:15:23 PM
CW: that shit starts at home. If you don't want to see pussyfooting perhaps you should call out exactly what you see that's hindering this discussion instead of making vague accusations.

I don't know if you were talking about my posts, and if you are I have no problem them being put into question. But it's kind of hard to tell since, you know...

... Are you going to want me to go back to every single post that's already been made?  Because, one, that's more effort than I care to put in, which is why I was vague to begin with, and two, if you don't see it already, you're not going to see it even if I grabbed you by the scruff of your neck and rubbed your nose in it.
If you think I'm talking about your posts, then you have a choice: ignore what I said, or take a second look at your posts and make up your own mind. 
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 07, 2012, 06:44:59 PM
Quote from: CarvedWood on August 07, 2012, 06:33:49 PM
Did you miss the part where I said "househusband?"  Unless you, your dad, and your brother-in-law are stay-at-home dads.  If they are, you need to say so, because I didn't opt for the telepathy upgrade along with the IE9.  If not, then they're not valid examples.  If you have a job AND you cook, that just makes you "accomplished."

My brother in law is a house-husband (he works a job as well, but from home, and his wife works outside of the house), and this is considered to be admirable by his very-conservative relatives.

Quote from: CarvedWood on August 07, 2012, 06:33:49 PM
I have a nephew who is a stay-at-home dad.  Everyone gives him shit for this, says he's stupid and lazy.  And he's had to fight this prejudice since the beginning of his family.  His wife sucks at homemaking, and, although they would be better off financially if he had a job, it's a proven fact that everytime he's left the home to go to work, his household takes a sharp turn for the worse.

We're both arguing from anecdotes here.  What I've seen is very different from what you've seen, which is yet more proof that anecdotes aren't evidence (and neither, I might add, are reality TV shows) for either of our positions.

And your nephew needs to choke some people, and so does his wife.  It is possible that he just has ass-monkeys for relatives, or perhaps there IS an ingrained culture in your area which causes/allows this shit.  Putting up with it is a different story.

If the house is clean, the bills are paid, and kids - if any - are healthy, then everything is fine, and your nephew and his wife should lay in a spare pair of boots, because they should be wearing out their boots by kicking people in the ass.



Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 07, 2012, 06:45:45 PM
Quote from: CarvedWood on August 07, 2012, 06:41:41 PM
... Are you going to want me to go back to every single post that's already been made?  Because, one, that's more effort than I care to put in, which is why I was vague to begin with, and two, if you don't see it already, you're not going to see it even if I grabbed you by the scruff of your neck and rubbed your nose in it.

So, what you're saying here is that we're doin' it wrong?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Salty on August 07, 2012, 06:47:46 PM
Quote from: CarvedWood on August 07, 2012, 06:41:41 PM
Quote from: Just Alty, Actually. on August 07, 2012, 06:15:23 PM
CW: that shit starts at home. If you don't want to see pussyfooting perhaps you should call out exactly what you see that's hindering this discussion instead of making vague accusations.

I don't know if you were talking about my posts, and if you are I have no problem them being put into question. But it's kind of hard to tell since, you know...

... Are you going to want me to go back to every single post that's already been made?  Because, one, that's more effort than I care to put in, which is why I was vague to begin with, and two, if you don't see it already, you're not going to see it even if I grabbed you by the scruff of your neck and rubbed your nose in it.
If you think I'm talking about your posts, then you have a choice: ignore what I said, or take a second look at your posts and make up your own mind.

Ah. So, we don't even need to discuss any of this, or can't because even if we did I certainly wouldn't get it because I don't already. Congrats on furthering the discussion, finally.

An example would have been nice. I don't know why you're being so passive-aggressive and I don't care. I'm just going to ignore your posts since I'm incapable of understanding them anyway.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: CarvedWood on August 07, 2012, 06:47:57 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 07, 2012, 06:32:37 PM
I second Alty regarding wife number two; gender roles are set by men (and the "woman stays at home" is relatively recent and, random historical fact of the day, courtesy of the Dutch).

The patriarchy is what stereotypes men as, basically, cavemen incapable of controlling themselves, who think exclusively with their dicks (which, coincidely links into rape culture, since women/females are supposed to know this and take care if ourselves accordingly).
Feminism holds you to be capable of being more than that.

Seriously?  In an example that gives two women, one who bucked the gender stereotype and was successful, the other who chose to embrace the stereotype, you're still going to absolve Wife#2 of any blame for the harm she was doing her family, and continue to blame the patriarchy?  OMG, what does a woman have to do to get credit for her own fuckups?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: CarvedWood on August 07, 2012, 06:50:28 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 06:45:45 PM
Quote from: CarvedWood on August 07, 2012, 06:41:41 PM
... Are you going to want me to go back to every single post that's already been made?  Because, one, that's more effort than I care to put in, which is why I was vague to begin with, and two, if you don't see it already, you're not going to see it even if I grabbed you by the scruff of your neck and rubbed your nose in it.

So, what you're saying here is that we're doin' it wrong?

Yes.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 07, 2012, 06:52:54 PM
Quote from: CarvedWood on August 07, 2012, 06:50:28 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 06:45:45 PM
Quote from: CarvedWood on August 07, 2012, 06:41:41 PM
... Are you going to want me to go back to every single post that's already been made?  Because, one, that's more effort than I care to put in, which is why I was vague to begin with, and two, if you don't see it already, you're not going to see it even if I grabbed you by the scruff of your neck and rubbed your nose in it.

So, what you're saying here is that we're doin' it wrong?

Yes.

Oh, okay.  Well, I guess I'll follow Alty's example and bail on your portion of the conversation then.  I'd hate to offend your sense of standards and all.

Enjoy.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: LMNO on August 07, 2012, 06:54:37 PM
Incidentally, I'll cop to couching my observations in relativism.  Because, you know, saying that it's tough that a nice guy has to deal with the fact that a womam he's just met will sometimes see him as a potential threat before any other information about him is known, sounds pretty petty if you don't acknowledge that actually getting raped is much, much worse; even if you argue that since rapists statistically know their victims in a significantly much higher percentage, a woman should be more worried about the men they know rather than the men they don't.

It just sounds douchey, and it has the potential to derail the thread.

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 07, 2012, 06:56:04 PM
Quote from: CarvedWood on August 07, 2012, 06:47:57 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 07, 2012, 06:32:37 PM
I second Alty regarding wife number two; gender roles are set by men (and the "woman stays at home" is relatively recent and, random historical fact of the day, courtesy of the Dutch).

The patriarchy is what stereotypes men as, basically, cavemen incapable of controlling themselves, who think exclusively with their dicks (which, coincidely links into rape culture, since women/females are supposed to know this and take care if ourselves accordingly).
Feminism holds you to be capable of being more than that.

Seriously?  In an example that gives two women, one who bucked the gender stereotype and was successful, the other who chose to embrace the stereotype, you're still going to absolve Wife#2 of any blame for the harm she was doing her family, and continue to blame the patriarchy?  OMG, what does a woman have to do to get credit for her own fuckups?
Dude, chill. No one is attacking you. *Her* expectation that househusband get a job and shit is the result of patriarchal expectations and gender roles. Is it her fault for not putting the well-being of the first househusband above her expectation? Yes. She should see that it works better for them like this. Was it her fault for preventing her own husband from nuturing his kids? Yes. And it's grossly unfair for her to do so. But, again, those expectations of hers resulted from traditional, patriarchal gender roles.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: CarvedWood on August 07, 2012, 06:57:22 PM
Quote from: Just Alty, Actually. on August 07, 2012, 06:47:46 PM
Quote from: CarvedWood on August 07, 2012, 06:41:41 PM
Quote from: Just Alty, Actually. on August 07, 2012, 06:15:23 PM
CW: that shit starts at home. If you don't want to see pussyfooting perhaps you should call out exactly what you see that's hindering this discussion instead of making vague accusations.

I don't know if you were talking about my posts, and if you are I have no problem them being put into question. But it's kind of hard to tell since, you know...

... Are you going to want me to go back to every single post that's already been made?  Because, one, that's more effort than I care to put in, which is why I was vague to begin with, and two, if you don't see it already, you're not going to see it even if I grabbed you by the scruff of your neck and rubbed your nose in it.
If you think I'm talking about your posts, then you have a choice: ignore what I said, or take a second look at your posts and make up your own mind.

Ah. So, we don't even need to discuss any of this, or can't because even if we did I certainly wouldn't get it because I don't already. Congrats on furthering the discussion, finally.

An example would have been nice. I don't know why you're being so passive-aggressive and I don't care. I'm just going to ignore your posts since I'm incapable of understanding them anyway.

OMFG, why is my passive-agressiveness offensive, but your defensiveness is ok?  Why should I have to put someone else on blast to assure you that you're not doing something wrong? 
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: CarvedWood on August 07, 2012, 07:05:14 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 07, 2012, 06:56:04 PM
Quote from: CarvedWood on August 07, 2012, 06:47:57 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 07, 2012, 06:32:37 PM
I second Alty regarding wife number two; gender roles are set by men (and the "woman stays at home" is relatively recent and, random historical fact of the day, courtesy of the Dutch).

The patriarchy is what stereotypes men as, basically, cavemen incapable of controlling themselves, who think exclusively with their dicks (which, coincidely links into rape culture, since women/females are supposed to know this and take care if ourselves accordingly).
Feminism holds you to be capable of being more than that.

Seriously?  In an example that gives two women, one who bucked the gender stereotype and was successful, the other who chose to embrace the stereotype, you're still going to absolve Wife#2 of any blame for the harm she was doing her family, and continue to blame the patriarchy?  OMG, what does a woman have to do to get credit for her own fuckups?
Dude, chill. No one is attacking you. *Her* expectation that househusband get a job and shit is the result of patriarchal expectations and gender roles. Is it her fault for not putting the well-being of the first househusband above her expectation? Yes. She should see that it works better for them like this. Was it her fault for preventing her own husband from nuturing his kids? Yes. And it's grossly unfair for her to do so. But, again, those expectations of hers resulted from traditional, patriarchal gender roles.

But she should be able to rise above the expectations of that patriarchy.  At some point, she has to stop sitting on her ass waiting to be given responsbility over her own life, and take it, instead. 
I'm a strong woman who thinks for herself.  The patriarchy might be to blame for how hard I have to struggle to be me, but it's not to blame if I give up.  And it's not to blame if I choose to embrace it instead.
And if one woman can rise above the patriarchy, it's not the patriarchy's fault if other women believe the lies they're told.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Salty on August 07, 2012, 07:05:47 PM
For me a lot of this goes back to the ally part that men (can) play in these issues. But it's foolish to think that men can ONLY be allies and never experience what women experience. OF COURSE men don't experience the same things women do.

But this is why I rally for queer people to stop bickering amongst one another. And certainly women and queer people should realize the fight is the same. The standards, such as they are in the 21st century, set clear lines.

to say  That women are on the "other" side of that line all the time is one thing. To say that men never are is something else.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: CarvedWood on August 07, 2012, 07:08:44 PM
Quote from: CarvedWood on August 07, 2012, 07:05:14 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 07, 2012, 06:56:04 PM
Quote from: CarvedWood on August 07, 2012, 06:47:57 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 07, 2012, 06:32:37 PM
I second Alty regarding wife number two; gender roles are set by men (and the "woman stays at home" is relatively recent and, random historical fact of the day, courtesy of the Dutch).

The patriarchy is what stereotypes men as, basically, cavemen incapable of controlling themselves, who think exclusively with their dicks (which, coincidely links into rape culture, since women/females are supposed to know this and take care if ourselves accordingly).
Feminism holds you to be capable of being more than that.

Seriously?  In an example that gives two women, one who bucked the gender stereotype and was successful, the other who chose to embrace the stereotype, you're still going to absolve Wife#2 of any blame for the harm she was doing her family, and continue to blame the patriarchy?  OMG, what does a woman have to do to get credit for her own fuckups?
Dude, chill. No one is attacking you. *Her* expectation that househusband get a job and shit is the result of patriarchal expectations and gender roles. Is it her fault for not putting the well-being of the first househusband above her expectation? Yes. She should see that it works better for them like this. Was it her fault for preventing her own husband from nuturing his kids? Yes. And it's grossly unfair for her to do so. But, again, those expectations of hers resulted from traditional, patriarchal gender roles.

But she should be able to rise above the expectations of that patriarchy.  At some point, she has to stop sitting on her ass waiting to be given responsbility over her own life, and take it, instead. 
I'm a strong woman who thinks for herself.  The patriarchy might be to blame for how hard I have to struggle to be me, but it's not to blame if I give up.  And it's not to blame if I choose to embrace it instead.
And if one woman can rise above the patriarchy, it's not the patriarchy's fault if other women believe the lies they're told.

*facepalm*  Oh, dammit, I just did what I said I wasn't going to do.  Damn my argumentative streak!
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: CarvedWood on August 07, 2012, 07:25:04 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 06:44:59 PM
Quote from: CarvedWood on August 07, 2012, 06:33:49 PM
Did you miss the part where I said "househusband?"  Unless you, your dad, and your brother-in-law are stay-at-home dads.  If they are, you need to say so, because I didn't opt for the telepathy upgrade along with the IE9.  If not, then they're not valid examples.  If you have a job AND you cook, that just makes you "accomplished."

My brother in law is a house-husband (he works a job as well, but from home, and his wife works outside of the house), and this is considered to be admirable by his very-conservative relatives.
So, he's accomplished.  That is admirable.

Quote from: CarvedWood on August 07, 2012, 06:33:49 PM
I have a nephew who is a stay-at-home dad.  Everyone gives him shit for this, says he's stupid and lazy.  And he's had to fight this prejudice since the beginning of his family.  His wife sucks at homemaking, and, although they would be better off financially if he had a job, it's a proven fact that everytime he's left the home to go to work, his household takes a sharp turn for the worse.

QuoteWe're both arguing from anecdotes here.  What I've seen is very different from what you've seen, which is yet more proof that anecdotes aren't evidence (and neither, I might add, are reality TV shows) for either of our positions.

And your nephew needs to choke some people, and so does his wife.  It is possible that he just has ass-monkeys for relatives, or perhaps there IS an ingrained culture in your area which causes/allows this shit.  Putting up with it is a different story.

If the house is clean, the bills are paid, and kids - if any - are healthy, then everything is fine, and your nephew and his wife should lay in a spare pair of boots, because they should be wearing out their boots by kicking people in the ass.
He does have ass-monkeys for relatives, actually.  In-laws, at least, considering it's his wife's family that gives him more shit than his own, but yeah, I'm often defending him from our own relatives.
And, yes, there is an ingrained culture, from the Native American side as well as the white side. 
There's worse places to live than Arizona.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 07, 2012, 07:26:02 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 04:28:11 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 07, 2012, 03:39:11 PM
I would say that something Alty mentioned, albeit not in this context, that is a symptom of how patriarchy oppresses males, is that if a man falls or appears to fall outside of his expected role in patriarchy, ie. "too feminine", he is in danger of being taunted, ostracised, or assaulted.

That's when it's time to choke a motherfucker.

I once watched some yahoo decide that it would be a good idea to mock/harrass 3 transvestites on the street.  It wasn't pretty.

In any case, the man in question has one option that women don't have...IE, he can put on an act, and drop right off the radar.  Not saying that he should ever HAVE to, just that he has a method closed to women.

I don't agree that patriarchies are any real burden on men, at least on the whole.

I think that any system which damages or oppresses a part of the population damages and oppresses the whole population on some level.

If a  man benefits unquestioningly from the oppression, he is not fully human and is damaged in the sense that he's not fully bipedal.

If a man fights against the system, he is expending energy combating oppression that should, ideally, not exist in the first place, and working constantly to divest himself of the programming to unquestioningly accept his privilege.

It doesn't "burden" men in the same way that it burdens women, but it's also not mentally, spiritually, or intellectually healthy for men. Man thrive economically and politically under patriarchal systems, but I am not sure they are thriving as human beings.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 07, 2012, 07:29:14 PM
Quote from: CarvedWood on August 07, 2012, 07:05:14 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 07, 2012, 06:56:04 PM
Quote from: CarvedWood on August 07, 2012, 06:47:57 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 07, 2012, 06:32:37 PM
I second Alty regarding wife number two; gender roles are set by men (and the "woman stays at home" is relatively recent and, random historical fact of the day, courtesy of the Dutch).

The patriarchy is what stereotypes men as, basically, cavemen incapable of controlling themselves, who think exclusively with their dicks (which, coincidely links into rape culture, since women/females are supposed to know this and take care if ourselves accordingly).
Feminism holds you to be capable of being more than that.

Seriously?  In an example that gives two women, one who bucked the gender stereotype and was successful, the other who chose to embrace the stereotype, you're still going to absolve Wife#2 of any blame for the harm she was doing her family, and continue to blame the patriarchy?  OMG, what does a woman have to do to get credit for her own fuckups?
Dude, chill. No one is attacking you. *Her* expectation that househusband get a job and shit is the result of patriarchal expectations and gender roles. Is it her fault for not putting the well-being of the first househusband above her expectation? Yes. She should see that it works better for them like this. Was it her fault for preventing her own husband from nuturing his kids? Yes. And it's grossly unfair for her to do so. But, again, those expectations of hers resulted from traditional, patriarchal gender roles.

But she should be able to rise above the expectations of that patriarchy.  At some point, she has to stop sitting on her ass waiting to be given responsbility over her own life, and take it, instead. 
I'm a strong woman who thinks for herself.  The patriarchy might be to blame for how hard I have to struggle to be me, but it's not to blame if I give up.  And it's not to blame if I choose to embrace it instead.
And if one woman can rise above the patriarchy, it's not the patriarchy's fault if other women believe the lies they're told.
I agree; she should rise above it. She hasn't and that's her fault. I'm just saying that's where she got the idea and both Worker Bee Husband and Househusband suffer for what the patriarchy expects of men.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 07, 2012, 07:30:15 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 07, 2012, 07:26:02 PM
I think that any system which damages or oppresses a part of the population damages and oppresses the whole population on some level.

If a  man benefits unquestioningly from the oppression, he is not fully human and is damaged in the sense that he's not fully bipedal.

Oh, I agree completely.  But stacked up against the effects on women, as LMNO points out, that's pretty small beans, when looked at from a "getting through the pay period" perspective.

Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 07, 2012, 07:26:02 PM
If a man fights against the system, he is expending energy combating oppression that should, ideally, not exist in the first place, and working constantly to divest himself of the programming to unquestioningly accept his privilege.

I'm trying to think of a more worthwhile way to spend my time and energy, than on fighting adversity or inequality.  I am reasonably certain that, given a perfect world, I'd turn into a couch potato and just wheeze my way to the grave.

Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 07, 2012, 07:26:02 PM
It doesn't "burden" men in the same way that it burdens women, but it's also not mentally, spiritually, or intellectually healthy for men. Man thrive economically and politically under patriarchal systems, but I am not sure they are thriving as human beings.

I think we're in agreement.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 07, 2012, 07:31:01 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 06:04:17 PM
Quote from: CarvedWood on August 07, 2012, 05:54:52 PM
It's going to be difficult to discuss this topic in any meaningful way if every post is pussyfooting around the subject because no one wants to be seen as someone who could mistakenly think that it's not harder for women.  Can we all just agree that this is true, without having to add disclaimers, or come at the topic sideways?
I, at least, have no intention of skewing everything I post on this topic in the hopes that I don't get jumped on for being anti-feminist.  If you believe that of me, fuck you, you're retarded.


I remember watching an episode of "Wife Swap," in which one of the wives that was swapped, was an executive.  She was the breadwinner of the family, and had a househusband to take care of the home and their daughter.  She was swapped with a wife that was a "traditional" homemaker. 
Wife #2 had a husband that was the breadwinner, they had several kids, the wife had some sort of stay-at-home job at the same time she took care of the house, meals, and kids.  It was also quite obvious that she took pride in her role, and although her husband seemed equally stuck in his gender-role, it was also obvious that the wife was largely responsible for his attitude.  This was proven when the first wife forced him to start taking on more responsibilities in the household, like dealing with the kids.  He took to nurturing pretty well, for someone who'd never been allowed to do it before, and surprised himself.  It was something that he and his wife, in equal measure, had been denying him all that time, just because of their strict adherence to their gender roles.

Wife #2, however, made Husband #1's life miserable.  Wife #1 was a successful businesswoman, bringing home plenty of money, and the househusband was a damned good nurturer who totally had his shit together.  Then along comes Wife #2, with her "traditional values" and her strict gender roles, and tried to force him to leave the house and get a job.  She even arranged, through the network, interviews and a job, get this, doing manual labor as a janitor.  Seriously, she made him get a job cleaning lockers and shit.  And he wasn't having it.  I don't blame him - some strange woman is taking care of his house, his daughter, and he's out earning minimum wage at a menial labor job that he didn't need because his wife was bringing home the whole damn pig, not just some bacon?  I'd be pissed about that, too.  He wasn't stupid, or lazy, even though that woman was trying to make him feel that way; he wouldn't have been a failure in the job market, he was just better at being a homemaker.
I seriously hated Wife #2 by the end of the show.  I believe in giving credit where it's due, and giving blame where it's due, as well.  It's hard for me to blame "patriarchy" for a person like her, who helped her husband deny his need to nurture because she hogged that role for herself, who then turns around and tries to do the same thing to someone else's family.

Househusbands are an area where it's obvious to see that patriarchy hurts men as well as women.  Bad enough that society wants to deny a woman the right to a successful career, but let's face it, some men are better at nurturing than the women they marry.  Even in a family where the husband and wife are completely in accord in their flipped roles, where each of them is successful and happy doing what they do, society wants to come along and call that man a weakling, lazy, stupid, not good enough to make it in a career.  But he IS making a career - as a homemaker. 

If a man cooks food outside of the home, he's a chef; if he does it inside the home, he's stupid.  If a man cleans outside of the home, he's a "janitor" or "custodian," but if he does it inside the home, he's lazy.  If a man nurtures a child outside the home, he's a teacher, a nurse, a care-giver; if he does it inside the home, for his own kid, he's weak.
WTF?

I don't see that, an example from "reality" teevee notwithstanding.  My father did and does all the cooking in his household, and that's going back to the 60s.  My brother in law cooks like a mad bastard.  And I can't remember the last time I saw a man embarrassed to change his child's diaper in the restroom on one of those "Koala" tables (whomever thought that up should be fucking sainted).

And I haven't made any disclaimers.  I've called them as I've seen them.  Hell, even Gay men don't have it so rough anymore - and let me stress this last part - in Tucson.  Can't speak for anywhere else, except of course for the glaring counter-example up in the greater Phoenix area, and even THAT isn't that bad.

So, yeah, let's talk about how hard it is to be a guy in the patriarchy.  I get paid, on average, 20% more than a female doing the same level of work.  Waiters look at ME when it's my wife's turn to order, like she's some kind of retard.  They rarely do that twice, it should be noted, for Jenne takes no shit.  Mechanics at the Brakemax don't talk to me like I'm thick-witted, as they do to women who are there to pick up their cars.  I can walk into a job interview for a technical job, and get the job even if there's a woman applying who knows twice as much as me, because A) "guys are more technically-oriented" (actually heard our assistant plant manager say this, for which, granted, he was reprimanded), and B) I won't get pregnant and "goof off for 7-9 months" (heard that one, too).

So, I gotta say, speaking solely from my own experience and observations, the patriarchy isn't exactly Keeping Me Down.

Yes, BUT

The positive things you are describing are progress made due to feminism the breaking down of patriarchy.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: LMNO on August 07, 2012, 07:31:42 PM
I was going to post something similar to DOUR.  Very concise, Nigel.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 07, 2012, 07:33:20 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 07, 2012, 06:32:37 PM
I second Alty regarding wife number two; gender roles are set by men (and the "woman stays at home" is relatively recent and, random historical fact of the day, courtesy of the Dutch).

The patriarchy is what stereotypes men as, basically, cavemen incapable of controlling themselves, who think exclusively with their dicks (which, coincidely links into rape culture, since women/females are supposed to know this and take care if ourselves accordingly).
Feminism holds you to be capable of being more than that.

And this.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 07, 2012, 07:34:03 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 07, 2012, 07:31:01 PM

Yes, BUT

The positive things you are describing are progress made due to feminism the breaking down of patriarchy.

Or pioneering.  My dad was doin' it before it was "acceptable".  Of course, he's also the kind of person that doesn't give a shit about society's opinion, and doesn't bother responding to any sort of criticism concerning things he doesn't view as important...Like who does the cooking.

Which again, I realize, is feminism of a sort.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 07, 2012, 07:36:00 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 06:44:59 PM
Quote from: CarvedWood on August 07, 2012, 06:33:49 PM
Did you miss the part where I said "househusband?"  Unless you, your dad, and your brother-in-law are stay-at-home dads.  If they are, you need to say so, because I didn't opt for the telepathy upgrade along with the IE9.  If not, then they're not valid examples.  If you have a job AND you cook, that just makes you "accomplished."

My brother in law is a house-husband (he works a job as well, but from home, and his wife works outside of the house), and this is considered to be admirable by his very-conservative relatives.

Quote from: CarvedWood on August 07, 2012, 06:33:49 PM
I have a nephew who is a stay-at-home dad.  Everyone gives him shit for this, says he's stupid and lazy.  And he's had to fight this prejudice since the beginning of his family.  His wife sucks at homemaking, and, although they would be better off financially if he had a job, it's a proven fact that everytime he's left the home to go to work, his household takes a sharp turn for the worse.

We're both arguing from anecdotes here.  What I've seen is very different from what you've seen, which is yet more proof that anecdotes aren't evidence (and neither, I might add, are reality TV shows) for either of our positions.

And your nephew needs to choke some people, and so does his wife.  It is possible that he just has ass-monkeys for relatives, or perhaps there IS an ingrained culture in your area which causes/allows this shit.  Putting up with it is a different story.

If the house is clean, the bills are paid, and kids - if any - are healthy, then everything is fine, and your nephew and his wife should lay in a spare pair of boots, because they should be wearing out their boots by kicking people in the ass.

<cough>

Having just spent nine years working from home, I am going to goddamn unequivocally say that "working from home" DOES NOT equal "being a homemaker". If my primary job had been taking care of the house and children, and my husband was paying the bills, then sure, yes.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 07, 2012, 07:39:20 PM
Quote from: CarvedWood on August 07, 2012, 06:47:57 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 07, 2012, 06:32:37 PM
I second Alty regarding wife number two; gender roles are set by men (and the "woman stays at home" is relatively recent and, random historical fact of the day, courtesy of the Dutch).

The patriarchy is what stereotypes men as, basically, cavemen incapable of controlling themselves, who think exclusively with their dicks (which, coincidely links into rape culture, since women/females are supposed to know this and take care if ourselves accordingly).
Feminism holds you to be capable of being more than that.

Seriously?  In an example that gives two women, one who bucked the gender stereotype and was successful, the other who chose to embrace the stereotype, you're still going to absolve Wife#2 of any blame for the harm she was doing her family, and continue to blame the patriarchy?  OMG, what does a woman have to do to get credit for her own fuckups?

I think you aren't understanding the concept of "the patriarchy" as a social structure. Both men and women participate in patriarchy, just as both men and women can participate in feminism. Patriarchy, as a social structure, is what inculcated wife #2 to hold those views. It is easier to go along with dominant society than it is to run counter to it.

Blaming the individual rather than blaming the system is more gratifying on a micro level, but it does nothing to change the macro level. You can't effect social change by blaming individuals, but  you can effect social change by individuals joining together in a larger movement.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 07, 2012, 07:40:10 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 07, 2012, 07:36:00 PM
<cough>

Having just spent nine years working from home, I am going to goddamn unequivocally say that "working from home" DOES NOT equal "being a homemaker". If my primary job had been taking care of the house and children, and my husband was paying the bills, then sure, yes.

It does with Chris.  The man is a ball of energy.  Manages a 6 year old son, one-year-old twin girls, his job, AND the house. 

It's unfair, really.  I could use some of that energy.

Youth is wasted on the young.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 07, 2012, 07:45:27 PM
Quote from: CarvedWood on August 07, 2012, 07:05:14 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 07, 2012, 06:56:04 PM
Quote from: CarvedWood on August 07, 2012, 06:47:57 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 07, 2012, 06:32:37 PM
I second Alty regarding wife number two; gender roles are set by men (and the "woman stays at home" is relatively recent and, random historical fact of the day, courtesy of the Dutch).

The patriarchy is what stereotypes men as, basically, cavemen incapable of controlling themselves, who think exclusively with their dicks (which, coincidely links into rape culture, since women/females are supposed to know this and take care if ourselves accordingly).
Feminism holds you to be capable of being more than that.

Seriously?  In an example that gives two women, one who bucked the gender stereotype and was successful, the other who chose to embrace the stereotype, you're still going to absolve Wife#2 of any blame for the harm she was doing her family, and continue to blame the patriarchy?  OMG, what does a woman have to do to get credit for her own fuckups?
Dude, chill. No one is attacking you. *Her* expectation that househusband get a job and shit is the result of patriarchal expectations and gender roles. Is it her fault for not putting the well-being of the first househusband above her expectation? Yes. She should see that it works better for them like this. Was it her fault for preventing her own husband from nuturing his kids? Yes. And it's grossly unfair for her to do so. But, again, those expectations of hers resulted from traditional, patriarchal gender roles.

But she should be able to rise above the expectations of that patriarchy.  At some point, she has to stop sitting on her ass waiting to be given responsbility over her own life, and take it, instead. 
I'm a strong woman who thinks for herself.  The patriarchy might be to blame for how hard I have to struggle to be me, but it's not to blame if I give up.  And it's not to blame if I choose to embrace it instead.
And if one woman can rise above the patriarchy, it's not the patriarchy's fault if other women believe the lies they're told.

:lulz: Wow.

This really makes me just go... wow.

:facepalm:

Good job rising above patriarchy... it must be nice to not have to live in a society where you have to deal with the bullshit other women have to deal with. Can I move to your planet?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 07, 2012, 07:47:33 PM
Prediction:  Having disagreed with CW, Nigel will now be told that her posting style and content is not up to standard, and that she's doin' it wrong.

Prediction:  There will be gore splattered all over the inside surface of my plasma screen.

:popcorn:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 07, 2012, 07:48:08 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 07:30:15 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 07, 2012, 07:26:02 PM
I think that any system which damages or oppresses a part of the population damages and oppresses the whole population on some level.

If a  man benefits unquestioningly from the oppression, he is not fully human and is damaged in the sense that he's not fully bipedal.

Oh, I agree completely.  But stacked up against the effects on women, as LMNO points out, that's pretty small beans, when looked at from a "getting through the pay period" perspective.

Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 07, 2012, 07:26:02 PM
If a man fights against the system, he is expending energy combating oppression that should, ideally, not exist in the first place, and working constantly to divest himself of the programming to unquestioningly accept his privilege.

I'm trying to think of a more worthwhile way to spend my time and energy, than on fighting adversity or inequality.  I am reasonably certain that, given a perfect world, I'd turn into a couch potato and just wheeze my way to the grave.

Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 07, 2012, 07:26:02 PM
It doesn't "burden" men in the same way that it burdens women, but it's also not mentally, spiritually, or intellectually healthy for men. Man thrive economically and politically under patriarchal systems, but I am not sure they are thriving as human beings.

I think we're in agreement.

All of these are reasons why I think that conversations about feminism and patriarchy are incomplete without discussion of the ways in which patriarchy fails men. We're all in this together.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 07, 2012, 07:48:53 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 07:34:03 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 07, 2012, 07:31:01 PM

Yes, BUT

The positive things you are describing are progress made due to feminism the breaking down of patriarchy.

Or pioneering.  My dad was doin' it before it was "acceptable".  Of course, he's also the kind of person that doesn't give a shit about society's opinion, and doesn't bother responding to any sort of criticism concerning things he doesn't view as important...Like who does the cooking.

Which again, I realize, is feminism of a sort.

Yes, it is. Some people were doing it before it had a name and became a movement.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 07, 2012, 07:51:16 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 07:40:10 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 07, 2012, 07:36:00 PM
<cough>

Having just spent nine years working from home, I am going to goddamn unequivocally say that "working from home" DOES NOT equal "being a homemaker". If my primary job had been taking care of the house and children, and my husband was paying the bills, then sure, yes.

It does with Chris.  The man is a ball of energy.  Manages a 6 year old son, one-year-old twin girls, his job, AND the house. 

It's unfair, really.  I could use some of that energy.

Youth is wasted on the young.

I'm still gonna disagree. He's not going to receive social disapproval for being a homemaker if he's also holding a job. Instead he gets accolades for being "superdad".

A homemaker or househusband/housewife is someone who is financially supported by their spouse while their job is taking care of the house and kids. Not somebody who "does it all".
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 07, 2012, 07:51:32 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 07, 2012, 07:48:08 PM

All of these are reasons why I think that conversations about feminism and patriarchy are incomplete without discussion of the ways in which patriarchy fails men. We're all in this together.

I'm gonna ask at this point if it's the patriarchy doing most of the failing, or just society in general.  While it IS true that worker bee Joe Doakes is conditioned by the system every bit as much as his wife is, the male apes at the top of the heap seem to do very nicely indeed.

In fact, I'm going to put forth the possibility that the "patriarchy" has been effectively dead for 20 years, and that we are conditioned to fight gender vs gender in the same way that we fight left vs right and race vs race, to the benefit of the top tier monkeys.

Not saying that's a fact, but it did occur to me.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 07, 2012, 07:53:00 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 07:51:32 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 07, 2012, 07:48:08 PM

All of these are reasons why I think that conversations about feminism and patriarchy are incomplete without discussion of the ways in which patriarchy fails men. We're all in this together.

I'm gonna ask at this point if it's the patriarchy doing most of the failing, or just society in general.  While it IS true that worker bee Joe Doakes is conditioned by the system every bit as much as his wife is, the male apes at the top of the heap seem to do very nicely indeed.

In fact, I'm going to put forth the possibility that the "patriarchy" has been effectively dead for 20 years, and that we are conditioned to fight gender vs gender in the same way that we fight left vs right and race vs race, to the benefit of the top tier monkeys.

Not saying that's a fact, but it did occur to me.

"Patriarchy" is part of "society in general". I think it would be profoundly premature to argue that patriarchy is dead.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 07, 2012, 07:53:25 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 07, 2012, 07:51:16 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 07:40:10 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 07, 2012, 07:36:00 PM
<cough>

Having just spent nine years working from home, I am going to goddamn unequivocally say that "working from home" DOES NOT equal "being a homemaker". If my primary job had been taking care of the house and children, and my husband was paying the bills, then sure, yes.

It does with Chris.  The man is a ball of energy.  Manages a 6 year old son, one-year-old twin girls, his job, AND the house. 

It's unfair, really.  I could use some of that energy.

Youth is wasted on the young.

I'm still gonna disagree. He's not going to receive social disapproval for being a homemaker if he's also holding a job. Instead he gets accolades for being "superdad".

A homemaker or househusband/housewife is someone who is financially supported by their spouse while their job is taking care of the house and kids. Not somebody who "does it all".

Okay, I can see that.  Sort of the way widowers are/were viewed when they continued to raise kids and continue working.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 07, 2012, 07:55:18 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 07, 2012, 07:53:00 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 07:51:32 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 07, 2012, 07:48:08 PM

All of these are reasons why I think that conversations about feminism and patriarchy are incomplete without discussion of the ways in which patriarchy fails men. We're all in this together.

I'm gonna ask at this point if it's the patriarchy doing most of the failing, or just society in general.  While it IS true that worker bee Joe Doakes is conditioned by the system every bit as much as his wife is, the male apes at the top of the heap seem to do very nicely indeed.

In fact, I'm going to put forth the possibility that the "patriarchy" has been effectively dead for 20 years, and that we are conditioned to fight gender vs gender in the same way that we fight left vs right and race vs race, to the benefit of the top tier monkeys.

Not saying that's a fact, but it did occur to me.

"Patriarchy" is part of "society in general". I think it would be profoundly premature to argue that patriarchy is dead.

That's a point, but one thing worth mentioning is that a patriarchy doesn't mean "male dominated", then.  It means "some males dominate, the rest fill their appointed roles."
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Salty on August 07, 2012, 08:02:13 PM
I think it's also important to note (though most here understand this, I know) that feminism is not the opposite of patriarchy. That'd be matriarchy. Feminism rises out of patriarchy. If it were the other way around I can't but think that men would form a movement of their own that arises out of matriarchy. And people would still get confused.

A lot people see feminism as a road to matriarchy, if they look that far. That's why it gets such hostility. The idea that it spreads equality gets lost in the lines somewhere.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: CarvedWood on August 07, 2012, 08:05:12 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 07:47:33 PM
Prediction:  Having disagreed with CW, Nigel will now be told that her posting style and content is not up to standard, and that she's doin' it wrong.

Prediction:  There will be gore splattered all over the inside surface of my plasma screen.

:popcorn:

Don't be silly.  Nigel is actually saying things worth thinking about, so why would I say that to her?  Your prediction is wrong.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 07, 2012, 08:06:41 PM
Quote from: Just Alty, Actually. on August 07, 2012, 08:02:13 PM
I think it's also important to note (though most here understand this, I know) that feminism is not the opposite of patriarchy. That'd be matriarchy.

I would argue that feminism is the opposite of patriarchy AND matriarchy.

One emphasizes the individual and his/her choices, the other two emphasize the imposition of roles by the system.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Salty on August 07, 2012, 08:09:15 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 08:06:41 PM
Quote from: Just Alty, Actually. on August 07, 2012, 08:02:13 PM
I think it's also important to note (though most here understand this, I know) that feminism is not the opposite of patriarchy. That'd be matriarchy.

I would argue that feminism is the opposite of patriarchy AND matriarchy.

One emphasizes the individual and his/her choices, the other two emphasize the imposition of roles by the system.

I was gonna add, stupid phone, that if the latter two are opposite ends of a scale then feminism is an effort to find something like the middle because of the recognition that both are harmful to society as a whole.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 07, 2012, 08:10:12 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 07:53:25 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 07, 2012, 07:51:16 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 07:40:10 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 07, 2012, 07:36:00 PM
<cough>

Having just spent nine years working from home, I am going to goddamn unequivocally say that "working from home" DOES NOT equal "being a homemaker". If my primary job had been taking care of the house and children, and my husband was paying the bills, then sure, yes.

It does with Chris.  The man is a ball of energy.  Manages a 6 year old son, one-year-old twin girls, his job, AND the house. 

It's unfair, really.  I could use some of that energy.

Youth is wasted on the young.

I'm still gonna disagree. He's not going to receive social disapproval for being a homemaker if he's also holding a job. Instead he gets accolades for being "superdad".

A homemaker or househusband/housewife is someone who is financially supported by their spouse while their job is taking care of the house and kids. Not somebody who "does it all".

Okay, I can see that.  Sort of the way widowers are/were viewed when they continued to raise kids and continue working.

Yeah, like that. Or like I, as a single mom, am viewed because I am the sole supporter/maintenance man for the household.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 07, 2012, 08:11:05 PM
Quote from: Just Alty, Actually. on August 07, 2012, 08:09:15 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 08:06:41 PM
Quote from: Just Alty, Actually. on August 07, 2012, 08:02:13 PM
I think it's also important to note (though most here understand this, I know) that feminism is not the opposite of patriarchy. That'd be matriarchy.

I would argue that feminism is the opposite of patriarchy AND matriarchy.

One emphasizes the individual and his/her choices, the other two emphasize the imposition of roles by the system.

I was gonna add, stupid phone, that if the latter two are opposite ends of a scale then feminism is an effort to find something like the middle because of the recognition that both are harmful to society as a whole.

Yeah, it's an attempt to create an egalitarian society.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 07, 2012, 08:11:18 PM
Quote from: CarvedWood on August 07, 2012, 08:05:12 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 07:47:33 PM
Prediction:  Having disagreed with CW, Nigel will now be told that her posting style and content is not up to standard, and that she's doin' it wrong.

Prediction:  There will be gore splattered all over the inside surface of my plasma screen.

:popcorn:

Don't be silly.  Nigel is actually saying things worth thinking about, so why would I say that to her?  Your prediction is wrong.

Only because I said it out loud.

:lulz:

And as far as the rest of your bullshit, well, it's not like I haven't seen that sort of monkey shit before, right?  The Discordian knows that if there is ONE THING, even ONE TINY THING which another person can say in words or write down or draw in a picture which can cause said Discordian to have some kind of hissyfit "How DARE you?" reaction, that is a handle attached directly to the brain, by which The Machine™ can pick up that Discordian and walk it around like a funny little doll - just the way it does its little workdrones, hipsters, and other such humans.  It is the duty of the Discordian to purge him/her/itself of such weakness.

You have failed to do so, at least so far, judging by the butthurt that has dripped from every insulting post you have so far attempted in this thread.

FUCK 'EM IF THEY CAN'T TAKE A JOKE.

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 07, 2012, 08:17:04 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 07:55:18 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 07, 2012, 07:53:00 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 07:51:32 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 07, 2012, 07:48:08 PM

All of these are reasons why I think that conversations about feminism and patriarchy are incomplete without discussion of the ways in which patriarchy fails men. We're all in this together.

I'm gonna ask at this point if it's the patriarchy doing most of the failing, or just society in general.  While it IS true that worker bee Joe Doakes is conditioned by the system every bit as much as his wife is, the male apes at the top of the heap seem to do very nicely indeed.

In fact, I'm going to put forth the possibility that the "patriarchy" has been effectively dead for 20 years, and that we are conditioned to fight gender vs gender in the same way that we fight left vs right and race vs race, to the benefit of the top tier monkeys.

Not saying that's a fact, but it did occur to me.

"Patriarchy" is part of "society in general". I think it would be profoundly premature to argue that patriarchy is dead.

That's a point, but one thing worth mentioning is that a patriarchy doesn't mean "male dominated", then.  It means "some males dominate, the rest fill their appointed roles."

I can't really agree with that, either, because in society a patriarchal structure places all men above all women of otherwise equal social status in terms of power. Because of society's hierarchical structure, some men will be at the top, and increasingly larger numbers of men will be toward the bottom of the social status curve. Women of high status will be above men of low status, but below men of high status. Women of low status are above nobody, except, depending on the other hierarchical structures in place, women of color and possibly men of color.

It's a bunch of interrelated hierarchies that work together. Sex, financial class, and race are the three big ones.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 07, 2012, 08:18:41 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 07, 2012, 08:17:04 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 07:55:18 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 07, 2012, 07:53:00 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 07:51:32 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 07, 2012, 07:48:08 PM

All of these are reasons why I think that conversations about feminism and patriarchy are incomplete without discussion of the ways in which patriarchy fails men. We're all in this together.

I'm gonna ask at this point if it's the patriarchy doing most of the failing, or just society in general.  While it IS true that worker bee Joe Doakes is conditioned by the system every bit as much as his wife is, the male apes at the top of the heap seem to do very nicely indeed.

In fact, I'm going to put forth the possibility that the "patriarchy" has been effectively dead for 20 years, and that we are conditioned to fight gender vs gender in the same way that we fight left vs right and race vs race, to the benefit of the top tier monkeys.

Not saying that's a fact, but it did occur to me.

"Patriarchy" is part of "society in general". I think it would be profoundly premature to argue that patriarchy is dead.

That's a point, but one thing worth mentioning is that a patriarchy doesn't mean "male dominated", then.  It means "some males dominate, the rest fill their appointed roles."

I can't really agree with that, either, because in society a patriarchal structure places all men above all women of otherwise equal social status in terms of power. Because of society's hierarchical structure, some men will be at the top, and increasingly larger numbers of men will be toward the bottom of the social status curve. Women of high status will be above men of low status, but below men of high status. Women of low status are above nobody, except, depending on the other hierarchical structures in place, women of color and possibly men of color.

It's a bunch of interrelated hierarchies that work together. Sex, financial class, and race are the three big ones.

You wouldn't include religion?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 07, 2012, 08:22:29 PM
I would (Protestants at the top, Catholics and Orthodox, Jews are next, and then everybody else at the bottom in one giant heap), although some of that plays into race.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 07, 2012, 08:23:07 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 07, 2012, 07:51:16 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 07:40:10 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 07, 2012, 07:36:00 PM
<cough>

Having just spent nine years working from home, I am going to goddamn unequivocally say that "working from home" DOES NOT equal "being a homemaker". If my primary job had been taking care of the house and children, and my husband was paying the bills, then sure, yes.

It does with Chris.  The man is a ball of energy.  Manages a 6 year old son, one-year-old twin girls, his job, AND the house. 

It's unfair, really.  I could use some of that energy.

Youth is wasted on the young.

I'm still gonna disagree. He's not going to receive social disapproval for being a homemaker if he's also holding a job. Instead he gets accolades for being "superdad".

A homemaker or househusband/housewife is someone who is financially supported by their spouse while their job is taking care of the house and kids. Not somebody who "does it all".

Yeah. When a man does it, he gets accolades. When a woman does it, it's just what's expected..."Whaddya want, a fuckin medal or somethin'?"

Did the single working mom thing for years. I think I was pretty typical. No affordable daycare or afterschool program, low income, crappy job punching a cash register, swing shift, no child support. Like the magazine covers used to say: "You CAN have it all!"  :x (Feminism can be twisted into a big "FUCK YOU" by some - "You're LIBERATED - deal with it" Bigger patriarchy than ever these days.) The first thing to go is the housework and the yard. Sometimes you can do it, other times you work a ten hour shift, get home at midnight and have to be back at 6:30 am, so you don't. Which leads people to think you're ON DRUGZ. CPS got tired of investigating me. They'd actually sound embarrassed when they called: "We know you're clean, but we got another call, so legally we have to investigate - can you come in and do another drug test?"

Me: I've been here five years now. Kristi started six months ago and you've got her working days. She doesn't have kids. I have two and nobody to watch them and they always get in fights. I get calls from the cops and I have to leave work because the kids are fighting again. Why do you still have me on nights? They told me when I started that it goes by seniority.

Boss: Kristi's still in high school. She has school in the morning. Finding somebody to watch the kids is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY.

Translation: Boss works days and usually left not long after I came in. Kristi is not quite legal and boss liked ogling her ass.

Thank Bob for fortune telling, wish I'd found it 20 years earlier.

How does this hurt men? While it was happening, not at all. I think there's a lot of dads who are going to end up lonely old men with a house reeking of the coffee can full of piss under the bed, eating Spaghetti-O's out of the can, though. Fuck 'em.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: CarvedWood on August 07, 2012, 08:24:32 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 08:11:18 PM
Quote from: CarvedWood on August 07, 2012, 08:05:12 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 07:47:33 PM
Prediction:  Having disagreed with CW, Nigel will now be told that her posting style and content is not up to standard, and that she's doin' it wrong.

Prediction:  There will be gore splattered all over the inside surface of my plasma screen.

:popcorn:

Don't be silly.  Nigel is actually saying things worth thinking about, so why would I say that to her?  Your prediction is wrong.

Only because I said it out loud.

:lulz:

And as far as the rest of your bullshit, well, it's not like I haven't seen that sort of monkey shit before, right?  The Discordian knows that if there is ONE THING, even ONE TINY THING which another person can say in words or write down or draw in a picture which can cause said Discordian to have some kind of hissyfit "How DARE you?" reaction, that is a handle attached directly to the brain, by which The Machine™ can pick up that Discordian and walk it around like a funny little doll - just the way it does its little workdrones, hipsters, and other such humans.  It is the duty of the Discordian to purge him/her/itself of such weakness.

You have failed to do so, at least so far, judging by the butthurt that has dripped from every insulting post you have so far attempted in this thread.

FUCK 'EM IF THEY CAN'T TAKE A JOKE.

Or maybe you wanted me to shut up and kiss your ass.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 07, 2012, 08:25:30 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 07, 2012, 08:22:29 PM
I would (Protestants at the top, Catholics and Orthodox, Jews are next, and then everybody else at the bottom in one giant heap), although some of that plays into race.

Some, yes.  I've seen areas of the country where religion means nothing, and I've seen areas (Oro Valley, AZ and Batavia, IL) where you will lose your job if you are not of the correct religion (never for that reason, of course...There's always an excuse, but it comes down to the people who open their mouths about what religion they are either excel (if Calvinist/Baptist) or fail (if not), with no difference in behavior or performance from those who stay quiet.

Here, it's more important than Black/White, but not as important as Hispanic/White.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 07, 2012, 08:29:14 PM
Quote from: CarvedWood on August 07, 2012, 08:24:32 PM
Or maybe you wanted me to shut up and kiss your ass.

Nope.  Alty and I did not agree with you 100%, so you became belligerent instead of merely stating your point, from your very first post in this thread...And I don't need primates kissing my ass, CW.  Enough of that shit goes on at my job, and I find it repulsive.  What I do expect is a bit of civility.  You aren't capable of that, so we wind up having THIS conversation.

Frankly, you're a bit of a shitbag, and I don't really have much to say to you that could be remotely considered constructive.  You may fuck off at your convenience, at least with respect to responding to or about me.  Run along, now.

TIA,
Dirty Old Uncle Roger
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Salty on August 07, 2012, 08:31:26 PM
I merely wanted any discussions about pussyfooting not be pussyfooted around. Because that kind of passive-aggressive bullshit gives me those blood red eyes something fierce, I get all hostile. I don't care who it was in regard to.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 07, 2012, 08:32:09 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 08:29:14 PM
Quote from: CarvedWood on August 07, 2012, 08:24:32 PM
Or maybe you wanted me to shut up and kiss your ass.

Nope.  Alty and I did not agree with you 100%, so you became belligerent instead of merely stating your point, from your very first post in this thread...And I don't need primates kissing my ass, CW.  Enough of that shit goes on at my job, and I find it repulsive.  What I do expect is a bit of civility.  You aren't capable of that, so we wind up having THIS conversation.

Frankly, you're a bit of a shitbag, and I don't really have much to say to you that could be remotely considered constructive.  You may fuck off at your convenience, at least with respect to responding to or about me.  Run along, now.

TIA,
Dirty Old Uncle Roger

Damn. I miss all the fun when I'm writing posts.  :lulz:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 07, 2012, 08:34:09 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 07, 2012, 08:32:09 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 08:29:14 PM
Quote from: CarvedWood on August 07, 2012, 08:24:32 PM
Or maybe you wanted me to shut up and kiss your ass.

Nope.  Alty and I did not agree with you 100%, so you became belligerent instead of merely stating your point, from your very first post in this thread...And I don't need primates kissing my ass, CW.  Enough of that shit goes on at my job, and I find it repulsive.  What I do expect is a bit of civility.  You aren't capable of that, so we wind up having THIS conversation.

Frankly, you're a bit of a shitbag, and I don't really have much to say to you that could be remotely considered constructive.  You may fuck off at your convenience, at least with respect to responding to or about me.  Run along, now.

TIA,
Dirty Old Uncle Roger

Damn. I miss all the fun when I'm writing posts.  :lulz:

Apparently, the fact that I find CW to be a bit of a shit means that my patriarchal self wants her to kiss my ass or something.

She was right about the shut up part, but I say that to everyone, regardless of race, sex, religion, or species.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 07, 2012, 08:35:52 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 08:18:41 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 07, 2012, 08:17:04 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 07:55:18 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 07, 2012, 07:53:00 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 07:51:32 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 07, 2012, 07:48:08 PM

All of these are reasons why I think that conversations about feminism and patriarchy are incomplete without discussion of the ways in which patriarchy fails men. We're all in this together.

I'm gonna ask at this point if it's the patriarchy doing most of the failing, or just society in general.  While it IS true that worker bee Joe Doakes is conditioned by the system every bit as much as his wife is, the male apes at the top of the heap seem to do very nicely indeed.

In fact, I'm going to put forth the possibility that the "patriarchy" has been effectively dead for 20 years, and that we are conditioned to fight gender vs gender in the same way that we fight left vs right and race vs race, to the benefit of the top tier monkeys.

Not saying that's a fact, but it did occur to me.

"Patriarchy" is part of "society in general". I think it would be profoundly premature to argue that patriarchy is dead.

That's a point, but one thing worth mentioning is that a patriarchy doesn't mean "male dominated", then.  It means "some males dominate, the rest fill their appointed roles."

I can't really agree with that, either, because in society a patriarchal structure places all men above all women of otherwise equal social status in terms of power. Because of society's hierarchical structure, some men will be at the top, and increasingly larger numbers of men will be toward the bottom of the social status curve. Women of high status will be above men of low status, but below men of high status. Women of low status are above nobody, except, depending on the other hierarchical structures in place, women of color and possibly men of color.

It's a bunch of interrelated hierarchies that work together. Sex, financial class, and race are the three big ones.

You wouldn't include religion?

Religion plays a factor, but I would say that it's both less influential and more mutable, and variable from region to region, than the factors of sex, class, and race.

(at this moment in time).

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 07, 2012, 08:36:02 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 08:34:09 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 07, 2012, 08:32:09 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 08:29:14 PM
Quote from: CarvedWood on August 07, 2012, 08:24:32 PM
Or maybe you wanted me to shut up and kiss your ass.

Nope.  Alty and I did not agree with you 100%, so you became belligerent instead of merely stating your point, from your very first post in this thread...And I don't need primates kissing my ass, CW.  Enough of that shit goes on at my job, and I find it repulsive.  What I do expect is a bit of civility.  You aren't capable of that, so we wind up having THIS conversation.

Frankly, you're a bit of a shitbag, and I don't really have much to say to you that could be remotely considered constructive.  You may fuck off at your convenience, at least with respect to responding to or about me.  Run along, now.

TIA,
Dirty Old Uncle Roger

Damn. I miss all the fun when I'm writing posts.  :lulz:

Apparently, the fact that I find CW to be a bit of a shit means that my patriarchal self wants her to kiss my ass or something.

She was right about the shut up part, but I say that to everyone, regardless of race, sex, religion, or species.

"HE HAS A KICKSTAND - EVIL! EVIL!"  :lulz:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 07, 2012, 08:39:11 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 07, 2012, 08:35:52 PM
Religion plays a factor, but I would say that it's both less influential and more mutable, and variable from region to region, than the factors of sex, class, and race.

Which explains my initial reaction.  Here, it's definitely as important as gender and race.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 07, 2012, 08:40:34 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 07, 2012, 08:36:02 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 08:34:09 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 07, 2012, 08:32:09 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 08:29:14 PM
Quote from: CarvedWood on August 07, 2012, 08:24:32 PM
Or maybe you wanted me to shut up and kiss your ass.

Nope.  Alty and I did not agree with you 100%, so you became belligerent instead of merely stating your point, from your very first post in this thread...And I don't need primates kissing my ass, CW.  Enough of that shit goes on at my job, and I find it repulsive.  What I do expect is a bit of civility.  You aren't capable of that, so we wind up having THIS conversation.

Frankly, you're a bit of a shitbag, and I don't really have much to say to you that could be remotely considered constructive.  You may fuck off at your convenience, at least with respect to responding to or about me.  Run along, now.

TIA,
Dirty Old Uncle Roger

Damn. I miss all the fun when I'm writing posts.  :lulz:

Apparently, the fact that I find CW to be a bit of a shit means that my patriarchal self wants her to kiss my ass or something.

She was right about the shut up part, but I say that to everyone, regardless of race, sex, religion, or species.

"HE HAS A KICKSTAND - EVIL! EVIL!"  :lulz:

Insufficient data.  She became vicious with me and alty, but conciliatory to Garbo and neutral with Nigel.  The trend indicates that you may be correct, but there's only 4 data points, so I'm not comfortable making THAT particular accusation just yet.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 07, 2012, 08:41:55 PM
I named those three to give an example of the interplay between hierarchical factors, not to play "name the hierarchy!". Because that might be opening too broad of a scope for this discussion, if we want to keep this one about patriarchy.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 07, 2012, 08:43:32 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 08:25:30 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 07, 2012, 08:22:29 PM
I would (Protestants at the top, Catholics and Orthodox, Jews are next, and then everybody else at the bottom in one giant heap), although some of that plays into race.

Some, yes.  I've seen areas of the country where religion means nothing, and I've seen areas (Oro Valley, AZ and Batavia, IL) where you will lose your job if you are not of the correct religion (never for that reason, of course...There's always an excuse, but it comes down to the people who open their mouths about what religion they are either excel (if Calvinist/Baptist) or fail (if not), with no difference in behavior or performance from those who stay quiet.

Here, it's more important than Black/White, but not as important as Hispanic/White.

So it sounds like race, or at least ethnicity, is still getting a little more weight in determining a person's place in the hierarchy than religion, in that one respect.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 07, 2012, 08:45:04 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 07, 2012, 08:41:55 PM
I named those three to give an example of the interplay between hierarchical factors, not to play "name the hierarchy!". Because that might be opening too broad of a scope for this discussion, if we want to keep this one about patriarchy.

Oh, no problem.

I was just wondering how much was patriarchy and how much was other factors.

And there's a lot of interplay between factors.  Focus on the Family, for example, LOOKS like a patriarchal organization like the Promisekeepers, but it actually is closer to financial.

The Promisekeepers, though, reinforce your earlier statement that the patriarchy isn't dead, or even feeling sick.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 07, 2012, 08:47:02 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 08:39:11 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 07, 2012, 08:35:52 PM
Religion plays a factor, but I would say that it's both less influential and more mutable, and variable from region to region, than the factors of sex, class, and race.

Which explains my initial reaction.  Here, it's definitely as important as gender and race.

Surprisingly, it's not as bad as you would expect here. People who talk about Jebus at work generally get a lot of eyerolls, often from other people who are nominally Christian. It doesn't get them anywhere. Of course Seguin's comprehension of religion could fit in a flea's colon. I had a lady tell me she was OK with her son being married to a Jewish girl because "They believe in Jesus too." I didn't tell her different.  :roll:

They hate Moozlimz like Obama, though.  :x
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 07, 2012, 08:50:51 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 07, 2012, 08:43:32 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 08:25:30 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 07, 2012, 08:22:29 PM
I would (Protestants at the top, Catholics and Orthodox, Jews are next, and then everybody else at the bottom in one giant heap), although some of that plays into race.

Some, yes.  I've seen areas of the country where religion means nothing, and I've seen areas (Oro Valley, AZ and Batavia, IL) where you will lose your job if you are not of the correct religion (never for that reason, of course...There's always an excuse, but it comes down to the people who open their mouths about what religion they are either excel (if Calvinist/Baptist) or fail (if not), with no difference in behavior or performance from those who stay quiet.

Here, it's more important than Black/White, but not as important as Hispanic/White.

So it sounds like race, or at least ethnicity, is still getting a little more weight in determining a person's place in the hierarchy than religion, in that one respect.

Put it this way: this little hole in the road has THREE Methodist churches. One for Black people, one for Mexicans, and one for white people with a few token light-skinned Mexicans.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Phox on August 07, 2012, 09:08:46 PM
Quote from: CarvedWood on August 07, 2012, 06:41:41 PM
Quote from: Just Alty, Actually. on August 07, 2012, 06:15:23 PM
CW: that shit starts at home. If you don't want to see pussyfooting perhaps you should call out exactly what you see that's hindering this discussion instead of making vague accusations.

I don't know if you were talking about my posts, and if you are I have no problem them being put into question. But it's kind of hard to tell since, you know...

... Are you going to want me to go back to every single post that's already been made?  Because, one, that's more effort than I care to put in, which is why I was vague to begin with, and two, if you don't see it already, you're not going to see it even if I grabbed you by the scruff of your neck and rubbed your nose in it.
If you think I'm talking about your posts, then you have a choice: ignore what I said, or take a second look at your posts and make up your own mind.
I realize this is several pages back, and the discussion has moved on, somewhat, from this point, but, this really struck me as incredibly .. er, stupid.

This post demonstrates nothing but an unwillingness to clarify points and the sort of intellectual laziness that has absolutely no place in any serious discussion. If you have no interest in going back and illustrating what you mean, shut the fuck up and piss off. Better yet, don't bother posting at all. It's so much better for progress in a discussion if the "YOU'RE DOIN' IT WRONG, BUT I'M NOT GONNA TELL YOU WHY" people stay away.

I apologize to everyone having a nice discussion for interrupting with no substance. Please return to saying interesting and insightful things.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:10:37 PM
I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 07, 2012, 09:14:39 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:10:37 PM
I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

I find I keep typing thoughts then not posting them because its such a brain twister for me...
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:18:17 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 07, 2012, 09:14:39 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:10:37 PM
I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

I find I keep typing thoughts then not posting them because its such a brain twister for me...

When the rock hits you, holler.

I'm not worried about looking like a chauvanist (sp?), because everyone here knows me.  I did put disclaimers on a few of my twistier posts (which gained me the "wrath" of CW, who would have complained equally as much if I hadn't  :lulz: ), but in general, I'm gonna just post my thoughts and take my beatings, because that's the only way a guy like me can figure shit out.

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 07, 2012, 09:20:58 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:10:37 PM
I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

Yes, I never thought about it much. I really don't have anything but personal thoughts so far.

I do want to puke when I see some little kid crying and people start yelling at him to "man up". He's FOUR, FFS. I'm not sure how much the macho thing has to do with the patriarchy, though.

Other than that, I don't have much.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Phox on August 07, 2012, 09:21:49 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:10:37 PM
I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).
It is a great discussion, small hiccups aside. I find it quite interesting to see everyone's various point of views on topics like this, I, at the moment, have nothing personally to add to the topic aide from it seems that Nigel and I are (surprisingly enough) about 98% in agreement, and Nigel is far more articulate than I on the subject. (This happens way to much to be coincidence. NIGEL IS STEALING MY THOUGHTS!  :lulz:)

Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 07, 2012, 09:14:39 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:10:37 PM
I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

I find I keep typing thoughts then not posting them because its such a brain twister for me...
POST THEM, ASSHOLE!  :crankey:

Seriously, I find the best way to work through that sort of confusion is to write it out and lay it all out. If you make it to the end without figuring it out, you've got some people to throw ideas back at you until you do.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:22:47 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 07, 2012, 09:20:58 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:10:37 PM
I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

Yes, I never thought about it much. I really don't have anything but personal thoughts so far.

I do want to puke when I see some little kid crying and people start yelling at him to "man up". He's FOUR, FFS. I'm not sure how much the macho thing has to do with the patriarchy, though.

Other than that, I don't have much.

I'd say that's partially conditioning (which the patriarchy, as any other system, requires).
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:23:50 PM
Quote from: Phox, The Abdicator on August 07, 2012, 09:21:49 PM
NIGEL IS STEALING MY THOUGHTS!  :lulz:)

Better check your soul while you're at it.  It's still close to lunch time.

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Phox on August 07, 2012, 09:24:05 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 07, 2012, 09:20:58 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:10:37 PM
I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

Yes, I never thought about it much. I really don't have anything but personal thoughts so far.

I do want to puke when I see some little kid crying and people start yelling at him to "man up". He's FOUR, FFS. I'm not sure how much the macho thing has to do with the patriarchy, though.

Other than that, I don't have much.
That's more gender role sereotyping, which isn't necessarily "patriarchy", but definitely exploited by the patriarchy.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:26:00 PM
Quote from: Phox, The Abdicator on August 07, 2012, 09:24:05 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 07, 2012, 09:20:58 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:10:37 PM
I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

Yes, I never thought about it much. I really don't have anything but personal thoughts so far.

I do want to puke when I see some little kid crying and people start yelling at him to "man up". He's FOUR, FFS. I'm not sure how much the macho thing has to do with the patriarchy, though.

Other than that, I don't have much.
That's more gender role sereotyping, which isn't necessarily "patriarchy", but definitely exploited by the patriarchy.

Maybe.  I taught both of my kids that crying is reserved for occasions worth crying over.

Skinned knee?  Quit it.
Broken leg?  Go ahead.

You can't go out with your friends tonight?  Deal with it.
Death in the family?  Go ahead and cry.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 07, 2012, 09:26:21 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:18:17 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 07, 2012, 09:14:39 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:10:37 PM
I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

I find I keep typing thoughts then not posting them because its such a brain twister for me...

When the rock hits you, holler.

I'm not worried about looking like a chauvanist (sp?), because everyone here knows me.  I did put disclaimers on a few of my twistier posts (which gained me the "wrath" of CW, who would have complained equally as much if I hadn't  :lulz: ), but in general, I'm gonna just post my thoughts and take my beatings, because that's the only way a guy like me can figure shit out.

Oh I don't mind that bit... its usually been 'Thought enters... gets typed... new thought enters... cancels out old thought... post delete' :D

Though, I do think this disucssion highlights the "Never Whistle While YOu're Pissing" theme that any label/box/role is a damnation because its defining what the individual is and is not.

In this case, its defining men as anal-territorial, tough guys who are dominant and defining women as subservient to the males. Both groups are getting screwed over.  I still think women are getting the worst of it, since they are either subservient or aberrant, whereas guys can at least jam themselves into the stereotypical role and get by (notwithstanding whatever psychological damage that is doing to them). 
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 07, 2012, 09:27:31 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 07, 2012, 09:20:58 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:10:37 PM
I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

Yes, I never thought about it much. I really don't have anything but personal thoughts so far.

I do want to puke when I see some little kid crying and people start yelling at him to "man up". He's FOUR, FFS. I'm not sure how much the macho thing has to do with the patriarchy, though.

Other than that, I don't have much.
Machismo has everything to do with patriarchy. It's obnoxious, showy masculinity that imposes its will on everyone around it, most particularly females.

And related to screeching at a crying four year old, crying is a sign of weakness, yes? Men aren't supposed to be weak. Women, for whom crying is...expected? are.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:30:48 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 07, 2012, 09:27:31 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 07, 2012, 09:20:58 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:10:37 PM
I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

Yes, I never thought about it much. I really don't have anything but personal thoughts so far.

I do want to puke when I see some little kid crying and people start yelling at him to "man up". He's FOUR, FFS. I'm not sure how much the macho thing has to do with the patriarchy, though.

Other than that, I don't have much.
Machismo has everything to do with patriarchy. It's obnoxious, showy masculinity that imposes its will on everyone around it, most particularly females.

And related to screeching at a crying four year old, crying is a sign of weakness, yes? Men aren't supposed to be weak. Women, for whom crying is...expected? are.

Or aren't, as the case may be (see my response to the same post).
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 07, 2012, 09:32:08 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:23:50 PM
Quote from: Phox, The Abdicator on August 07, 2012, 09:21:49 PM
NIGEL IS STEALING MY THOUGHTS!  :lulz:)

Better check your soul while you're at it.  It's still close to lunch time.

:lulz: :lulz:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 07, 2012, 09:32:40 PM
I never said I agreed with the idea that crying is a sign of weakness.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 07, 2012, 09:34:01 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:10:37 PM
I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

That means it's accomplishing something.

I like it when threads make me THINK. Good threads lately, guys. F'reals.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 07, 2012, 09:34:16 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:30:48 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 07, 2012, 09:27:31 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 07, 2012, 09:20:58 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:10:37 PM
I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

Yes, I never thought about it much. I really don't have anything but personal thoughts so far.

I do want to puke when I see some little kid crying and people start yelling at him to "man up". He's FOUR, FFS. I'm not sure how much the macho thing has to do with the patriarchy, though.

Other than that, I don't have much.
Machismo has everything to do with patriarchy. It's obnoxious, showy masculinity that imposes its will on everyone around it, most particularly females.

And related to screeching at a crying four year old, crying is a sign of weakness, yes? Men aren't supposed to be weak. Women, for whom crying is...expected? are.

Or aren't, as the case may be (see my response to the same post).

I think it would depend on the situation... If the old Dead Rev, for examples treats boys and girls equally on the issue of crying, thats teaching them to be tough in a tough world... if on the other hand, the boy is scolded while the girl is coddled, thats something more closely linked to what we're discussing, I think.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 07, 2012, 09:36:44 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:30:48 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 07, 2012, 09:27:31 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 07, 2012, 09:20:58 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:10:37 PM
I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

Yes, I never thought about it much. I really don't have anything but personal thoughts so far.

I do want to puke when I see some little kid crying and people start yelling at him to "man up". He's FOUR, FFS. I'm not sure how much the macho thing has to do with the patriarchy, though.

Other than that, I don't have much.
Machismo has everything to do with patriarchy. It's obnoxious, showy masculinity that imposes its will on everyone around it, most particularly females.

And related to screeching at a crying four year old, crying is a sign of weakness, yes? Men aren't supposed to be weak. Women, for whom crying is...expected? are.

Or aren't, as the case may be (see my response to the same post).

Yeah, but when you're talking about patriarchy, you're talking about society, which means you have to view it under a broader umbrella than individual actions, and look at it from the perspective of social expectations/norms.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Salty on August 07, 2012, 09:37:12 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 07, 2012, 09:27:31 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 07, 2012, 09:20:58 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:10:37 PM
I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

Yes, I never thought about it much. I really don't have anything but personal thoughts so far.

I do want to puke when I see some little kid crying and people start yelling at him to "man up". He's FOUR, FFS. I'm not sure how much the macho thing has to do with the patriarchy, though.

Other than that, I don't have much.
Machismo has everything to do with patriarchy. It's obnoxious, showy masculinity that imposes its will on everyone around it, most particularly females.


Eh, to a point. It's men asserting certain qualities that place them in a perceived higher status bracket, not necessarily to put women down specifically. Sometimes it's used by men to raise their status above women in an oppressive way, or to ensure the status quo where that kind of oppression is rampant. But it is also used to raise in status in contest with other men because...well, that's what apes do. It can be more or less refined, and it can take very different shapes.

Certainly it can be obnoxious, out-dated, crude. But that has more to do with Those Kind of People than qualities inherent in promoting one's masculinity.

Much in the same vein: Women can put on make-up for a variety of reasons (many of which involve attracting a mate), but with varying degrees of need and intensity. Some women cannot live without make-up (sign of Patriarchy?) or wear only a little because it makes them feel nice (?).
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:37:35 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 07, 2012, 09:32:40 PM
I never said I agreed with the idea that crying is a sign of weakness.

Oh, I know.  I view it as a sign that something is VERY wrong, which is why I taught my son and my daughter that crying is for when crying is appropriate. 

I wouldn't think that you would assume it's a sign of weakness.  I respect your opinion in a way that I would have (a few years back) found very difficult to do with someone half my age.  I wouldn't respect your opinion as much if you held such weird beliefs as "crying is weak".  You might be a Fresno weirdo and a cannibal, but you've always had your shit in one bag...Even if you view me as a bit of a dumbass.

:lulz:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 07, 2012, 09:38:23 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 07, 2012, 09:34:16 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:30:48 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 07, 2012, 09:27:31 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 07, 2012, 09:20:58 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:10:37 PM
I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

Yes, I never thought about it much. I really don't have anything but personal thoughts so far.

I do want to puke when I see some little kid crying and people start yelling at him to "man up". He's FOUR, FFS. I'm not sure how much the macho thing has to do with the patriarchy, though.

Other than that, I don't have much.
Machismo has everything to do with patriarchy. It's obnoxious, showy masculinity that imposes its will on everyone around it, most particularly females.

And related to screeching at a crying four year old, crying is a sign of weakness, yes? Men aren't supposed to be weak. Women, for whom crying is...expected? are.

Or aren't, as the case may be (see my response to the same post).

I think it would depend on the situation... If the old Dead Rev, for examples treats boys and girls equally on the issue of crying, thats teaching them to be tough in a tough world... if on the other hand, the boy is scolded while the girl is coddled, thats something more closely linked to what we're discussing, I think.

More like, treating them differently reinforces the status quo, while treating them equally undermines it. On a very small scale.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:38:44 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 07, 2012, 09:36:44 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:30:48 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 07, 2012, 09:27:31 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 07, 2012, 09:20:58 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:10:37 PM
I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

Yes, I never thought about it much. I really don't have anything but personal thoughts so far.

I do want to puke when I see some little kid crying and people start yelling at him to "man up". He's FOUR, FFS. I'm not sure how much the macho thing has to do with the patriarchy, though.

Other than that, I don't have much.
Machismo has everything to do with patriarchy. It's obnoxious, showy masculinity that imposes its will on everyone around it, most particularly females.

And related to screeching at a crying four year old, crying is a sign of weakness, yes? Men aren't supposed to be weak. Women, for whom crying is...expected? are.

Or aren't, as the case may be (see my response to the same post).

Yeah, but when you're talking about patriarchy, you're talking about society, which means you have to view it under a broader umbrella than individual actions, and look at it from the perspective of social expectations/norms.

Oh, no argument at all.  I'm just saying that teaching kids moderation in emotional expression isn't necessarily a gender-based thing.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:39:16 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 07, 2012, 09:38:23 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 07, 2012, 09:34:16 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:30:48 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 07, 2012, 09:27:31 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 07, 2012, 09:20:58 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:10:37 PM
I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

Yes, I never thought about it much. I really don't have anything but personal thoughts so far.

I do want to puke when I see some little kid crying and people start yelling at him to "man up". He's FOUR, FFS. I'm not sure how much the macho thing has to do with the patriarchy, though.

Other than that, I don't have much.
Machismo has everything to do with patriarchy. It's obnoxious, showy masculinity that imposes its will on everyone around it, most particularly females.

And related to screeching at a crying four year old, crying is a sign of weakness, yes? Men aren't supposed to be weak. Women, for whom crying is...expected? are.

Or aren't, as the case may be (see my response to the same post).

I think it would depend on the situation... If the old Dead Rev, for examples treats boys and girls equally on the issue of crying, thats teaching them to be tough in a tough world... if on the other hand, the boy is scolded while the girl is coddled, thats something more closely linked to what we're discussing, I think.

More like, treating them differently reinforces the status quo, while treating them equally undermines it. On a very small scale.

It's the only scale I've got.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 07, 2012, 09:40:06 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:26:00 PM
Quote from: Phox, The Abdicator on August 07, 2012, 09:24:05 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 07, 2012, 09:20:58 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:10:37 PM
I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

Yes, I never thought about it much. I really don't have anything but personal thoughts so far.

I do want to puke when I see some little kid crying and people start yelling at him to "man up". He's FOUR, FFS. I'm not sure how much the macho thing has to do with the patriarchy, though.

Other than that, I don't have much.
That's more gender role sereotyping, which isn't necessarily "patriarchy", but definitely exploited by the patriarchy.

Maybe.  I taught both of my kids that crying is reserved for occasions worth crying over.

Skinned knee?  Quit it.
Broken leg?  Go ahead.

You can't go out with your friends tonight?  Deal with it.
Death in the family?  Go ahead and cry.

Quit it/deal with it applied equally is great.

Yelling at a preschooler like a drill instructor when you would hug his sister for the same behavior, not so much.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:41:41 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 07, 2012, 09:34:16 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:30:48 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 07, 2012, 09:27:31 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 07, 2012, 09:20:58 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:10:37 PM
I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

Yes, I never thought about it much. I really don't have anything but personal thoughts so far.

I do want to puke when I see some little kid crying and people start yelling at him to "man up". He's FOUR, FFS. I'm not sure how much the macho thing has to do with the patriarchy, though.

Other than that, I don't have much.
Machismo has everything to do with patriarchy. It's obnoxious, showy masculinity that imposes its will on everyone around it, most particularly females.

And related to screeching at a crying four year old, crying is a sign of weakness, yes? Men aren't supposed to be weak. Women, for whom crying is...expected? are.

Or aren't, as the case may be (see my response to the same post).

I think it would depend on the situation... If the old Dead Rev, for examples treats boys and girls equally on the issue of crying, thats teaching them to be tough in a tough world... if on the other hand, the boy is scolded while the girl is coddled, thats something more closely linked to what we're discussing, I think.

It's not just about being "tough", but also about teaching them nuance in how they express themselves.

If all you do is cry when things don't go your way, how will people be able to tell when something is REALLY wrong?

Crying is appropriate for extreme emotion (anger, grief, even happiness, etc) or serious injury, IMO.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 07, 2012, 09:42:06 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:38:44 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 07, 2012, 09:36:44 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:30:48 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 07, 2012, 09:27:31 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 07, 2012, 09:20:58 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:10:37 PM
I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

Yes, I never thought about it much. I really don't have anything but personal thoughts so far.

I do want to puke when I see some little kid crying and people start yelling at him to "man up". He's FOUR, FFS. I'm not sure how much the macho thing has to do with the patriarchy, though.

Other than that, I don't have much.
Machismo has everything to do with patriarchy. It's obnoxious, showy masculinity that imposes its will on everyone around it, most particularly females.

And related to screeching at a crying four year old, crying is a sign of weakness, yes? Men aren't supposed to be weak. Women, for whom crying is...expected? are.

Or aren't, as the case may be (see my response to the same post).

Yeah, but when you're talking about patriarchy, you're talking about society, which means you have to view it under a broader umbrella than individual actions, and look at it from the perspective of social expectations/norms.

Oh, no argument at all.  I'm just saying that teaching kids moderation in emotional expression isn't necessarily a gender-based thing.

OK, but you keep talking about things from an individualistic perspective, which makes it really hard to discuss patriarchy from a societal perspective.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:42:45 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 07, 2012, 09:40:06 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:26:00 PM
Quote from: Phox, The Abdicator on August 07, 2012, 09:24:05 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 07, 2012, 09:20:58 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:10:37 PM
I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

Yes, I never thought about it much. I really don't have anything but personal thoughts so far.

I do want to puke when I see some little kid crying and people start yelling at him to "man up". He's FOUR, FFS. I'm not sure how much the macho thing has to do with the patriarchy, though.

Other than that, I don't have much.
That's more gender role sereotyping, which isn't necessarily "patriarchy", but definitely exploited by the patriarchy.

Maybe.  I taught both of my kids that crying is reserved for occasions worth crying over.

Skinned knee?  Quit it.
Broken leg?  Go ahead.

You can't go out with your friends tonight?  Deal with it.
Death in the family?  Go ahead and cry.

Quit it/deal with it applied equally is great.

Yelling at a preschooler like a drill instructor when you would hug his sister for the same behavior, not so much.

Yep.  And the yelling bit doesn't work anyfuckingway.

Never let your child see that you're upset with them.  It's one of their goals, part of the primate dominance game.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:43:56 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 07, 2012, 09:42:06 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:38:44 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 07, 2012, 09:36:44 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:30:48 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 07, 2012, 09:27:31 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 07, 2012, 09:20:58 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:10:37 PM
I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

Yes, I never thought about it much. I really don't have anything but personal thoughts so far.

I do want to puke when I see some little kid crying and people start yelling at him to "man up". He's FOUR, FFS. I'm not sure how much the macho thing has to do with the patriarchy, though.

Other than that, I don't have much.
Machismo has everything to do with patriarchy. It's obnoxious, showy masculinity that imposes its will on everyone around it, most particularly females.

And related to screeching at a crying four year old, crying is a sign of weakness, yes? Men aren't supposed to be weak. Women, for whom crying is...expected? are.

Or aren't, as the case may be (see my response to the same post).

Yeah, but when you're talking about patriarchy, you're talking about society, which means you have to view it under a broader umbrella than individual actions, and look at it from the perspective of social expectations/norms.

Oh, no argument at all.  I'm just saying that teaching kids moderation in emotional expression isn't necessarily a gender-based thing.

OK, but you keep talking about things from an individualistic perspective, which makes it really hard to discuss patriarchy from a societal perspective.

Sorry.

Like I said, I'm on unfamiliar ground, and I'm kind of talking myself through this.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Salty on August 07, 2012, 09:44:06 PM
I think this thread bring up a lot of stuff that's probably more than one thread will reasonably allow for.

At some point we will reach critical mass and Eris Herself will pop out our monitors and finally lead the bloody, bloody, silly crusade.

Alty,
Fuck The Singularity.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Junkenstein on August 07, 2012, 09:45:45 PM
Vaugley relevant gif

(http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/dating-fails-dating-fails-aww-yeah-drop-it-low.gif)

Too tired and working too long to contribute. Will be able to lurk more from work now I have cleared up my predecessors fuckups. That I know of.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 07, 2012, 09:47:36 PM
So do we see a change?

I mean the past 100 years or so seem to have culminated in women having more freedom/control/power and men being more free of stereotypical constraints. Is this something real, or just superficial? Are Condie and Hillary harbingers of equality, or token women in power?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 07, 2012, 09:50:22 PM
Quote from: Just Alty, Actually. on August 07, 2012, 09:37:12 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 07, 2012, 09:27:31 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 07, 2012, 09:20:58 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:10:37 PM
I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

Yes, I never thought about it much. I really don't have anything but personal thoughts so far.

I do want to puke when I see some little kid crying and people start yelling at him to "man up". He's FOUR, FFS. I'm not sure how much the macho thing has to do with the patriarchy, though.

Other than that, I don't have much.
Machismo has everything to do with patriarchy. It's obnoxious, showy masculinity that imposes its will on everyone around it, most particularly females.


Eh, to a point. It's men asserting certain qualities that place them in a perceived higher status bracket, not necessarily to put women down specifically. Sometimes it's used by men to raise their status above women in an oppressive way, or to ensure the status quo where that kind of oppression is rampant. But it is also used to raise in status in contest with other men because...well, that's what apes do. It can be more or less refined, and it can take very different shapes.

Certainly it can be obnoxious, out-dated, crude. But that has more to do with Those Kind of People than qualities inherent in promoting one's masculinity.

Much in the same vein: Women can put on make-up for a variety of reasons (many of which involve attracting a mate), but with varying degrees of need and intensity. Some women cannot live without make-up (sign of Patriarchy?) or wear only a little because it makes them feel nice (?).

Generally I prefer to wear makeup. In the summer I tend not to because I just end up sweating and looking like a raccoon.

I always notice that people are nicer to you when you wear a little makeup, for some reason. It's also one of the things women size each other up by, which is kind of strange. But I've been told a few times by women that when they met me, they had a good impression because I "had my makeup on right". I've been guilty of the same thing, but truth be told, women with disorders tend to paint their faces kind of crazy. A few people look great without makeup but a lot don't, and if they never wear it I tend to wonder what the reason is - if they're allergic or if they just don't care what they look like. Which is probably fucked up of me.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 07, 2012, 09:51:47 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:42:45 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 07, 2012, 09:40:06 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:26:00 PM
Quote from: Phox, The Abdicator on August 07, 2012, 09:24:05 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 07, 2012, 09:20:58 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:10:37 PM
I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

Yes, I never thought about it much. I really don't have anything but personal thoughts so far.

I do want to puke when I see some little kid crying and people start yelling at him to "man up". He's FOUR, FFS. I'm not sure how much the macho thing has to do with the patriarchy, though.

Other than that, I don't have much.
That's more gender role sereotyping, which isn't necessarily "patriarchy", but definitely exploited by the patriarchy.

Maybe.  I taught both of my kids that crying is reserved for occasions worth crying over.

Skinned knee?  Quit it.
Broken leg?  Go ahead.

You can't go out with your friends tonight?  Deal with it.
Death in the family?  Go ahead and cry.

Quit it/deal with it applied equally is great.

Yelling at a preschooler like a drill instructor when you would hug his sister for the same behavior, not so much.

Yep.  And the yelling bit doesn't work anyfuckingway.

Never let your child see that you're upset with them.  It's one of their goals, part of the primate dominance game.

Yep. You yell, they win.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Phox on August 07, 2012, 09:55:41 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:26:00 PM
Quote from: Phox, The Abdicator on August 07, 2012, 09:24:05 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 07, 2012, 09:20:58 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:10:37 PM
I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

Yes, I never thought about it much. I really don't have anything but personal thoughts so far.

I do want to puke when I see some little kid crying and people start yelling at him to "man up". He's FOUR, FFS. I'm not sure how much the macho thing has to do with the patriarchy, though.

Other than that, I don't have much.
That's more gender role sereotyping, which isn't necessarily "patriarchy", but definitely exploited by the patriarchy.

Maybe.  I taught both of my kids that crying is reserved for occasions worth crying over.

Skinned knee?  Quit it.
Broken leg?  Go ahead.

You can't go out with your friends tonight?  Deal with it.
Death in the family?  Go ahead and cry.
That's not what I was saying, Roger. Telling a four-year-old to "man up", in the very wording, is a specifically gendered statement.

Telling a kid that there's no reason to cry over something not worth crying over is a different ballpark, and even a whole different sport.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:56:53 PM
Quote from: Phox, The Abdicator on August 07, 2012, 09:55:41 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:26:00 PM
Quote from: Phox, The Abdicator on August 07, 2012, 09:24:05 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 07, 2012, 09:20:58 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:10:37 PM
I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

Yes, I never thought about it much. I really don't have anything but personal thoughts so far.

I do want to puke when I see some little kid crying and people start yelling at him to "man up". He's FOUR, FFS. I'm not sure how much the macho thing has to do with the patriarchy, though.

Other than that, I don't have much.
That's more gender role sereotyping, which isn't necessarily "patriarchy", but definitely exploited by the patriarchy.

Maybe.  I taught both of my kids that crying is reserved for occasions worth crying over.

Skinned knee?  Quit it.
Broken leg?  Go ahead.

You can't go out with your friends tonight?  Deal with it.
Death in the family?  Go ahead and cry.
That's not what I was saying, Roger. Telling a four-year-old to "man up", in the very wording, is a specifically gendered statement.

Telling a kid that there's no reason to cry over something not worth crying over is a different ballpark, and even a whole different sport.

Um...

...


...


SILENCE!  I AM THINKING BIG THOUGHTS!  :crankey:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Phox on August 07, 2012, 09:59:05 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:23:50 PM
Quote from: Phox, The Abdicator on August 07, 2012, 09:21:49 PM
NIGEL IS STEALING MY THOUGHTS!  :lulz:)

Better check your soul while you're at it.  It's still close to lunch time.
Seriously, I have hard time reading through a thread without a moment going like this: "Oh, I have something to say, this is awesome! Oh... Nigel just said it... and in a clear, concise way. And also said things I didn't think about. Dayum." :lulz:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Salty on August 07, 2012, 09:59:17 PM
With my son I am always sure to tell him not to "man up". I may tell him to be a big boy, but the emphasis there is that he handle himself in a way that is more socially acceptable. Be bigger and stronger than you are now. That's a good thing to tell any kid, I think. Most humans too.

But I'd feel awkward saying "man up" because WTF does that even mean?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Phox on August 07, 2012, 10:01:14 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:56:53 PM
Quote from: Phox, The Abdicator on August 07, 2012, 09:55:41 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:26:00 PM
Quote from: Phox, The Abdicator on August 07, 2012, 09:24:05 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 07, 2012, 09:20:58 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:10:37 PM
I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

Yes, I never thought about it much. I really don't have anything but personal thoughts so far.

I do want to puke when I see some little kid crying and people start yelling at him to "man up". He's FOUR, FFS. I'm not sure how much the macho thing has to do with the patriarchy, though.

Other than that, I don't have much.
That's more gender role sereotyping, which isn't necessarily "patriarchy", but definitely exploited by the patriarchy.

Maybe.  I taught both of my kids that crying is reserved for occasions worth crying over.

Skinned knee?  Quit it.
Broken leg?  Go ahead.

You can't go out with your friends tonight?  Deal with it.
Death in the family?  Go ahead and cry.
That's not what I was saying, Roger. Telling a four-year-old to "man up", in the very wording, is a specifically gendered statement.

Telling a kid that there's no reason to cry over something not worth crying over is a different ballpark, and even a whole different sport.

Um...

...


...


SILENCE!  I AM THINKING BIG THOUGHTS!  :crankey:
S'cool, Roger, I completely get where you were coming from with that statement, and you are certainly not wrong about what you're saying. It's just one of those conversations where we're addressing different issues in the same sentence again.  :lol:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 07, 2012, 10:19:04 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:37:35 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 07, 2012, 09:32:40 PM
I never said I agreed with the idea that crying is a sign of weakness.

Oh, I know.  I view it as a sign that something is VERY wrong, which is why I taught my son and my daughter that crying is for when crying is appropriate. 

I wouldn't think that you would assume it's a sign of weakness.  I respect your opinion in a way that I would have (a few years back) found very difficult to do with someone half my age.  I wouldn't respect your opinion as much if you held such weird beliefs as "crying is weak".  You might be a Fresno weirdo and a cannibal, but you've always had your shit in one bag...Even if you view me as a bit of a dumbass.

:lulz:
Haha, why thank you. :D


Women/females wear makeup for a lot of reasons. When I'm actually feeling feminine, I wear it because I want to (and fuck feminists who decide doing anything stereotypically "feminine" is a sign of surrendering to the patriarchy). When I'm leaning toward the masculine (as I am right now) I wear it only if I'm going out for the evening in public because I feel really weird not doing so.

Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 07, 2012, 09:47:36 PM
So do we see a change?

I mean the past 100 years or so seem to have culminated in women having more freedom/control/power and men being more free of stereotypical constraints. Is this something real, or just superficial? Are Condie and Hillary harbingers of equality, or token women in power?
There is a change for women (and females in general to some extent) but a lot of our change has not yet been matched by change in men and males. You're still locked into tighter constraints (in some ways) than we are. I can get away with gender expression that is vastly outside what is expected of a women/female, but you can't. Women/females can wear men's clothing pretty easily (point in case, me), but men are mocked and degraded for wearing women's clothing. How are transvestites in women's clothing depicted in the media? They are either depicted as being sick/weird or degraded comic relief. Transvestites in men's clothing are shown as sexy (they heydays of burlesque are good examples of this) or powerful and brave (like Mulan, in Mulan).

Condi and Hilary are, I think, harbingers of change, Condi in particular. Neither of them would have been allowed to be in the positions they have or currently do occupy until maybe the last couple decades and I think it's only going to get better in terms of how many women are allowed to hold similar positions as time goes on.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on August 07, 2012, 10:24:03 PM
The idea that any person should be considered in any way different from any other person on the basis of anything other than what they do is perplexing and foreign to me, even submerged in a culture that is fraught with these kinds of assessments.

"The fleshy package your personality is wrapped in is in some ways dissimilar, and in other ways similar, to the one mine is wrapped in."

That is the most meaningful statement that can be made concerning the differences between male and female. But the same statement can be made to distinguish any two people, so it is ultimately meaningless.

We can't expect to arrive at any real gender neutrality when we leave the social structures of patriarchy in place. Matriarchy would be the same thing in reverse, so that's a no-go. "Feminism" is probably something closer to the right way, but the fact that its root word is specifically and exclusively female pays too much lip service to this illusion of some inherent distinction between a person who is a woman, and a person who is a man.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Salty on August 07, 2012, 10:25:13 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 07, 2012, 10:19:04 PM

Women/females wear makeup for a lot of reasons. When I'm actually feeling feminine, I wear it because I want to (and fuck feminists who decide doing anything stereotypically "feminine" is a sign of surrendering to the patriarchy). When I'm leaning toward the masculine (as I am right now) I wear it only if I'm going out for the evening in public because I feel really weird not doing so.

Exactly this. Showing signs of masculinity is much the same. It doesn't have to be a means or symbol of oppressing women, it just is by those who would do so by any method.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 07, 2012, 10:26:19 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:43:56 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 07, 2012, 09:42:06 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:38:44 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 07, 2012, 09:36:44 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:30:48 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 07, 2012, 09:27:31 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 07, 2012, 09:20:58 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:10:37 PM
I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

Yes, I never thought about it much. I really don't have anything but personal thoughts so far.

I do want to puke when I see some little kid crying and people start yelling at him to "man up". He's FOUR, FFS. I'm not sure how much the macho thing has to do with the patriarchy, though.

Other than that, I don't have much.
Machismo has everything to do with patriarchy. It's obnoxious, showy masculinity that imposes its will on everyone around it, most particularly females.

And related to screeching at a crying four year old, crying is a sign of weakness, yes? Men aren't supposed to be weak. Women, for whom crying is...expected? are.

Or aren't, as the case may be (see my response to the same post).

Yeah, but when you're talking about patriarchy, you're talking about society, which means you have to view it under a broader umbrella than individual actions, and look at it from the perspective of social expectations/norms.

Oh, no argument at all.  I'm just saying that teaching kids moderation in emotional expression isn't necessarily a gender-based thing.

OK, but you keep talking about things from an individualistic perspective, which makes it really hard to discuss patriarchy from a societal perspective.

Sorry.

Like I said, I'm on unfamiliar ground, and I'm kind of talking myself through this.

S'ok, I'm just reminding you to take a step back and try to look at it from a less personal and more of a broad cultural perspective. :)
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 07, 2012, 10:27:04 PM
Quote from: Phox, The Abdicator on August 07, 2012, 10:01:14 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:56:53 PM
Quote from: Phox, The Abdicator on August 07, 2012, 09:55:41 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:26:00 PM
Quote from: Phox, The Abdicator on August 07, 2012, 09:24:05 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 07, 2012, 09:20:58 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:10:37 PM
I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

Yes, I never thought about it much. I really don't have anything but personal thoughts so far.

I do want to puke when I see some little kid crying and people start yelling at him to "man up". He's FOUR, FFS. I'm not sure how much the macho thing has to do with the patriarchy, though.

Other than that, I don't have much.
That's more gender role sereotyping, which isn't necessarily "patriarchy", but definitely exploited by the patriarchy.

Maybe.  I taught both of my kids that crying is reserved for occasions worth crying over.

Skinned knee?  Quit it.
Broken leg?  Go ahead.

You can't go out with your friends tonight?  Deal with it.
Death in the family?  Go ahead and cry.
That's not what I was saying, Roger. Telling a four-year-old to "man up", in the very wording, is a specifically gendered statement.

Telling a kid that there's no reason to cry over something not worth crying over is a different ballpark, and even a whole different sport.

Um...

...


...


SILENCE!  I AM THINKING BIG THOUGHTS!  :crankey:
S'cool, Roger, I completely get where you were coming from with that statement, and you are certainly not wrong about what you're saying. It's just one of those conversations where we're addressing different issues in the same sentence again.  :lol:

I guess my problem here is trying to distinguish between patriarchal conditioning and individual behaviors with other motivations.  After all, to fight something, you need to know where it is and where it isn't.

Or, as my dad once put it:

"Sometimes an ICBM is just an ICBM.  And sometimes it's a hundred megatons of phallic symbol jammed in a what we prefer to call a 'silo' rather than a 150 foot deep vagina."

My dad is kinda weird.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 07, 2012, 10:28:39 PM
Quote from: Just Alty, Actually. on August 07, 2012, 10:25:13 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 07, 2012, 10:19:04 PM

Women/females wear makeup for a lot of reasons. When I'm actually feeling feminine, I wear it because I want to (and fuck feminists who decide doing anything stereotypically "feminine" is a sign of surrendering to the patriarchy). When I'm leaning toward the masculine (as I am right now) I wear it only if I'm going out for the evening in public because I feel really weird not doing so.

Exactly this. Showing signs of masculinity is much the same. It doesn't have to be a means or symbol of oppressing women, it just is by those who would do so by any method.

Not only that, but "feminists" who say that using makeup when you WANT to use makeup is "surrendering" are just another group of people out to control your actions and beliefs.

It's Pinkboyism in its most insidious form.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 07, 2012, 10:30:08 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 07, 2012, 09:47:36 PM
So do we see a change?

I mean the past 100 years or so seem to have culminated in women having more freedom/control/power and men being more free of stereotypical constraints. Is this something real, or just superficial? Are Condie and Hillary harbingers of equality, or token women in power?

There has been definite, huge, extremely positive change! Our society has undeniably radically shifted towards egalitarianism. This is why there are so many "conservatives" (regressionists) screaming for a "return to traditional family values".
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 07, 2012, 10:30:54 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 07, 2012, 10:30:08 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 07, 2012, 09:47:36 PM
So do we see a change?

I mean the past 100 years or so seem to have culminated in women having more freedom/control/power and men being more free of stereotypical constraints. Is this something real, or just superficial? Are Condie and Hillary harbingers of equality, or token women in power?

There has been definite, huge, extremely positive change! Our society has undeniably radically shifted towards egalitarianism. This is why there are so many "conservatives" (regressionists) screaming for a "return to traditional family values".

Oh, yes.  You can always tell when a movement is succeeding, because its opponents start talking about a lost golden age.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 07, 2012, 10:31:16 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 07, 2012, 10:24:03 PM
The idea that any person should be considered in any way different from any other person on the basis of anything other than what they do is perplexing and foreign to me, even submerged in a culture that is fraught with these kinds of assessments.

"The fleshy package your personality is wrapped in is in some ways dissimilar, and in other ways similar, to the one mine is wrapped in."

That is the most meaningful statement that can be made concerning the differences between male and female. But the same statement can be made to distinguish any two people, so it is ultimately meaningless.

We can't expect to arrive at any real gender neutrality when we leave the social structures of patriarchy in place. Matriarchy would be the same thing in reverse, so that's a no-go. "Feminism" is probably something closer to the right way, but the fact that its root word is specifically and exclusively female pays too much lip service to this illusion of some inherent distinction between a person who is a woman, and a person who is a man.
I really, really hate repeating myself, but, Vex, women and females are an oppressed group even still. We need a specific movement that denotes who it works for because the work feminism started out to do, way back when, is still not done. Its work won't be done until the kyriarchy has been dismantled because an injury to one oppressed group is ultimately an injury to us all.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 10:28:39 PM
Quote from: Just Alty, Actually. on August 07, 2012, 10:25:13 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 07, 2012, 10:19:04 PM

Women/females wear makeup for a lot of reasons. When I'm actually feeling feminine, I wear it because I want to (and fuck feminists who decide doing anything stereotypically "feminine" is a sign of surrendering to the patriarchy). When I'm leaning toward the masculine (as I am right now) I wear it only if I'm going out for the evening in public because I feel really weird not doing so.

Exactly this. Showing signs of masculinity is much the same. It doesn't have to be a means or symbol of oppressing women, it just is by those who would do so by any method.

Not only that, but "feminists" who say that using makeup when you WANT to use makeup is "surrendering" are just another group of people out to control your actions and beliefs.

It's Pinkboyism in its most insidious form.
Bless these posts.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 07, 2012, 10:32:29 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 07, 2012, 09:50:22 PM
Quote from: Just Alty, Actually. on August 07, 2012, 09:37:12 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 07, 2012, 09:27:31 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 07, 2012, 09:20:58 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:10:37 PM
I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

Yes, I never thought about it much. I really don't have anything but personal thoughts so far.

I do want to puke when I see some little kid crying and people start yelling at him to "man up". He's FOUR, FFS. I'm not sure how much the macho thing has to do with the patriarchy, though.

Other than that, I don't have much.
Machismo has everything to do with patriarchy. It's obnoxious, showy masculinity that imposes its will on everyone around it, most particularly females.


Eh, to a point. It's men asserting certain qualities that place them in a perceived higher status bracket, not necessarily to put women down specifically. Sometimes it's used by men to raise their status above women in an oppressive way, or to ensure the status quo where that kind of oppression is rampant. But it is also used to raise in status in contest with other men because...well, that's what apes do. It can be more or less refined, and it can take very different shapes.

Certainly it can be obnoxious, out-dated, crude. But that has more to do with Those Kind of People than qualities inherent in promoting one's masculinity.

Much in the same vein: Women can put on make-up for a variety of reasons (many of which involve attracting a mate), but with varying degrees of need and intensity. Some women cannot live without make-up (sign of Patriarchy?) or wear only a little because it makes them feel nice (?).

Generally I prefer to wear makeup. In the summer I tend not to because I just end up sweating and looking like a raccoon.

I always notice that people are nicer to you when you wear a little makeup, for some reason. It's also one of the things women size each other up by, which is kind of strange. But I've been told a few times by women that when they met me, they had a good impression because I "had my makeup on right". I've been guilty of the same thing, but truth be told, women with disorders tend to paint their faces kind of crazy. A few people look great without makeup but a lot don't, and if they never wear it I tend to wonder what the reason is - if they're allergic or if they just don't care what they look like. Which is probably fucked up of me.

It's because women who are wearing makeup correctly are displaying that  they are culturally normative and therefore compliant to society's expectations, so they receive approval.

That's not necessarily a bad thing, just something interesting to be aware of. We all receive approval, including from strangers, when we demonstrate that we exemplify society's expectations for us.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Phox on August 07, 2012, 10:35:11 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 10:27:04 PM
Quote from: Phox, The Abdicator on August 07, 2012, 10:01:14 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:56:53 PM
Quote from: Phox, The Abdicator on August 07, 2012, 09:55:41 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:26:00 PM
Quote from: Phox, The Abdicator on August 07, 2012, 09:24:05 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 07, 2012, 09:20:58 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:10:37 PM
I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

Yes, I never thought about it much. I really don't have anything but personal thoughts so far.

I do want to puke when I see some little kid crying and people start yelling at him to "man up". He's FOUR, FFS. I'm not sure how much the macho thing has to do with the patriarchy, though.

Other than that, I don't have much.
That's more gender role sereotyping, which isn't necessarily "patriarchy", but definitely exploited by the patriarchy.

Maybe.  I taught both of my kids that crying is reserved for occasions worth crying over.

Skinned knee?  Quit it.
Broken leg?  Go ahead.

You can't go out with your friends tonight?  Deal with it.
Death in the family?  Go ahead and cry.
That's not what I was saying, Roger. Telling a four-year-old to "man up", in the very wording, is a specifically gendered statement.

Telling a kid that there's no reason to cry over something not worth crying over is a different ballpark, and even a whole different sport.

Um...

...


...


SILENCE!  I AM THINKING BIG THOUGHTS!  :crankey:
S'cool, Roger, I completely get where you were coming from with that statement, and you are certainly not wrong about what you're saying. It's just one of those conversations where we're addressing different issues in the same sentence again.  :lol:

I guess my problem here is trying to distinguish between patriarchal conditioning and individual behaviors with other motivations.  After all, to fight something, you need to know where it is and where it isn't.

Or, as my dad once put it:

"Sometimes an ICBM is just an ICBM.  And sometimes it's a hundred megatons of phallic symbol jammed in a what we prefer to call a 'silo' rather than a 150 foot deep vagina."

My dad is kinda weird.
Yeah, I get it. It's not really easy to see where the patriarchal conditioning begins and where other influences begin, ESPECIALLY in areas like gender roles. The patriarchy isn't necessarily responsible for the advent of gender stereotypes, but if they fit into the patriarchy's agenda it is responsible for propagating them. At that point, the question becomes whether they are distinguishable at all in any meaningful way. I think at this point I'm just talking nonsense, so I'll leave it there.  :lol:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on August 07, 2012, 10:37:28 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 07, 2012, 10:31:16 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 07, 2012, 10:24:03 PM
The idea that any person should be considered in any way different from any other person on the basis of anything other than what they do is perplexing and foreign to me, even submerged in a culture that is fraught with these kinds of assessments.

"The fleshy package your personality is wrapped in is in some ways dissimilar, and in other ways similar, to the one mine is wrapped in."

That is the most meaningful statement that can be made concerning the differences between male and female. But the same statement can be made to distinguish any two people, so it is ultimately meaningless.

We can't expect to arrive at any real gender neutrality when we leave the social structures of patriarchy in place. Matriarchy would be the same thing in reverse, so that's a no-go. "Feminism" is probably something closer to the right way, but the fact that its root word is specifically and exclusively female pays too much lip service to this illusion of some inherent distinction between a person who is a woman, and a person who is a man.
I really, really hate repeating myself, but, Vex, women and females are an oppressed group even still. We need a specific movement that denotes who it works for because the work feminism started out to do, way back when, is still not done. Its work won't be done until the kyriarchy has been dismantled because an injury to one oppressed group is ultimately an injury to us all.

I don't disagree with you at all. I just question the usefulness of a movement that specifies females as its intended beneficiary. Even if that benefit is deserved, which it is of course, I'm asking if that goal might be better met by a truly and thoroughly gender-neutral movement at this point. "Feminism," which I agree with, is often written off by those who oppose it simply because it is "for women," and they're dumb enough to be "against women." That feminism is beneficial to both men and women is lost on the vast majority of simpletons who are too dumb to look at a word like "feminism" and see anything beyond the first 3 letters.

If the point is to continue the fight until the last breath of the last die-hard patriarch just so we can all show the world that "ha! women ARE strong!" then Feminism is great. But if the point is to completely eliminate gender as a consideration in the math of a person's value altogether, then why not switch to gender neutrality?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 07, 2012, 10:44:08 PM
Quote from: Phox, The Abdicator on August 07, 2012, 09:55:41 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:26:00 PM
Quote from: Phox, The Abdicator on August 07, 2012, 09:24:05 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 07, 2012, 09:20:58 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:10:37 PM
I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

Yes, I never thought about it much. I really don't have anything but personal thoughts so far.

I do want to puke when I see some little kid crying and people start yelling at him to "man up". He's FOUR, FFS. I'm not sure how much the macho thing has to do with the patriarchy, though.

Other than that, I don't have much.
That's more gender role sereotyping, which isn't necessarily "patriarchy", but definitely exploited by the patriarchy.

Maybe.  I taught both of my kids that crying is reserved for occasions worth crying over.

Skinned knee?  Quit it.
Broken leg?  Go ahead.

You can't go out with your friends tonight?  Deal with it.
Death in the family?  Go ahead and cry.
That's not what I was saying, Roger. Telling a four-year-old to "man up", in the very wording, is a specifically gendered statement.

Telling a kid that there's no reason to cry over something not worth crying over is a different ballpark, and even a whole different sport.

To enter the parenting philosophy fray for a moment, I take a bit of a different approach; I believe that it's not up to me to decide whether something's worth crying about, so I only distinguish between "crying to express pain or emotions" and "crying to manipulate others". If they're crying to express emotions, I try to help them name it, because it's possible that they're crying because they're frustrated at being stumped on how to express something else. If they're crying to manipulate someone, I ignore them. If they're  crying because something hurts, I ask them to look at it and identify whether it is going to be OK, or not. Usually they stop crying as soon as they evaluate it as being minor; their brain kicks out of "HEEEEEELP, I'm INJURED!" mode and shifts into rational mode.

And of course, teenagers sometimes just cry because they're teenagers.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 07, 2012, 10:46:12 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 07, 2012, 10:37:28 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 07, 2012, 10:31:16 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 07, 2012, 10:24:03 PM
The idea that any person should be considered in any way different from any other person on the basis of anything other than what they do is perplexing and foreign to me, even submerged in a culture that is fraught with these kinds of assessments.

"The fleshy package your personality is wrapped in is in some ways dissimilar, and in other ways similar, to the one mine is wrapped in."

That is the most meaningful statement that can be made concerning the differences between male and female. But the same statement can be made to distinguish any two people, so it is ultimately meaningless.

We can't expect to arrive at any real gender neutrality when we leave the social structures of patriarchy in place. Matriarchy would be the same thing in reverse, so that's a no-go. "Feminism" is probably something closer to the right way, but the fact that its root word is specifically and exclusively female pays too much lip service to this illusion of some inherent distinction between a person who is a woman, and a person who is a man.
I really, really hate repeating myself, but, Vex, women and females are an oppressed group even still. We need a specific movement that denotes who it works for because the work feminism started out to do, way back when, is still not done. Its work won't be done until the kyriarchy has been dismantled because an injury to one oppressed group is ultimately an injury to us all.

I don't disagree with you at all. I just question the usefulness of a movement that specifies females as its intended beneficiary. Even if that benefit is deserved, which it is of course, I'm asking if that goal might be better met by a truly and thoroughly gender-neutral movement at this point. "Feminism," which I agree with, is often written off by those who oppose it simply because it is "for women," and they're dumb enough to be "against women." That feminism is beneficial to both men and women is lost on the vast majority of simpletons who are too dumb to look at a word like "feminism" and see anything beyond the first 3 letters.

If the point is to continue the fight until the last breath of the last die-hard patriarch just so we can all show the world that "ha! women ARE strong!" then Feminism is great. But if the point is to completely eliminate gender as a consideration in the math of a person's value altogether, then why not switch to gender neutrality?
Sure. When women and females don't spend every day of their lives trying not to be raped and/or killed and we're all paid the same wage as white men, we can swap over to a gender-inclusive term.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 07, 2012, 10:49:28 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 07, 2012, 10:46:12 PM
Sure. When women and females don't spend every day of their lives trying not to be raped and/or killed and we're all paid the same wage as white men, we can swap over to a gender-inclusive term.

An excellent point...But one possible tool to do that is gender neutrality.  I don't mean scrapping the word "feminist", as Vex seems to be suggesting, because it works just fine.

I mean, for example, the change from "steward" and "stewardess" to "flight attendant".  Or changing existing words.  These days, when I hear "Doctor" I make no assumptions, while in the late 70s I would have automatically assumed a male, and the converse for the word "nurse".
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on August 07, 2012, 10:52:24 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 10:49:28 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 07, 2012, 10:46:12 PM
Sure. When women and females don't spend every day of their lives trying not to be raped and/or killed and we're all paid the same wage as white men, we can swap over to a gender-inclusive term.

An excellent point...But one possible tool to do that is gender neutrality.  I don't mean scrapping the word "feminist", as Vex seems to be suggesting, because it works just fine.

I mean, for example, the change from "steward" and "stewardess" to "flight attendant".  Or changing existing words.  These days, when I hear "Doctor" I make no assumptions, while in the late 70s I would have automatically assumed a male, and the converse for the word "nurse".

This. And I don't mean to completely get rid of "feminism," but to focus the activist, society-changing efforts toward gender neutrality, not toward "women's rights" per se.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Salty on August 07, 2012, 10:52:57 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 07, 2012, 10:46:12 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 07, 2012, 10:37:28 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 07, 2012, 10:31:16 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 07, 2012, 10:24:03 PM
The idea that any person should be considered in any way different from any other person on the basis of anything other than what they do is perplexing and foreign to me, even submerged in a culture that is fraught with these kinds of assessments.

"The fleshy package your personality is wrapped in is in some ways dissimilar, and in other ways similar, to the one mine is wrapped in."

That is the most meaningful statement that can be made concerning the differences between male and female. But the same statement can be made to distinguish any two people, so it is ultimately meaningless.

We can't expect to arrive at any real gender neutrality when we leave the social structures of patriarchy in place. Matriarchy would be the same thing in reverse, so that's a no-go. "Feminism" is probably something closer to the right way, but the fact that its root word is specifically and exclusively female pays too much lip service to this illusion of some inherent distinction between a person who is a woman, and a person who is a man.
I really, really hate repeating myself, but, Vex, women and females are an oppressed group even still. We need a specific movement that denotes who it works for because the work feminism started out to do, way back when, is still not done. Its work won't be done until the kyriarchy has been dismantled because an injury to one oppressed group is ultimately an injury to us all.

I don't disagree with you at all. I just question the usefulness of a movement that specifies females as its intended beneficiary. Even if that benefit is deserved, which it is of course, I'm asking if that goal might be better met by a truly and thoroughly gender-neutral movement at this point. "Feminism," which I agree with, is often written off by those who oppose it simply because it is "for women," and they're dumb enough to be "against women." That feminism is beneficial to both men and women is lost on the vast majority of simpletons who are too dumb to look at a word like "feminism" and see anything beyond the first 3 letters.

If the point is to continue the fight until the last breath of the last die-hard patriarch just so we can all show the world that "ha! women ARE strong!" then Feminism is great. But if the point is to completely eliminate gender as a consideration in the math of a person's value altogether, then why not switch to gender neutrality?
Sure. When women and females don't spend every day of their lives trying not to be raped and/or killed and we're all paid the same wage as white men, we can swap over to a gender-inclusive term.

My opposition to the word itself has more to do with the way people react to sounds.

On reflection, I LOVE shoving things people don't like into their stupid, sweaty faces. So I will use the word like a finely honed club, for which to beat sense into the unwary.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 07, 2012, 10:58:55 PM
I don't disagree there, Roger. Making professions and jobs gender neutral is part of the goal of feminism, I think.

Quote from: v3x on August 07, 2012, 10:52:24 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 10:49:28 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 07, 2012, 10:46:12 PM
Sure. When women and females don't spend every day of their lives trying not to be raped and/or killed and we're all paid the same wage as white men, we can swap over to a gender-inclusive term.

An excellent point...But one possible tool to do that is gender neutrality.  I don't mean scrapping the word "feminist", as Vex seems to be suggesting, because it works just fine.

I mean, for example, the change from "steward" and "stewardess" to "flight attendant".  Or changing existing words.  These days, when I hear "Doctor" I make no assumptions, while in the late 70s I would have automatically assumed a male, and the converse for the word "nurse".

This. And I don't mean to completely get rid of "feminism," but to focus the activist, society-changing efforts toward gender neutrality, not toward "women's rights" per se.
*sigh* I don't think you understand feminism very well. The end goal of feminism (especially third-wave and beyond) is universal equality, where gender (or race or sex or religion or class or or or or about a million other things) does not matter.
But women's rights are still behind yours. I would 100% support extending this to include all genders (because cis men, man, you've got it made), but gender neutrality cannot be met until the rest of us are your equal, de jure and de facto.


Also, jumping back to the OP, gendered assumptions about what gender fills what job hurts men. EG, dudely nurses are (or can be) just as good as lady nurses, but they sometimes receive shit for it.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 07, 2012, 11:13:51 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 07, 2012, 10:24:03 PM
The idea that any person should be considered in any way different from any other person on the basis of anything other than what they do is perplexing and foreign to me, even submerged in a culture that is fraught with these kinds of assessments.

"The fleshy package your personality is wrapped in is in some ways dissimilar, and in other ways similar, to the one mine is wrapped in."

That is the most meaningful statement that can be made concerning the differences between male and female. But the same statement can be made to distinguish any two people, so it is ultimately meaningless.

We can't expect to arrive at any real gender neutrality when we leave the social structures of patriarchy in place. Matriarchy would be the same thing in reverse, so that's a no-go. "Feminism" is probably something closer to the right way, but the fact that its root word is specifically and exclusively female pays too much lip service to this illusion of some inherent distinction between a person who is a woman, and a person who is a man.

I'm curious how you feel about all the common English words that have specifically and exclusively male roots, like seminal, human, and android? I find that most people don't notice the gendered origin of broadly applied male-gender-derived words the way they notice female-gender-derived words. Do you think that aspect might be a symptom of patriarchy, and if yes, do you think that symptom might recede as patriarchy recedes?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on August 07, 2012, 11:18:58 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 07, 2012, 10:58:55 PM
I don't disagree there, Roger. Making professions and jobs gender neutral is part of the goal of feminism, I think.

Quote from: v3x on August 07, 2012, 10:52:24 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 10:49:28 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 07, 2012, 10:46:12 PM
Sure. When women and females don't spend every day of their lives trying not to be raped and/or killed and we're all paid the same wage as white men, we can swap over to a gender-inclusive term.

An excellent point...But one possible tool to do that is gender neutrality.  I don't mean scrapping the word "feminist", as Vex seems to be suggesting, because it works just fine.

I mean, for example, the change from "steward" and "stewardess" to "flight attendant".  Or changing existing words.  These days, when I hear "Doctor" I make no assumptions, while in the late 70s I would have automatically assumed a male, and the converse for the word "nurse".

This. And I don't mean to completely get rid of "feminism," but to focus the activist, society-changing efforts toward gender neutrality, not toward "women's rights" per se.
*sigh* I don't think you understand feminism very well. The end goal of feminism (especially third-wave and beyond) is universal equality, where gender (or race or sex or religion or class or or or or about a million other things) does not matter.
But women's rights are still behind yours. I would 100% support extending this to include all genders (because cis men, man, you've got it made), but gender neutrality cannot be met until the rest of us are your equal, de jure and de facto.


Also, jumping back to the OP, gendered assumptions about what gender fills what job hurts men. EG, dudely nurses are (or can be) just as good as lady nurses, but they sometimes receive shit for it.

I don't think you understand my position. I'm not saying that women's rights are equal already, and I realize the ultimate goal of feminism is universal equality. I'm saying that feminism's female-centric approach may be one thing that is standing in the way of reaching that goal.

I understand the maneuver: you stir up the blatant sexist elements in industry, government, or wherever, identify them, and take them out one way or another (usually their own douchebagginess, once publicly displayed, is enough to remove them from their positions). Feminism is good at stirring them up because lots of assholes are allergic to "feminism." They start talking shit about "feminists" and pretty soon everybody knows what a chauvinist they are, and then they go away.

But what I'm saying is that, at this point, it's possible that that tactic is experiencing the law of diminishing returns; by continuing to put itself out there, Feminism is creating bigots as fast as it is identifying and removing them -- not because it's doing anything wrong but because it can be made to look that way, to idiots. And since we're never going to get rid of the stupid, it may be worth considering changing gears and go with a more inclusive equality movement.

TL;DR: Feminism itself may be delaying the success of feminism, because its female-centric character can be too easily portrayed as "hypocrisy" -- even though it isn't hypocritical.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on August 07, 2012, 11:25:20 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 07, 2012, 11:13:51 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 07, 2012, 10:24:03 PM
The idea that any person should be considered in any way different from any other person on the basis of anything other than what they do is perplexing and foreign to me, even submerged in a culture that is fraught with these kinds of assessments.

"The fleshy package your personality is wrapped in is in some ways dissimilar, and in other ways similar, to the one mine is wrapped in."

That is the most meaningful statement that can be made concerning the differences between male and female. But the same statement can be made to distinguish any two people, so it is ultimately meaningless.

We can't expect to arrive at any real gender neutrality when we leave the social structures of patriarchy in place. Matriarchy would be the same thing in reverse, so that's a no-go. "Feminism" is probably something closer to the right way, but the fact that its root word is specifically and exclusively female pays too much lip service to this illusion of some inherent distinction between a person who is a woman, and a person who is a man.

I'm curious how you feel about all the common English words that have specifically and exclusively male roots, like seminal, human, and android? I find that most people don't notice the gendered origin of broadly applied male-gender-derived words the way they notice female-gender-derived words. Do you think that aspect might be a symptom of patriarchy, and if yes, do you think that symptom might recede as patriarchy recedes?

Well, languages certainly evolve over time. And of course patriarchy informs the language of any patriarchal society just as it affects events. The words you mention are ancient, so probably more resistant to change. But we have seen the loss of some more recent gender-specific words, or at least a decreasing use of them. "Chairman," "Stewardess," and other words which used to elicit an immediate gender connotation have lost that connotation. Considering out language is a thousand years old and the conscious effort to push for gender equality is barely a century old, I think those effects are fairly impressive. But yeah, I think some of the words you mentioned will either fall out of common usage because of equality, or take on different meanings and connotations.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 07, 2012, 11:36:45 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 07, 2012, 10:58:55 PM
I don't disagree there, Roger. Making professions and jobs gender neutral is part of the goal of feminism, I think.

Quote from: v3x on August 07, 2012, 10:52:24 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 10:49:28 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 07, 2012, 10:46:12 PM
Sure. When women and females don't spend every day of their lives trying not to be raped and/or killed and we're all paid the same wage as white men, we can swap over to a gender-inclusive term.

An excellent point...But one possible tool to do that is gender neutrality.  I don't mean scrapping the word "feminist", as Vex seems to be suggesting, because it works just fine.

I mean, for example, the change from "steward" and "stewardess" to "flight attendant".  Or changing existing words.  These days, when I hear "Doctor" I make no assumptions, while in the late 70s I would have automatically assumed a male, and the converse for the word "nurse".

This. And I don't mean to completely get rid of "feminism," but to focus the activist, society-changing efforts toward gender neutrality, not toward "women's rights" per se.
*sigh* I don't think you understand feminism very well. The end goal of feminism (especially third-wave and beyond) is universal equality, where gender (or race or sex or religion or class or or or or about a million other things) does not matter.
But women's rights are still behind yours. I would 100% support extending this to include all genders (because cis men, man, you've got it made), but gender neutrality cannot be met until the rest of us are your equal, de jure and de facto.


Also, jumping back to the OP, gendered assumptions about what gender fills what job hurts men. EG, dudely nurses are (or can be) just as good as lady nurses, but they sometimes receive shit for it.

That, or they get the "Oh my god, you're such a HERO! You're SO BRAVE! <SWOON>" treatment. I know a pediatric oncological nurse who gets that all the time.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 07, 2012, 11:45:39 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 07, 2012, 11:25:20 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 07, 2012, 11:13:51 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 07, 2012, 10:24:03 PM
The idea that any person should be considered in any way different from any other person on the basis of anything other than what they do is perplexing and foreign to me, even submerged in a culture that is fraught with these kinds of assessments.

"The fleshy package your personality is wrapped in is in some ways dissimilar, and in other ways similar, to the one mine is wrapped in."

That is the most meaningful statement that can be made concerning the differences between male and female. But the same statement can be made to distinguish any two people, so it is ultimately meaningless.

We can't expect to arrive at any real gender neutrality when we leave the social structures of patriarchy in place. Matriarchy would be the same thing in reverse, so that's a no-go. "Feminism" is probably something closer to the right way, but the fact that its root word is specifically and exclusively female pays too much lip service to this illusion of some inherent distinction between a person who is a woman, and a person who is a man.

I'm curious how you feel about all the common English words that have specifically and exclusively male roots, like seminal, human, and android? I find that most people don't notice the gendered origin of broadly applied male-gender-derived words the way they notice female-gender-derived words. Do you think that aspect might be a symptom of patriarchy, and if yes, do you think that symptom might recede as patriarchy recedes?

Well, languages certainly evolve over time. And of course patriarchy informs the language of any patriarchal society just as it affects events. The words you mention are ancient, so probably more resistant to change. But we have seen the loss of some more recent gender-specific words, or at least a decreasing use of them. "Chairman," "Stewardess," and other words which used to elicit an immediate gender connotation have lost that connotation. Considering out language is a thousand years old and the conscious effort to push for gender equality is barely a century old, I think those effects are fairly impressive. But yeah, I think some of the words you mentioned will either fall out of common usage because of equality, or take on different meanings and connotations.

Do you think the same might be true of the word "feminism", or that the fact that it generates this kind of dialogue might be part of its usefulness?

It is, after all, a little hard to address the lower social status of women without mentioning it, and it seems to me that it's not going to matter much what you call it; the same people are going to object to it as soon as they realize it's about achieving equal social status for men, women and etc.

At least this way the dialogue is open and on the table, and nobody can make accusations that the movement is trying to "hide anything", which is undoubtedly what would happen if it were called something more neutral and less established. It is pretty much a given that if, for instance, we called ourselves "egalitarianists", the Traditional Family Values people would then attack us for our "hidden feminist agenda".
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 07, 2012, 11:56:49 PM
^^^ That.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 07, 2012, 11:58:26 PM
Personally, I like the word "feminist" because the people I like know what it means, and the people I don't like immediately start screaming about "ball-busting, domineering bitches", and then they spend the rest of the day all raged-out.

Which, you know, gives me a warm feeling in my bits.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞ on August 08, 2012, 12:01:26 AM
Quote from: v3x on August 07, 2012, 10:37:28 PM
That feminism is beneficial to both men and women is lost on the vast majority of simpletons who are too dumb to look at a word like "feminism" and see anything beyond the first 3 letters.

I don't think it would matter if feminism went by another name.

Look at what the vast majority of simpletons did with the word "socialism", for example.

I mean, we're talking about simpletons here, who by definition are language manglers.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 08, 2012, 12:02:34 AM
Quote from: Net on August 08, 2012, 12:01:26 AM
Quote from: v3x on August 07, 2012, 10:37:28 PM
That feminism is beneficial to both men and women is lost on the vast majority of simpletons who are too dumb to look at a word like "feminism" and see anything beyond the first 3 letters.

I don't think it would matter if feminism went by another name.

Look at what the vast majority of simpletons did with the word "socialism", for example.

I mean, we're talking about simpletons here, who by definition are language manglers.

Any idiot can find something wrong with anything.

That's why they're idiots.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on August 08, 2012, 12:10:55 AM
YOU'RE ALL RIGHT.

I really should check whatever part of my DNA it is that makes me want to play Devil's Advocate all the fucking time.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 08, 2012, 12:23:26 AM
Quote from: CarvedWood on August 07, 2012, 07:05:14 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 07, 2012, 06:56:04 PM
Quote from: CarvedWood on August 07, 2012, 06:47:57 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 07, 2012, 06:32:37 PM
I second Alty regarding wife number two; gender roles are set by men (and the "woman stays at home" is relatively recent and, random historical fact of the day, courtesy of the Dutch).

The patriarchy is what stereotypes men as, basically, cavemen incapable of controlling themselves, who think exclusively with their dicks (which, coincidely links into rape culture, since women/females are supposed to know this and take care if ourselves accordingly).
Feminism holds you to be capable of being more than that.

Seriously?  In an example that gives two women, one who bucked the gender stereotype and was successful, the other who chose to embrace the stereotype, you're still going to absolve Wife#2 of any blame for the harm she was doing her family, and continue to blame the patriarchy?  OMG, what does a woman have to do to get credit for her own fuckups?
Dude, chill. No one is attacking you. *Her* expectation that househusband get a job and shit is the result of patriarchal expectations and gender roles. Is it her fault for not putting the well-being of the first househusband above her expectation? Yes. She should see that it works better for them like this. Was it her fault for preventing her own husband from nuturing his kids? Yes. And it's grossly unfair for her to do so. But, again, those expectations of hers resulted from traditional, patriarchal gender roles.

But she should be able to rise above the expectations of that patriarchy.  At some point, she has to stop sitting on her ass waiting to be given responsbility over her own life, and take it, instead. 
I'm a strong woman who thinks for herself.  The patriarchy might be to blame for how hard I have to struggle to be me, but it's not to blame if I give up.  And it's not to blame if I choose to embrace it instead.
And if one woman can rise above the patriarchy, it's not the patriarchy's fault if other women believe the lies they're told.

You know, I said not thirty seconds ago that I wanted to catch up with this thread so I didn't repeat anything, but I think if anyone has pointed this out, it should be underscored:  You are being a fucking bitch.  No, you're being a goddamn cunt.  Twatwaffle.  Douchebitch.  Take your pick, and if you don't like these, I have others in mind that are far more offensive. 

Who the fuck are you to tell a woman who is a housewife (which, I might add, is an incredibly hard job to do, and you don't get fucking paid for it, and time off means things fall to shit) that they are being a lazy fucking scumbag who is letting the patriarchy tell them what to do?  Who the fuck are you to tell them that they have to go out and get a job when they are a lot more happy at home, raising children and keeping shit together?  I agree that she did her husband a disservice by forcing him into a gender role of breadwinner only no nurturing allowed, but you're being an utter shitbag about this. 
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 08, 2012, 12:24:47 AM
Quote from: CarvedWood on August 07, 2012, 06:57:22 PM
Quote from: Just Alty, Actually. on August 07, 2012, 06:47:46 PM
Quote from: CarvedWood on August 07, 2012, 06:41:41 PM
Quote from: Just Alty, Actually. on August 07, 2012, 06:15:23 PM
CW: that shit starts at home. If you don't want to see pussyfooting perhaps you should call out exactly what you see that's hindering this discussion instead of making vague accusations.

I don't know if you were talking about my posts, and if you are I have no problem them being put into question. But it's kind of hard to tell since, you know...

... Are you going to want me to go back to every single post that's already been made?  Because, one, that's more effort than I care to put in, which is why I was vague to begin with, and two, if you don't see it already, you're not going to see it even if I grabbed you by the scruff of your neck and rubbed your nose in it.
If you think I'm talking about your posts, then you have a choice: ignore what I said, or take a second look at your posts and make up your own mind.

Ah. So, we don't even need to discuss any of this, or can't because even if we did I certainly wouldn't get it because I don't already. Congrats on furthering the discussion, finally.

An example would have been nice. I don't know why you're being so passive-aggressive and I don't care. I'm just going to ignore your posts since I'm incapable of understanding them anyway.

OMFG, why is my passive-agressiveness offensive, but your defensiveness is ok?  Why should I have to put someone else on blast to assure you that you're not doing something wrong?

Because Alty is a reasonable human being and you are a shitstain.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Salty on August 08, 2012, 12:30:38 AM
Oh, I dunno.

This:
QuoteOMFG, why is my passive-agressiveness offensive, but your defensiveness is ok?
is one of the funniest things I've ever read on here.

WYLDKAT IS THAT YUO?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 08, 2012, 12:33:05 AM
:lulz:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 08, 2012, 12:44:11 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:38:44 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 07, 2012, 09:36:44 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:30:48 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 07, 2012, 09:27:31 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 07, 2012, 09:20:58 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:10:37 PM
I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

Yes, I never thought about it much. I really don't have anything but personal thoughts so far.

I do want to puke when I see some little kid crying and people start yelling at him to "man up". He's FOUR, FFS. I'm not sure how much the macho thing has to do with the patriarchy, though.

Other than that, I don't have much.
Machismo has everything to do with patriarchy. It's obnoxious, showy masculinity that imposes its will on everyone around it, most particularly females.

And related to screeching at a crying four year old, crying is a sign of weakness, yes? Men aren't supposed to be weak. Women, for whom crying is...expected? are.

Or aren't, as the case may be (see my response to the same post).

Yeah, but when you're talking about patriarchy, you're talking about society, which means you have to view it under a broader umbrella than individual actions, and look at it from the perspective of social expectations/norms.

Oh, no argument at all.  I'm just saying that teaching kids moderation in emotional expression isn't necessarily a gender-based thing.

I personally have found (and this is just from my point of view, mind) that being told to SHUT UP when crying ends up equating to NOBODY GIVES A GOOD GOD DAMN, SHUT THE FUCK UP AND GO AWAY.  Whether that's the real message a person wants to send is another matter entirely. 
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 08, 2012, 12:45:57 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 08, 2012, 12:44:11 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:38:44 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 07, 2012, 09:36:44 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:30:48 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 07, 2012, 09:27:31 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 07, 2012, 09:20:58 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:10:37 PM
I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

Yes, I never thought about it much. I really don't have anything but personal thoughts so far.

I do want to puke when I see some little kid crying and people start yelling at him to "man up". He's FOUR, FFS. I'm not sure how much the macho thing has to do with the patriarchy, though.

Other than that, I don't have much.
Machismo has everything to do with patriarchy. It's obnoxious, showy masculinity that imposes its will on everyone around it, most particularly females.

And related to screeching at a crying four year old, crying is a sign of weakness, yes? Men aren't supposed to be weak. Women, for whom crying is...expected? are.

Or aren't, as the case may be (see my response to the same post).

Yeah, but when you're talking about patriarchy, you're talking about society, which means you have to view it under a broader umbrella than individual actions, and look at it from the perspective of social expectations/norms.

Oh, no argument at all.  I'm just saying that teaching kids moderation in emotional expression isn't necessarily a gender-based thing.

I personally have found (and this is just from my point of view, mind) that being told to SHUT UP when crying ends up equating to NOBODY GIVES A GOOD GOD DAMN, SHUT THE FUCK UP AND GO AWAY.  Whether that's the real message a person wants to send is another matter entirely.

Yeah, well, we were talking about 4 year olds.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 08, 2012, 12:47:44 AM
You know, I think I'm done here.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 08, 2012, 12:49:37 AM
I'm not attacking you, Roger.  I'm sorry if it came out that way.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 08, 2012, 12:53:27 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 08, 2012, 12:45:57 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 08, 2012, 12:44:11 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:38:44 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 07, 2012, 09:36:44 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:30:48 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 07, 2012, 09:27:31 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 07, 2012, 09:20:58 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:10:37 PM
I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

Yes, I never thought about it much. I really don't have anything but personal thoughts so far.

I do want to puke when I see some little kid crying and people start yelling at him to "man up". He's FOUR, FFS. I'm not sure how much the macho thing has to do with the patriarchy, though.

Other than that, I don't have much.
Machismo has everything to do with patriarchy. It's obnoxious, showy masculinity that imposes its will on everyone around it, most particularly females.

And related to screeching at a crying four year old, crying is a sign of weakness, yes? Men aren't supposed to be weak. Women, for whom crying is...expected? are.

Or aren't, as the case may be (see my response to the same post).

Yeah, but when you're talking about patriarchy, you're talking about society, which means you have to view it under a broader umbrella than individual actions, and look at it from the perspective of social expectations/norms.

Oh, no argument at all.  I'm just saying that teaching kids moderation in emotional expression isn't necessarily a gender-based thing.

I personally have found (and this is just from my point of view, mind) that being told to SHUT UP when crying ends up equating to NOBODY GIVES A GOOD GOD DAMN, SHUT THE FUCK UP AND GO AWAY.  Whether that's the real message a person wants to send is another matter entirely.

Yeah, well, we were talking about 4 year olds.

I was also talking about that, since it's been a recurring theme in my life since I was very small, which stopped after I moved out, and why I do not like to tell the monkey to stop crying when he is frustrated or upset, because emotions are wacky things for some people.

Have I mentioned I suck at explaining myself properly?  Because I do. 
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 08, 2012, 12:58:08 AM
S'ok.  I don't like when people cry.  It makes me uncomfortable, and leads me to want to leave the room, or the house.

So I read you wrong.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 08, 2012, 01:13:52 AM
Yes.  That's your prerogative to not like it when people cry, and I don't blame you in the least. 




To further the discussion, I agree that while men don't lose as much as women do in the grand scheme of things, I think as people they get a pretty raw deal.  They have to be just so, fit in this box, or -gasp- LOSE YOUR MAN CARD!  If you MUST get touchy-feely, you may only indulge in a short, furtive side hug (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_Oj0-splZw) (btw FUCK YUO ALTY), after which you have to make a rape or sexist joke lol, or talk about boobs or sports or whatever it is you men talk about.  You can't show emotion, cuz that's actin' like a pussy, dawg.  You got worries?  Shit, I don't wanna hear about worries you have about the future!  Talk about tits and ass instead.  You got some deep thoughts on feminism, or what you find to be beautiful in the world, or maybe want to bounce some poetry off me?  FUCKIN' FAG! 

Honestly, I'm running through all the things that guys are supposed to like to do, and I can only come up with some of the most shallow, vile crap that is untrue, I hope.  I mean, like Nigel said upthread, that can't be good for their spirituality or humanity.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pope Pixie Pickle on August 08, 2012, 01:36:50 AM
Yanno, I really like having PeeDee around on my Journey Into Feminism. I get to bring new ideas to me back here, and speak to you guys about it, which I think helps me think about it through the PeeDee and Discordian filter, and TFYS.

It also seems that you 'orrible lot enjoy the discussions too, which is cool and restores a little optimism to my misanthropic self.

I'll read back though the thread tomorrow after I'm done with my volunteering, and make some observations and replies, as this thread went nuts when I was out at my D&D game.

I love you spags.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 08, 2012, 01:39:37 AM
Quote from: Pixie on August 08, 2012, 01:36:50 AM
Yanno, I really like having PeeDee around on my Journey Into Feminism. I get to bring new ideas to me back here, and speak to you guys about it, which I think helps me think about it through the PeeDee and Discordian filter, and TFYS.

It also seems that you 'orrible lot enjoy the discussions too, which is cool and restores a little optimism to my misanthropic self.

I'll read back though the thread tomorrow after I'm done with my volunteering, and make some observations and replies, as this thread went nuts when I was out at my D&D game.

I love you spags.

It's been a fun thread.

One thing to remember:  Uniforms are sneaky things.  It's easy to become the values, rather than have the values, if you catch my drift.

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pope Pixie Pickle on August 08, 2012, 01:42:31 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 08, 2012, 01:39:37 AM
Quote from: Pixie on August 08, 2012, 01:36:50 AM
Yanno, I really like having PeeDee around on my Journey Into Feminism. I get to bring new ideas to me back here, and speak to you guys about it, which I think helps me think about it through the PeeDee and Discordian filter, and TFYS.

It also seems that you 'orrible lot enjoy the discussions too, which is cool and restores a little optimism to my misanthropic self.

I'll read back though the thread tomorrow after I'm done with my volunteering, and make some observations and replies, as this thread went nuts when I was out at my D&D game.

I love you spags.

It's been a fun thread.

One thing to remember:  Uniforms are sneaky things.  It's easy to become the values, rather than have the values, if you catch my drift.

Yea, that's why I talk this stuff over with you spags, so I don't become the uniform.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 08, 2012, 01:43:52 AM
Quote from: Pixie on August 08, 2012, 01:42:31 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 08, 2012, 01:39:37 AM
Quote from: Pixie on August 08, 2012, 01:36:50 AM
Yanno, I really like having PeeDee around on my Journey Into Feminism. I get to bring new ideas to me back here, and speak to you guys about it, which I think helps me think about it through the PeeDee and Discordian filter, and TFYS.

It also seems that you 'orrible lot enjoy the discussions too, which is cool and restores a little optimism to my misanthropic self.

I'll read back though the thread tomorrow after I'm done with my volunteering, and make some observations and replies, as this thread went nuts when I was out at my D&D game.

I love you spags.

It's been a fun thread.

One thing to remember:  Uniforms are sneaky things.  It's easy to become the values, rather than have the values, if you catch my drift.

Yea, that's why I talk this stuff over with you spags, so I don't become the uniform.

That never hurts.  The alternative can be seen at capitol grilling (shudder) where everyone becomes their party, no matter how silly or Orwellian things get.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 08, 2012, 02:19:04 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 08, 2012, 12:23:26 AM
Quote from: CarvedWood on August 07, 2012, 07:05:14 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 07, 2012, 06:56:04 PM
Quote from: CarvedWood on August 07, 2012, 06:47:57 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 07, 2012, 06:32:37 PM
I second Alty regarding wife number two; gender roles are set by men (and the "woman stays at home" is relatively recent and, random historical fact of the day, courtesy of the Dutch).

The patriarchy is what stereotypes men as, basically, cavemen incapable of controlling themselves, who think exclusively with their dicks (which, coincidely links into rape culture, since women/females are supposed to know this and take care if ourselves accordingly).
Feminism holds you to be capable of being more than that.

Seriously?  In an example that gives two women, one who bucked the gender stereotype and was successful, the other who chose to embrace the stereotype, you're still going to absolve Wife#2 of any blame for the harm she was doing her family, and continue to blame the patriarchy?  OMG, what does a woman have to do to get credit for her own fuckups?
Dude, chill. No one is attacking you. *Her* expectation that househusband get a job and shit is the result of patriarchal expectations and gender roles. Is it her fault for not putting the well-being of the first househusband above her expectation? Yes. She should see that it works better for them like this. Was it her fault for preventing her own husband from nuturing his kids? Yes. And it's grossly unfair for her to do so. But, again, those expectations of hers resulted from traditional, patriarchal gender roles.

But she should be able to rise above the expectations of that patriarchy.  At some point, she has to stop sitting on her ass waiting to be given responsbility over her own life, and take it, instead. 
I'm a strong woman who thinks for herself.  The patriarchy might be to blame for how hard I have to struggle to be me, but it's not to blame if I give up.  And it's not to blame if I choose to embrace it instead.
And if one woman can rise above the patriarchy, it's not the patriarchy's fault if other women believe the lies they're told.

You know, I said not thirty seconds ago that I wanted to catch up with this thread so I didn't repeat anything, but I think if anyone has pointed this out, it should be underscored:  You are being a fucking bitch.  No, you're being a goddamn cunt.  Twatwaffle.  Douchebitch.  Take your pick, and if you don't like these, I have others in mind that are far more offensive. 

Who the fuck are you to tell a woman who is a housewife (which, I might add, is an incredibly hard job to do, and you don't get fucking paid for it, and time off means things fall to shit) that they are being a lazy fucking scumbag who is letting the patriarchy tell them what to do?  Who the fuck are you to tell them that they have to go out and get a job when they are a lot more happy at home, raising children and keeping shit together?  I agree that she did her husband a disservice by forcing him into a gender role of breadwinner only no nurturing allowed, but you're being an utter shitbag about this.

A brainwashed shitbag.

This whole idea that a STRONG, INDEPENDENT woman HAS TO work outside the home comes from people who want to profit off your labor. Fuck, when my kids were babies I went on WELFARE for awhile. On PURPOSE. Because I didn't want them SMACKED AROUND AND CORNHOLED BEFORE THEY COULD EVEN TALK AND TELL ANYBODY. And FUCK what anybody thought about that.

CW, go watch some more That Girl and Mary Tyler Moore reruns. Tha FUCK.  :x
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 08, 2012, 04:29:23 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 11:58:26 PM
Personally, I like the word "feminist" because the people I like know what it means, and the people I don't like immediately start screaming about "ball-busting, domineering bitches", and then they spend the rest of the day all raged-out.

Which, you know, gives me a warm feeling in my bits.

:lulz:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pope Pixie Pickle on August 08, 2012, 04:58:52 PM
http://www.upworthy.com/a-public-service-announcement-on-behalf-of-all-white-dudes?g=2&c=bl3
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Phox on August 08, 2012, 06:32:22 PM
Quote from: Pixie on August 08, 2012, 04:58:52 PM
http://www.upworthy.com/a-public-service-announcement-on-behalf-of-all-white-dudes?g=2&c=bl3
:lulz:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 08, 2012, 06:46:17 PM
Quote from: Pixie on August 08, 2012, 04:58:52 PM
http://www.upworthy.com/a-public-service-announcement-on-behalf-of-all-white-dudes?g=2&c=bl3

That was really good! :)  Thanks, Pixie.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: LMNO on August 08, 2012, 08:14:47 PM
UNCOMFORTABLE QUESTION TIME.



So, what does a Nice Guy Biped* do when, in the course of his day, he encounters a woman who, without any obvious, intentional, or even on self-reflective analysis devoid of any bias on the man's part, is simply a bad person who seems to relish or othewise freely demonstrate the negative stereotypes typically associated with women?



In other words, when can a man freely criticize a woman's behavior and not be considered sexist?








*as opposed to douchey monkey-brained spag.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 08, 2012, 09:30:05 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 08, 2012, 08:14:47 PM
UNCOMFORTABLE QUESTION TIME.



So, what does a Nice Guy Biped* do when, in the course of his day, he encounters a woman who, without any obvious, intentional, or even on self-reflective analysis devoid of any bias on the man's part, is simply a bad person who seems to relish or othewise freely demonstrate the negative stereotypes typically associated with women?



In other words, when can a man freely criticize a woman's behavior and not be considered sexist?








*as opposed to douchey monkey-brained spag.

I usually go with "That person is an ASSHOLE", and leave it at that.  Asshole is a gender-neutral term that covers almost every behavior a human can exhibit.

If someone needs criticizing, then by all means get on it. 
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 08, 2012, 11:23:16 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 08, 2012, 08:14:47 PM
UNCOMFORTABLE QUESTION TIME.



So, what does a Nice Guy Biped* do when, in the course of his day, he encounters a woman who, without any obvious, intentional, or even on self-reflective analysis devoid of any bias on the man's part, is simply a bad person who seems to relish or othewise freely demonstrate the negative stereotypes typically associated with women?



In other words, when can a man freely criticize a woman's behavior and not be considered sexist?








*as opposed to douchey monkey-brained spag.

You can always criticize bad behavior, IMO.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Johnny on August 08, 2012, 11:43:46 PM

Now, if you call her a "bitch" or a "cunt", that would be equivalent to calling a black man "nigger" in a heated argument.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Johnny on August 08, 2012, 11:44:57 PM

But maybe calling her a "harpy" would be appropiate?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Phox on August 08, 2012, 11:47:19 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 08, 2012, 11:44:57 PM

But maybe calling her a "harpy" would be appropiate?
Erm. Aside from being less vulgar, I don't see how that's any different, as all of those terms have the same general meaning.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Johnny on August 08, 2012, 11:49:16 PM
A "harpy" in mythology is female... but the insult is drawing a comparison thru the behaviour, rather than the degradation to the comparison to a lesser being or the equiparation to its sexual organ.

What you guys think  :?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 08, 2012, 11:56:03 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 08, 2012, 11:49:16 PM
A "harpy" in mythology is female... but the insult is drawing a comparison thru the behaviour, rather than the degradation to the comparison to a lesser being or the equiparation to its sexual organ.

What you guys think  :?

connotation of harpy:  shrill, annoyance, not human (therefore can be treated as subhuman), violent or wildly unreasonable.

No, I'm with Phox on this one.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Phox on August 08, 2012, 11:57:02 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 08, 2012, 11:49:16 PM
A "harpy" in mythology is female... but the insult is drawing a comparison thru the behaviour, rather than the degradation to the comparison to a lesser being or the equiparation to its sexual organ.

What you guys think  :?
"harpy" as an English insult, is used almost exclusively as an insult to women, and means "an unpleasant woman", approximately. As far as I've experienced it, it is even more gender rigid than "cunt" or "bitch", so the question is, how is it fundamentally different?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Phox on August 08, 2012, 11:57:33 PM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 08, 2012, 11:56:03 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 08, 2012, 11:49:16 PM
A "harpy" in mythology is female... but the insult is drawing a comparison thru the behaviour, rather than the degradation to the comparison to a lesser being or the equiparation to its sexual organ.

What you guys think  :?

connotation of harpy:  shrill, annoyance, not human (therefore can be treated as subhuman), violent or wildly unreasonable.

No, I'm with Phox on this one.
^ Bingo.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 08, 2012, 11:57:49 PM
Also, weren't the people part of harpies ugly, old women?  Seems like that's part of the connotation, "Ugly" or "unattractive"
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: EK WAFFLR on August 08, 2012, 11:58:00 PM
What's wrong with GODDAMN FUCKING ASSHOLE?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Phox on August 08, 2012, 11:58:30 PM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 08, 2012, 11:57:49 PM
Also, weren't the people part of harpies ugly, old women?
Usually, yeah.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 08, 2012, 11:59:09 PM
Quote from: Waffles, The Iron on August 08, 2012, 11:58:00 PM
What's wrong with GODDAMN FUCKING ASSHOLE?

Nothing, that's why it's totes okay to say. :)
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Phox on August 09, 2012, 12:02:13 AM
Quote from: Waffles, The Iron on August 08, 2012, 11:58:00 PM
What's wrong with GODDAMN FUCKING ASSHOLE?
This is the preferred method of referring to someone who is behaving in a manner reminiscent of a blasphemous, fornicating sphincter, yes.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Golden Applesauce on August 09, 2012, 12:37:59 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 07, 2012, 08:23:07 PM
Did the single working mom thing for years. I think I was pretty typical. No affordable daycare or afterschool program, low income, crappy job punching a cash register, swing shift, no child support.

...

Me: I've been here five years now. Kristi started six months ago and you've got her working days. She doesn't have kids. I have two and nobody to watch them and they always get in fights. I get calls from the cops and I have to leave work because the kids are fighting again. Why do you still have me on nights? They told me when I started that it goes by seniority.

Boss: Kristi's still in high school. She has school in the morning. Finding somebody to watch the kids is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY.

Translation: Boss works days and usually left not long after I came in. Kristi is not quite legal and boss liked ogling her ass.

Thank Bob for fortune telling, wish I'd found it 20 years earlier.

How does this hurt men? While it was happening, not at all. I think there's a lot of dads who are going to end up lonely old men with a house reeking of the coffee can full of piss under the bed, eating Spaghetti-O's out of the can, though. Fuck 'em.

Are either of your children male?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Golden Applesauce on August 09, 2012, 01:05:20 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 10:49:28 PM
I mean, for example, the change from "steward" and "stewardess" to "flight attendant".  Or changing existing words.  These days, when I hear "Doctor" I make no assumptions, while in the late 70s I would have automatically assumed a male, and the converse for the word "nurse".

Question:
If "steward" implies male, and "stewardess" implies female, doesn't deliberately using a gender-neutral word like "flight attendant" imply that the person in question lacks a gender? It makes it sound like castration is part of the job training, or that they replaced all the real stewards & stewardesses with vat-grown SmileyPersons® to cut costs in the late 90s.

A steward is someone who guards, protects, and preserves something. An attendant is someone who was there at the time. You can attend a funeral. I would much, much rather have stewards than attendants at twenty thousand feet.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Phox on August 09, 2012, 01:09:13 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on August 09, 2012, 01:05:20 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 10:49:28 PM
I mean, for example, the change from "steward" and "stewardess" to "flight attendant".  Or changing existing words.  These days, when I hear "Doctor" I make no assumptions, while in the late 70s I would have automatically assumed a male, and the converse for the word "nurse".

Question:
If "steward" implies male, and "stewardess" implies female, doesn't deliberately using a gender-neutral word like "flight attendant" imply that the person in question lacks a gender? It makes it sound like castration is part of the job training, or that they replaced all the real stewards & stewardesses with vat-grown SmileyPersons® to cut costs in the late 90s.

A steward is someone who guards, protects, and preserves something. An attendant is someone who was there at the time. You can attend a funeral. I would much, much rather have stewards than attendants at twenty thousand feet.
Wrong. 1) Using an ungendered term does not imply lack of gender. 2) An attendant is someone who attends TO something, i.e. the needs of passengers during a flight.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Golden Applesauce on August 09, 2012, 01:40:15 AM
Quote from: Phox, The Abdicator on August 09, 2012, 01:09:13 AM
Wrong. 1) Using an ungendered term does not imply lack of gender. 2) An attendant is someone who attends TO something, i.e. the needs of passengers during a flight.

w.r.t. "attendant" - yeah, you're right, I was being sloppy. In every other context, they only people getting attendanted are the elderly, infirm, or disabled. While attendants are changing the dying king's bedpan and nursing his hemophiliac son, the steward keeps the castle and kingdom in order. One of those two professions is way cooler than the other.

I'm not sure I agree with you about ungendered terms. When the gendered versions are commonly used, and especially when the non-gendered version still feels inorganic and constructed, going out of the way to use the less common term gives off the impression that it's being down for a reason, like you're trying to deny the fullness of the person, or you're ashamed of bringing up the person's gender. Pay no attention the humanity and individual differences of our staff; treat them as a mass of exchangeable parts.

Flight attendant probably isn't the best example of this; as rarely as we use "attendant" in colloquial speech, we use steward even less. Outside of fantasy novels, I think I've only heard it from politicians, priests, and environmental activists.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Golden Applesauce on August 09, 2012, 02:03:08 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 07, 2012, 09:50:22 PM
I always notice that people are nicer to you when you wear a little makeup, for some reason. It's also one of the things women size each other up by, which is kind of strange. But I've been told a few times by women that when they met me, they had a good impression because I "had my makeup on right". I've been guilty of the same thing, but truth be told, women with disorders tend to paint their faces kind of crazy. A few people look great without makeup but a lot don't, and if they never wear it I tend to wonder what the reason is - if they're allergic or if they just don't care what they look like. Which is probably fucked up of me.

I know little about managing appearance and nothing about makeup; if I notice the makeup someone is wearing, it probably means they put it on wrong. A t-shirt that says "There, now I'm not naked any more" is pretty standard among my friends. I do appreciate it when other people put effort into their appearance, though. A total stranger took time out of their day just to be easier on my eyes while grocery shopping. I imagine that if I actually knew enough about makeup recognize a good makeup job, I'd have some first-impression respect for anyone who demonstrated genuine talent in wearing their makeup.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Phox on August 09, 2012, 02:22:41 AM
So because a word is gender nonspecific, it is dehumanizing? Are you retarded or something?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Golden Applesauce on August 09, 2012, 02:27:21 AM
Language question:
In English, I'm given to understand that the male versions of words being default (i.e., "actor" is verb + "one who does" while "actress" is verb + "one who does" + gender marker) is either a linguistic reflection of social gender bias, or a mechanism or perpetuating stereotypes. There's a corresponding movement to find alternatives to gendered pairs of words, promote "they" as a third-person non-gendered animate singular pronoun, etc.

In languages where most nouns all have a linguistic gender linked to gender gender, is there a corresponding movement? Do European feminists try to find ways challenge gender norms by clever use of -o and -a suffixes?

In languages that have already have a full set of animate gender-agnostic pronouns and verbs, is it actually easier to talk about people doing things in non-standard gender roles?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Phox on August 09, 2012, 02:48:18 AM
So the answer was yes, i see. Grammatical gender and "gender gender" are not the same thing. English does not make use of grammatical gender. Having words with a gender marker serves no purpose other than otherizing one gender and normalizing another. 
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 09, 2012, 02:52:58 AM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 08, 2012, 11:44:57 PM

But maybe calling her a "harpy" would be appropiate?

Or, possibly, if you are calling an asshole out for bad behavior in most situations, it's appropriate to leave any personal insults or namecalling out of it and just address the behavior.

JUST A THOUGHT.

And if it's the kind of situation where namecalling is actually appropriate, maybe stick with "asshole", as in "That behavior makes you look like an asshole, and if you willfully continue it even after many people have spoken to you about it I am forced to conclude you are an asshole".
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 09, 2012, 02:53:35 AM
Quote from: Waffles, The Iron on August 08, 2012, 11:58:00 PM
What's wrong with GODDAMN FUCKING ASSHOLE?

Ding ding ding ding
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 09, 2012, 02:58:10 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on August 09, 2012, 01:40:15 AM
Quote from: Phox, The Abdicator on August 09, 2012, 01:09:13 AM
Wrong. 1) Using an ungendered term does not imply lack of gender. 2) An attendant is someone who attends TO something, i.e. the needs of passengers during a flight.

w.r.t. "attendant" - yeah, you're right, I was being sloppy. In every other context, they only people getting attendanted are the elderly, infirm, or disabled. While attendants are changing the dying king's bedpan and nursing his hemophiliac son, the steward keeps the castle and kingdom in order. One of those two professions is way cooler than the other.

I'm not sure I agree with you about ungendered terms. When the gendered versions are commonly used, and especially when the non-gendered version still feels inorganic and constructed, going out of the way to use the less common term gives off the impression that it's being down for a reason, like you're trying to deny the fullness of the person, or you're ashamed of bringing up the person's gender. Pay no attention the humanity and individual differences of our staff; treat them as a mass of exchangeable parts.

Flight attendant probably isn't the best example of this; as rarely as we use "attendant" in colloquial speech, we use steward even less. Outside of fantasy novels, I think I've only heard it from politicians, priests, and environmental activists.

There's a really important element missing from this discussion, which is that "steward" IS gender-neutral. There are a lot of words like that, which developed a needless, pointless feminine version at some point along the line. "Host" has nothing in it's etymology that assumes male gender. Nor does "Actor", "Steward", "Chef", "Bartender", or any of a raft of straightforward job names.

It's interesting to reflect on the elements of patriarchy inherent in deciding, linguistically, that EVERYTHING DEFAULTS TO MALE.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Golden Applesauce on August 09, 2012, 03:12:57 AM
Quote from: Phox, The Abdicator on August 09, 2012, 02:22:41 AM
So because a word is gender nonspecific, it is dehumanizing? Are you retarded or something?

You know that skit where a guy is trying to indicate to the foil a specific person at a bar, going through attire, what the person is eating, facial expression, into increasingly abstract characteristics, that ends fifteen minutes later with "Oh! Why didn't you just say '300lb black transvestite?" The first layer of the joke, of course, is that the first guy can't use the obvious markers because that would embarrass the person in question. The second layer is that the guy is trying to be sensitive, but his actions only make sense in the context that being overweight is shameful, being black is shameful, not being appropriately gendered is shameful - he therefore reveals that he isn't actually being tolerant, he's just being polite about his prejudices. Using politcally correct phrasing for no other reason than because it's politically correct phrasing amounts to the same thing.

When we're talking about a hypothetical person, where gender isn't a relevant part of the abstraction, gender nonspecific words make sense. When talking about a collection of people of mixed gender, using a gender nonspecific word makes sense. Otherwise, use the commonly used word . Describing Amelia Earhart with the archaic term "aviatrix" instead of "aviator" or "pilot" might be more technically correct, but it's so bizarre that it forces people out of the context of the Wikipedia article.

Okay, neither of those two points really addressed your question. Can you accept that I'm not good at this, and maybe try to meet me halfway? Restating your position and then rhetorically asking if I'm retarded is not conducive to discussion.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Phox on August 09, 2012, 03:27:50 AM
What are you on about? Yes there is no reason to use the word "aviatrix". Why is it necessary to differentiate between "steward" and "stewardess"? Because there needs to be a special word for female stewards?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on August 09, 2012, 03:41:38 AM
GA- you're not really making a lot of sense.

Coming up with gender neutral words is for the opposite reason of dehumanizing. It's supposed to take gender assumptions out of the equations entirely. You expect a stewardess to be female, and possibly join the mile high club with you. That's the trope right? Flight attendant can be anyone.

You get the same thing with jobs that are considered kinda crappy. You don't say someone works in the sewer system, you say they're sanitation workers. It's supposed to afford some sort of respect because the previous common word for it has a lot of assumptions attached to them.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Golden Applesauce on August 09, 2012, 03:44:26 AM
Quote from: Phox, The Abdicator on August 09, 2012, 02:48:18 AM
So the answer was yes, i see. Grammatical gender and "gender gender" are not the same thing. English does not make use of grammatical gender. Having words with a gender marker serves no purpose other than otherizing one gender and normalizing another.

Didn't see this before the last post.

Alright, I'm actually angry at you now. Congrats, you trolled me.

I'm well aware that grammatical gender and "gender gender" are not the same thing. That's why I explicitly used the term "grammatical gender" instead of just gender, and made the frankly ridiculous "gender gender" construction to further emphasize that it is distinct from grammatical gender. The relation "linked to" signifies that the topic of the question is restricted to those languages for which there is a relationship between the two, which is only material if there exist languages excluded by the where clause, i.e., there is at least one language for which grammatical gender and social gender do not correlate.

Further, I never implied that English uses grammatical gender. That's rather the point of the question, actually - I know a thing about a social movement as mediated by a grammatical gender free language, does that thing extend to that same movement in a different context?

I ask questions because I recognize that there are areas in which I am ignorant, and I want to learn things from people who are knowledgeable on that topic. I asked those questions specifically because I know that you know more than I do about Romance languages. I even threw in the linguistic jargon "gender marker" because I knew you would get it and wanted to establish this relationship as "friendly peer."

I exposed weakness in good faith, and you called me a retard. Twice. That's not communication, that's raw primate posturing. You skimmed my posts exactly enough to come up with a response intended to elevate your social status at the expense of my own.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on August 09, 2012, 03:48:45 AM
I mean, I'm not sure how old you are, but I remember that back in the 80s, being a steward was supposed to be funny, and it made your masculinity/sexuality questionable. Same thing with being called a male nurse. It's like, bwahahaha, that's a girl's job. So, actually, it's offensive to both genders at the same time. It basically calls one a homo, and the other less than respectable. So, no, it doesn't castrate a male flight attendant. I mean, just think that through for an extra second.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on August 09, 2012, 03:54:12 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on August 09, 2012, 03:44:26 AM
Quote from: Phox, The Abdicator on August 09, 2012, 02:48:18 AM
So the answer was yes, i see. Grammatical gender and "gender gender" are not the same thing. English does not make use of grammatical gender. Having words with a gender marker serves no purpose other than otherizing one gender and normalizing another.

Didn't see this before the last post.

Alright, I'm actually angry at you now. Congrats, you trolled me.

I'm well aware that grammatical gender and "gender gender" are not the same thing. That's why I explicitly used the term "grammatical gender" instead of just gender, and made the frankly ridiculous "gender gender" construction to further emphasize that it is distinct from grammatical gender. The relation "linked to" signifies that the topic of the question is restricted to those languages for which there is a relationship between the two, which is only material if there exist languages excluded by the where clause, i.e., there is at least one language for which grammatical gender and social gender do not correlate.

Further, I never implied that English uses grammatical gender. That's rather the point of the question, actually - I know a thing about a social movement as mediated by a grammatical gender free language, does that thing extend to that same movement in a different context?

I ask questions because I recognize that there are areas in which I am ignorant, and I want to learn things from people who are knowledgeable on that topic. I asked those questions specifically because I know that you know more than I do about Romance languages. I even threw in the linguistic jargon "gender marker" because I knew you would get it and wanted to establish this relationship as "friendly peer."

I exposed weakness in good faith, and you called me a retard. Twice. That's not communication, that's raw primate posturing. You skimmed my posts exactly enough to come up with a response intended to elevate your social status at the expense of my own.

Wait, what? Where's Phox trolling you?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on August 09, 2012, 03:56:50 AM
Phox isn't posturing to increase her status either, where are you getting this?

I'm having trouble figuring out what you're getting at myself, and I'm actually sober for once.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on August 09, 2012, 04:06:31 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on August 09, 2012, 12:37:59 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 07, 2012, 08:23:07 PM
Did the single working mom thing for years. I think I was pretty typical. No affordable daycare or afterschool program, low income, crappy job punching a cash register, swing shift, no child support.

...

Me: I've been here five years now. Kristi started six months ago and you've got her working days. She doesn't have kids. I have two and nobody to watch them and they always get in fights. I get calls from the cops and I have to leave work because the kids are fighting again. Why do you still have me on nights? They told me when I started that it goes by seniority.

Boss: Kristi's still in high school. She has school in the morning. Finding somebody to watch the kids is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY.

Translation: Boss works days and usually left not long after I came in. Kristi is not quite legal and boss liked ogling her ass.

Thank Bob for fortune telling, wish I'd found it 20 years earlier.

How does this hurt men? While it was happening, not at all. I think there's a lot of dads who are going to end up lonely old men with a house reeking of the coffee can full of piss under the bed, eating Spaghetti-O's out of the can, though. Fuck 'em.

Are either of your children male?

Also, as far as this goes:

Wut?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 09, 2012, 04:11:13 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on August 09, 2012, 03:12:57 AM
Quote from: Phox, The Abdicator on August 09, 2012, 02:22:41 AM
So because a word is gender nonspecific, it is dehumanizing? Are you retarded or something?

You know that skit where a guy is trying to indicate to the foil a specific person at a bar, going through attire, what the person is eating, facial expression, into increasingly abstract characteristics, that ends fifteen minutes later with "Oh! Why didn't you just say '300lb black transvestite?" The first layer of the joke, of course, is that the first guy can't use the obvious markers because that would embarrass the person in question. The second layer is that the guy is trying to be sensitive, but his actions only make sense in the context that being overweight is shameful, being black is shameful, not being appropriately gendered is shameful - he therefore reveals that he isn't actually being tolerant, he's just being polite about his prejudices. Using politcally correct phrasing for no other reason than because it's politically correct phrasing amounts to the same thing.

When we're talking about a hypothetical person, where gender isn't a relevant part of the abstraction, gender nonspecific words make sense. When talking about a collection of people of mixed gender, using a gender nonspecific word makes sense. Otherwise, use the commonly used word . Describing Amelia Earhart with the archaic term "aviatrix" instead of "aviator" or "pilot" might be more technically correct, but it's so bizarre that it forces people out of the context of the Wikipedia article.

Okay, neither of those two points really addressed your question. Can you accept that I'm not good at this, and maybe try to meet me halfway? Restating your position and then rhetorically asking if I'm retarded is not conducive to discussion.

I think I am kind of seeing your point, and I agree with it from a certain specific perspective, which I am pretty sure is the one you are coming from; that refusing to use accurate descriptors when they are relevant can be an indicator of rejecting what those descriptors illustrate. However, the key here is "relevant"; the gender or sex of your airline attendant is no more relevant than their marital status, and in a society with heavy gender bias, gendered job titles provides an instant "marker" to apply to the person of lower status.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Golden Applesauce on August 09, 2012, 04:15:29 AM
Quote from: Nephew Hiroshima on August 09, 2012, 03:41:38 AM
GA- you're not really making a lot of sense.

Coming up with gender neutral words is for the opposite reason of dehumanizing. It's supposed to take gender assumptions out of the equations entirely. You expect a stewardess to be female, and possibly join the mile high club with you. That's the trope right? Flight attendant can be anyone.

When there are gender assumptions, I agree completely. When talking about an actual instance of a person whose gender is known, though,  it just feels... awkward. Are you doing a steward a favor by referring to him as a "flight attendant"? In cases where either the gendered or non-gendered version is significantly more "natural" than the other, I prefer to go with that. Not that gender assumptions aren't important, but that they should be weighed against clarity and flow of communication.

(steward/stewardess/flight attendant isn't really the best example for this, because as Nigel pointed out, "stewardess" exists for no other reason than that somebody thought that "steward" wasn't gender-y enough. I'd prefer "steward" [kinda old fashioned] or just "flight staff" [modern and punchier.])

Quote from: Nephew Hiroshima on August 09, 2012, 03:41:38 AM
You get the same thing with jobs that are considered kinda crappy. You don't say someone works in the sewer system, you say they're sanitation workers. It's supposed to afford some sort of respect because the previous common word for it has a lot of assumptions attached to them.

But that's exactly it - using the an awkward, constructed word indicates what they do is an embarrassment, but you don't care enough to find a good word for it. The example that I see most often in real life is "janitor" -> "sanitation worker/engineer". Everybody knows that a "sanitation engineer" who spends most of his time at a fast food restaurant is a janitor, because an actual sanitation engineer does things involving improving making food processing safer or managing reservoir infrastructure. Giving him a pumped up and obviously fake title just makes the actual social status even more pronounced. If you actually wanted to make the position sound more respectable, you'd use something like positive like "caretaker" or "steward". "Sanitation engineer" to describe a janitor just says that management is aware that you're a peon, but hopes that you'll be distracted by a wonky title enough that you won't ask for anything that costs real money, like a raise or training.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 09, 2012, 04:17:41 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on August 09, 2012, 03:44:26 AM
Quote from: Phox, The Abdicator on August 09, 2012, 02:48:18 AM
So the answer was yes, i see. Grammatical gender and "gender gender" are not the same thing. English does not make use of grammatical gender. Having words with a gender marker serves no purpose other than otherizing one gender and normalizing another.

Didn't see this before the last post.

Alright, I'm actually angry at you now. Congrats, you trolled me.

I'm well aware that grammatical gender and "gender gender" are not the same thing. That's why I explicitly used the term "grammatical gender" instead of just gender, and made the frankly ridiculous "gender gender" construction to further emphasize that it is distinct from grammatical gender. The relation "linked to" signifies that the topic of the question is restricted to those languages for which there is a relationship between the two, which is only material if there exist languages excluded by the where clause, i.e., there is at least one language for which grammatical gender and social gender do not correlate.

Further, I never implied that English uses grammatical gender. That's rather the point of the question, actually - I know a thing about a social movement as mediated by a grammatical gender free language, does that thing extend to that same movement in a different context?

I ask questions because I recognize that there are areas in which I am ignorant, and I want to learn things from people who are knowledgeable on that topic. I asked those questions specifically because I know that you know more than I do about Romance languages. I even threw in the linguistic jargon "gender marker" because I knew you would get it and wanted to establish this relationship as "friendly peer."

I exposed weakness in good faith, and you called me a retard. Twice. That's not communication, that's raw primate posturing. You skimmed my posts exactly enough to come up with a response intended to elevate your social status at the expense of my own.

I'm going to agree with GA on this one. She's asking questions and genuinely interested in learning, a lot like Roger has been doing. She's posed a lot of questions that actually need answers, and which HAVE answers, and has been open to absorbing and discussing other views. Not knowing, and being open to ask questions that may expose your ignorance, is not retarded; in fact, it's pretty much the opposite of that.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 09, 2012, 04:20:57 AM
Quote from: Nephew Hiroshima on August 09, 2012, 04:06:31 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on August 09, 2012, 12:37:59 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 07, 2012, 08:23:07 PM
Did the single working mom thing for years. I think I was pretty typical. No affordable daycare or afterschool program, low income, crappy job punching a cash register, swing shift, no child support.

...

Me: I've been here five years now. Kristi started six months ago and you've got her working days. She doesn't have kids. I have two and nobody to watch them and they always get in fights. I get calls from the cops and I have to leave work because the kids are fighting again. Why do you still have me on nights? They told me when I started that it goes by seniority.

Boss: Kristi's still in high school. She has school in the morning. Finding somebody to watch the kids is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY.

Translation: Boss works days and usually left not long after I came in. Kristi is not quite legal and boss liked ogling her ass.

Thank Bob for fortune telling, wish I'd found it 20 years earlier.

How does this hurt men? While it was happening, not at all. I think there's a lot of dads who are going to end up lonely old men with a house reeking of the coffee can full of piss under the bed, eating Spaghetti-O's out of the can, though. Fuck 'em.

Are either of your children male?

Also, as far as this goes:

Wut?

I suspect she was asking because, in this society, most mothers raising boys have a different perspective on the emotional/intellectual harm their boys are subject to, than mothers who are raising girls only. As a mother of a boy, it's heartbreaking seeing him indoctrinated into the dominant culture, and working against it is an uphill battle. The harm patriarchy does to boys is very visible from a mother's perspective.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 09, 2012, 04:24:31 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 09, 2012, 02:52:58 AM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 08, 2012, 11:44:57 PM

But maybe calling her a "harpy" would be appropiate?

Or, possibly, if you are calling an asshole out for bad behavior in most situations, it's appropriate to leave any personal insults or namecalling out of it and just address the behavior.

JUST A THOUGHT.

And if it's the kind of situation where namecalling is actually appropriate, maybe stick with "asshole", as in "That behavior makes you look like an asshole, and if you willfully continue it even after many people have spoken to you about it I am forced to conclude you are an asshole".

Yep and yep.

"Harpies" are ALWAYS female. It's just a G-rated version of "cunt".
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 09, 2012, 04:27:06 AM
Nigel, that may be true, but he has a habit of being contrary just to be contrary, and pedantic.  I'm glad this is not one of those times.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Golden Applesauce on August 09, 2012, 04:28:33 AM
Quote from: Nephew Hiroshima on August 09, 2012, 03:48:45 AM
I mean, I'm not sure how old you are, but I remember that back in the 80s, being a steward was supposed to be funny, and it made your masculinity/sexuality questionable. Same thing with being called a male nurse. It's like, bwahahaha, that's a girl's job. So, actually, it's offensive to both genders at the same time. It basically calls one a homo, and the other less than respectable. So, no, it doesn't castrate a male flight attendant. I mean, just think that through for an extra second.

I was born in 1990, so most of the plane trips I remember were post 9/11 airline industry crash. There was nothing sexy about airlines then, unless being dominated by security turned you on. You filed into your seats and tried not to make any funny moves or say anything that the deaf lady might mistake as violent-sounding. There's no money for any actual service - a flight attendant might bring you a tiny bag of peanuts if you were lucky, for a total of one interaction. I have no idea what they were doing the rest of the flight.

Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever really encountered the "sexy stewardess" trope outside of sketchy costume shops. (And James Bond movies, but he fucked everything so that doesn't really mean much.) All the airlines were competing to be seen as economical and least-inconvenient instead of exotic and sexy, so the difference in advertising tone is probably contributing.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on August 09, 2012, 04:29:22 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on August 09, 2012, 04:15:29 AM
Quote from: Nephew Hiroshima on August 09, 2012, 03:41:38 AM
GA- you're not really making a lot of sense.

Coming up with gender neutral words is for the opposite reason of dehumanizing. It's supposed to take gender assumptions out of the equations entirely. You expect a stewardess to be female, and possibly join the mile high club with you. That's the trope right? Flight attendant can be anyone.

When there are gender assumptions, I agree completely. When talking about an actual instance of a person whose gender is known, though,  it just feels... awkward. Are you doing a steward a favor by referring to him as a "flight attendant"? In cases where either the gendered or non-gendered version is significantly more "natural" than the other, I prefer to go with that. Not that gender assumptions aren't important, but that they should be weighed against clarity and flow of communication.

(steward/stewardess/flight attendant isn't really the best example for this, because as Nigel pointed out, "stewardess" exists for no other reason than that somebody thought that "steward" wasn't gender-y enough. I'd prefer "steward" [kinda old fashioned] or just "flight staff" [modern and punchier.])

I think you are doing the flight attendant a favor. Like I said, back in the day it was like, "what, too effeminate/inept to be a pilot?"

Quote from: Nephew Hiroshima on August 09, 2012, 03:41:38 AM
You get the same thing with jobs that are considered kinda crappy. You don't say someone works in the sewer system, you say they're sanitation workers. It's supposed to afford some sort of respect because the previous common word for it has a lot of assumptions attached to them.

But that's exactly it - using the an awkward, constructed word indicates what they do is an embarrassment, but you don't care enough to find a good word for it. The example that I see most often in real life is "janitor" -> "sanitation worker/engineer". Everybody knows that a "sanitation engineer" who spends most of his time at a fast food restaurant is a janitor, because an actual sanitation engineer does things involving improving making food processing safer or managing reservoir infrastructure. Giving him a pumped up and obviously fake title just makes the actual social status even more pronounced. If you actually wanted to make the position sound more respectable, you'd use something like positive like "caretaker" or "steward". "Sanitation engineer" to describe a janitor just says that management is aware that you're a peon, but hopes that you'll be distracted by a wonky title enough that you won't ask for anything that costs real money, like a raise or training.
[/quote]

Everyone gets a bullshit title though. I'm a data coordinator, whatever the hell that means. Usually I hear custodian over sanitation worker for a janitor.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 09, 2012, 04:32:55 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on August 09, 2012, 02:03:08 AM
I know little about managing appearance and nothing about makeup; if I notice the makeup someone is wearing, it probably means they put it on wrong. A t-shirt that says "There, now I'm not naked any more" is pretty standard among my friends. I do appreciate it when other people put effort into their appearance, though. A total stranger took time out of their day just to be easier on my eyes while grocery shopping. I imagine that if I actually knew enough about makeup recognize a good makeup job, I'd have some first-impression respect for anyone who demonstrated genuine talent in wearing their makeup.
There is no wrong way to put in make up; there is only artful and sloppy. Fifteen year old with massive amounts of makeup? Probably sloppy. Ru Paul's drag queens? Art for your face. That shit takes skill. Also, if there was a "right" way to put on makeup, who are you to determined what that way is?
And no one took time out of their day to look pretty for you.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Golden Applesauce on August 09, 2012, 04:34:06 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 09, 2012, 04:20:57 AM
Quote from: Nephew Hiroshima on August 09, 2012, 04:06:31 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on August 09, 2012, 12:37:59 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 07, 2012, 08:23:07 PM
Did the single working mom thing for years. I think I was pretty typical. No affordable daycare or afterschool program, low income, crappy job punching a cash register, swing shift, no child support.

...

Me: I've been here five years now. Kristi started six months ago and you've got her working days. She doesn't have kids. I have two and nobody to watch them and they always get in fights. I get calls from the cops and I have to leave work because the kids are fighting again. Why do you still have me on nights? They told me when I started that it goes by seniority.

Boss: Kristi's still in high school. She has school in the morning. Finding somebody to watch the kids is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY.

Translation: Boss works days and usually left not long after I came in. Kristi is not quite legal and boss liked ogling her ass.

Thank Bob for fortune telling, wish I'd found it 20 years earlier.

How does this hurt men? While it was happening, not at all. I think there's a lot of dads who are going to end up lonely old men with a house reeking of the coffee can full of piss under the bed, eating Spaghetti-O's out of the can, though. Fuck 'em.

Are either of your children male?

Also, as far as this goes:

Wut?

I suspect she was asking because, in this society, most mothers raising boys have a different perspective on the emotional/intellectual harm their boys are subject to, than mothers who are raising girls only. As a mother of a boy, it's heartbreaking seeing him indoctrinated into the dominant culture, and working against it is an uphill battle. The harm patriarchy does to boys is very visible from a mother's perspective.

That works too, but I was more thinking along the lines of boys benefiting from mothers, so anything the patriarchy does to make motherhood more difficult is directly sabotaging its own next generation.

Since it might be relevant here - I am male. You post one picture scraped off Myspace in Spagbook....
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 09, 2012, 04:34:21 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on August 09, 2012, 04:28:33 AM
Quote from: Nephew Hiroshima on August 09, 2012, 03:48:45 AM
I mean, I'm not sure how old you are, but I remember that back in the 80s, being a steward was supposed to be funny, and it made your masculinity/sexuality questionable. Same thing with being called a male nurse. It's like, bwahahaha, that's a girl's job. So, actually, it's offensive to both genders at the same time. It basically calls one a homo, and the other less than respectable. So, no, it doesn't castrate a male flight attendant. I mean, just think that through for an extra second.

I was born in 1990, so most of the plane trips I remember were post 9/11 airline industry crash. There was nothing sexy about airlines then, unless being dominated by security turned you on. You filed into your seats and tried not to make any funny moves or say anything that the deaf lady might mistake as violent-sounding. There's no money for any actual service - a flight attendant might bring you a tiny bag of peanuts if you were lucky, for a total of one interaction. I have no idea what they were doing the rest of the flight.

Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever really encountered the "sexy stewardess" trope outside of sketchy costume shops. (And James Bond movies, but he fucked everything so that doesn't really mean much.) All the airlines were competing to be seen as economical and least-inconvenient instead of exotic and sexy, so the difference in advertising tone is probably contributing.

To gain a better understanding of where many of these confusing terms came from, it might be helpful to watch some of the films from the 70's-80's that address the cultural climate change going on at the time. Actually, it might sound strange, but I think some of those films would probably help a lot of people understand feminism a little better.

Also, I'd like to throw something in for a laugh, and maybe an interesting take on perspectives. When I was about 15-16 (mid 1980's), I TOTALLY thought that there was no point to feminism anymore because women had already achieved equality. :lol: I thought it was dumb and outdated.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 09, 2012, 04:35:27 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on August 09, 2012, 04:28:33 AM
Quote from: Nephew Hiroshima on August 09, 2012, 03:48:45 AM
I mean, I'm not sure how old you are, but I remember that back in the 80s, being a steward was supposed to be funny, and it made your masculinity/sexuality questionable. Same thing with being called a male nurse. It's like, bwahahaha, that's a girl's job. So, actually, it's offensive to both genders at the same time. It basically calls one a homo, and the other less than respectable. So, no, it doesn't castrate a male flight attendant. I mean, just think that through for an extra second.

I was born in 1990, so most of the plane trips I remember were post 9/11 airline industry crash. There was nothing sexy about airlines then, unless being dominated by security turned you on. You filed into your seats and tried not to make any funny moves or say anything that the deaf lady might mistake as violent-sounding. There's no money for any actual service - a flight attendant might bring you a tiny bag of peanuts if you were lucky, for a total of one interaction. I have no idea what they were doing the rest of the flight.

Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever really encountered the "sexy stewardess" trope outside of sketchy costume shops. (And James Bond movies, but he fucked everything so that doesn't really mean much.) All the airlines were competing to be seen as economical and least-inconvenient instead of exotic and sexy, so the difference in advertising tone is probably contributing.

It's old as fuck. There was an old Continental Airlines TV ad that went "We really move our tail for you" that freaked everybody the fuck OUT and probably started the whole switch to "flight attendant".

(http://arotulon.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/coffe-tea-or-me-by-trudy-baker-and-rachel-jones.jpg)
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 09, 2012, 04:35:38 AM
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zippy/3153849427/

A letter from the 1930's discussing using women as 'stewardesses or couriers"... a very interesting bit of history on the current topic.

According to eytmologyonline.com in the 1800's Stewardess was used in reference to female members of a ship's staff that waited on female passengers. Also interesting they link the -ess ending to ancient Greek and find early usage in the Church to refer to female deacons. In the 1600's it was used to refer to a female steward (dictionary.reference.com).

The 1930's letter has overtones of sexism "Good PR to have young women on board". The 1800's usage also have strong overtones of sexist... the Church having female Deacons is just funny and ironic.

As a side note, I get really torqued by the people that think the word "history" is patriarchal.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 09, 2012, 04:40:05 AM
I think its hilarious. It's not like historigraphy is taught in schools, though.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Golden Applesauce on August 09, 2012, 05:01:53 AM
I think I figured out what's bugging me about explicitly non-gendered job titles. For my generation, women have always earned less than men holding the same job title. Which is subtly but importantly distinct from "women have always earned less than men for doing the same job."

I suppose at least getting the same title is a step up from before, but if you take that step for granted, it comes off as the corporation acknowledging the problem (workplace discrimination) and trying to pass off a name change as a substantive fix. At least when they denied that men and women were doing the same job, pay discrimination had a certain internal logic to it. Admitting that they are both doing the same work but refusing to compensate for it is being aware of evil and refusing to work against it.

edit: and on steward / attendant specifically, "attendant" sounds like they're supposed to be hand feeding me grapes, which is ofc exactly what the airline companies wanted to convey when they pushed the name change. What they actually do, in my experience, is apologize for delayed flights and lost luggage... while the thing that the fear-industrial complex wants us to want is someone to keep the plane from exploding, a literal steward. My issue wasn't even the title, I just wanted an actual steward rather than an apologist for budget cuts.

Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 09, 2012, 04:27:06 AM
Nigel, that may be true, but he has a habit of being contrary just to be contrary.

The only way I learn is to get people to explain to me why I'm wrong. Sometimes this requires being aggressively wrong.  :wink:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 09, 2012, 05:07:39 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on August 09, 2012, 05:01:53 AM
I think I figured out what's bugging me about explicitly non-gendered job titles. For my generation, women have always earned less than men holding the same job title. Which is subtly but importantly distinct from "women have always earned less than men for doing the same job."

I suppose at least getting the same title is a step up from before, but if you take that step for granted, it comes off as the corporation acknowledging the problem (workplace discrimination) and trying to pass off a name change as a substantive fix. At least when they denied that men and women were doing the same job, pay discrimination had a certain internal logic to it. Admitting that they are both doing the same work but refusing to compensate for it is being aware of evil and refusing to work against it.

Hints of General Semantics, ITT, You change the words on the map and everyone thinks the territory has changed.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on August 09, 2012, 11:15:24 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 08, 2012, 01:13:52 AM
Yes.  That's your prerogative to not like it when people cry, and I don't blame you in the least. 




To further the discussion, I agree that while men don't lose as much as women do in the grand scheme of things, I think as people they get a pretty raw deal.  They have to be just so, fit in this box, or -gasp- LOSE YOUR MAN CARD!  If you MUST get touchy-feely, you may only indulge in a short, furtive side hug (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_Oj0-splZw) (btw FUCK YUO ALTY), after which you have to make a rape or sexist joke lol, or talk about boobs or sports or whatever it is you men talk about.  You can't show emotion, cuz that's actin' like a pussy, dawg.  You got worries?  Shit, I don't wanna hear about worries you have about the future!  Talk about tits and ass instead.  You got some deep thoughts on feminism, or what you find to be beautiful in the world, or maybe want to bounce some poetry off me?  FUCKIN' FAG! 

Honestly, I'm running through all the things that guys are supposed to like to do, and I can only come up with some of the most shallow, vile crap that is untrue, I hope.  I mean, like Nigel said upthread, that can't be good for their spirituality or humanity.

Been thinking a bit about this and I'd say that, speaking as a guy, a lot of macho shit is fun and totally suits me, as long as it's not taken seriously. There's a switch in my brain that gets a buzz out of challenging one of my mates to do something mental or he's a pussy. Likewise - to rise to a similar challenge and make a dent in that lamp post, using the power of my head, to earn "man points". I see no reason not to indulge flicking that particular switch, from time to time, in the right company and setting.

I see no harm in it but, if that's all you have, like there's no intellectual, or emotional side to you then you've pretty much overdosed and become a walking cliche.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Roly Poly Oly-Garch on August 09, 2012, 04:38:02 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 01:48:57 PM
Har!

In Arizona, custody is separate from child support (meaning deadbeat dad pays nothing, still gets to see the kids)

I'm fairly sure that's the case in most states...and I pretty much agree with it.

It's not like the kids are an amusement park to be visited and child support is the ticket. The kids should benefit from a relationship with both their parents. I think it's kind of an outmoded and backwards think that says if a non-custodial parent is a deadbeat they should also be forced to be derelict.

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 09, 2012, 04:41:25 PM
It also prevents the custodial parent from using the kids as a pawn in child support negotiation.

And, prevents the child from being deprived of a parent if that parent loses their job.

On the other hand, in Oregon you can be sent to jail for not paying your child support. Which creates its own catch-22.

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Roly Poly Oly-Garch on August 09, 2012, 05:10:24 PM
Quote from: Alty on August 07, 2012, 05:48:21 PM
Also, I would argue that due to an ever constant fear or rape or assault present in many women, it makes it difficult for men to just be people around women, at times. I've started to notice recently just how many women refuse to make eye contact while walking, or even biking in public. This isn't so much harm to men in our society as much as its a shame. For example: I am totally fucking harmless. I'm still a pacifist at heart. And yet I evoke this same reaction because I am a guy. Again, this is less a tragedy and more a damned shame that women have to live in such fear without the ability to tell who is harmless and who is not.

When I read the topic of this thread, this is the very first thing that I thought of. It's like we're stuck in this scenario that in the whole fucked up order of things, is "Exactly as it should be"(TM), but it truly just sucks for everyone involved.

There's the woman who is in the vulnerable position, the man who is in the potentially dangerous position--that dynamic in play...but underneath it, just two human beings thinking how much the whole god-damned thing is a crying shame.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Phox on August 09, 2012, 05:14:07 PM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on August 09, 2012, 03:44:26 AM
Quote from: Phox, The Abdicator on August 09, 2012, 02:48:18 AM
So the answer was yes, i see. Grammatical gender and "gender gender" are not the same thing. English does not make use of grammatical gender. Having words with a gender marker serves no purpose other than otherizing one gender and normalizing another.

Didn't see this before the last post.

Alright, I'm actually angry at you now. Congrats, you trolled me.

I'm well aware that grammatical gender and "gender gender" are not the same thing. That's why I explicitly used the term "grammatical gender" instead of just gender, and made the frankly ridiculous "gender gender" construction to further emphasize that it is distinct from grammatical gender. The relation "linked to" signifies that the topic of the question is restricted to those languages for which there is a relationship between the two, which is only material if there exist languages excluded by the where clause, i.e., there is at least one language for which grammatical gender and social gender do not correlate.

Further, I never implied that English uses grammatical gender. That's rather the point of the question, actually - I know a thing about a social movement as mediated by a grammatical gender free language, does that thing extend to that same movement in a different context?

I ask questions because I recognize that there are areas in which I am ignorant, and I want to learn things from people who are knowledgeable on that topic. I asked those questions specifically because I know that you know more than I do about Romance languages. I even threw in the linguistic jargon "gender marker" because I knew you would get it and wanted to establish this relationship as "friendly peer."

I exposed weakness in good faith, and you called me a retard. Twice. That's not communication, that's raw primate posturing. You skimmed my posts exactly enough to come up with a response intended to elevate your social status at the expense of my own.
Here's the problem: I have neither the time, nor the inclination, to explain the interactions of gender markers and syntax in Romance languages when typing from my phone, nor even now, when that bears no relevance on the topic at hand. If you want to know about French feminist movements and how they relate to language, you are talking to the wrong person anyway, because I have no idea what European feminist movements are doing. When did I ever imply I did?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Roly Poly Oly-Garch on August 09, 2012, 05:23:12 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 09, 2012, 04:41:25 PM
It also prevents the custodial parent from using the kids as a pawn in child support negotiation.

And, prevents the child from being deprived of a parent if that parent loses their job.

On the other hand, in Oregon you can be sent to jail for not paying your child support. Which creates its own catch-22.

I would agree with jail time for failure to pay child support in many instances. I know too many douches who just flat out refuse, and have done so for years. Sure they can't pay child support from a cell, but if they've demonstrated that they are willfully neglecting that obligation, what's the difference?

Colorado yoinks driver's licenses for failure to pay (or in one case that I'm aware of paying under the table in violation of a court order  :oops:). Driving pizza for a living and losing your driver's license for failure to pay child support...that's some catch.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 09, 2012, 05:28:35 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 09, 2012, 11:15:24 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 08, 2012, 01:13:52 AM
Yes.  That's your prerogative to not like it when people cry, and I don't blame you in the least. 




To further the discussion, I agree that while men don't lose as much as women do in the grand scheme of things, I think as people they get a pretty raw deal.  They have to be just so, fit in this box, or -gasp- LOSE YOUR MAN CARD!  If you MUST get touchy-feely, you may only indulge in a short, furtive side hug (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_Oj0-splZw) (btw FUCK YUO ALTY), after which you have to make a rape or sexist joke lol, or talk about boobs or sports or whatever it is you men talk about.  You can't show emotion, cuz that's actin' like a pussy, dawg.  You got worries?  Shit, I don't wanna hear about worries you have about the future!  Talk about tits and ass instead.  You got some deep thoughts on feminism, or what you find to be beautiful in the world, or maybe want to bounce some poetry off me?  FUCKIN' FAG! 

Honestly, I'm running through all the things that guys are supposed to like to do, and I can only come up with some of the most shallow, vile crap that is untrue, I hope.  I mean, like Nigel said upthread, that can't be good for their spirituality or humanity.

Been thinking a bit about this and I'd say that, speaking as a guy, a lot of macho shit is fun and totally suits me, as long as it's not taken seriously. There's a switch in my brain that gets a buzz out of challenging one of my mates to do something mental or he's a pussy. Likewise - to rise to a similar challenge and make a dent in that lamp post, using the power of my head, to earn "man points". I see no reason not to indulge flicking that particular switch, from time to time, in the right company and setting.

I see no harm in it but, if that's all you have, like there's no intellectual, or emotional side to you then you've pretty much overdosed and become a walking cliche.
I just wanna take a second to point out that "pussy" is a gendered insult.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 09, 2012, 08:20:47 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on August 09, 2012, 05:23:12 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 09, 2012, 04:41:25 PM
It also prevents the custodial parent from using the kids as a pawn in child support negotiation.

And, prevents the child from being deprived of a parent if that parent loses their job.

On the other hand, in Oregon you can be sent to jail for not paying your child support. Which creates its own catch-22.

I would agree with jail time for failure to pay child support in many instances. I know too many douches who just flat out refuse, and have done so for years. Sure they can't pay child support from a cell, but if they've demonstrated that they are willfully neglecting that obligation, what's the difference?

Colorado yoinks driver's licenses for failure to pay (or in one case that I'm aware of paying under the table in violation of a court order  :oops:). Driving pizza for a living and losing your driver's license for failure to pay child support...that's some catch.

Yes, I do agree that it's called for in some cases. Maybe even a lot of cases. I think the main problem with it is that the family court system here has little money for investigating/prosecuting, so they've instituted a fairly straightforward rule system that can result in unintended consequences.

But the alternative is no enforcement, and that's probably worse.

Of course, what I'd like to see is a better-funded family court system with better investigation and more judge/mediator involvement in individual cases, but that's unlikely to happen anytime in the near future.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Roly Poly Oly-Garch on August 09, 2012, 08:53:24 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 07, 2012, 10:37:28 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 07, 2012, 10:31:16 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 07, 2012, 10:24:03 PM
The idea that any person should be considered in any way different from any other person on the basis of anything other than what they do is perplexing and foreign to me, even submerged in a culture that is fraught with these kinds of assessments.

"The fleshy package your personality is wrapped in is in some ways dissimilar, and in other ways similar, to the one mine is wrapped in."

That is the most meaningful statement that can be made concerning the differences between male and female. But the same statement can be made to distinguish any two people, so it is ultimately meaningless.

We can't expect to arrive at any real gender neutrality when we leave the social structures of patriarchy in place. Matriarchy would be the same thing in reverse, so that's a no-go. "Feminism" is probably something closer to the right way, but the fact that its root word is specifically and exclusively female pays too much lip service to this illusion of some inherent distinction between a person who is a woman, and a person who is a man.
I really, really hate repeating myself, but, Vex, women and females are an oppressed group even still. We need a specific movement that denotes who it works for because the work feminism started out to do, way back when, is still not done. Its work won't be done until the kyriarchy has been dismantled because an injury to one oppressed group is ultimately an injury to us all.

I don't disagree with you at all. I just question the usefulness of a movement that specifies females as its intended beneficiary. Even if that benefit is deserved, which it is of course, I'm asking if that goal might be better met by a truly and thoroughly gender-neutral movement at this point. "Feminism," which I agree with, is often written off by those who oppose it simply because it is "for women," and they're dumb enough to be "against women." That feminism is beneficial to both men and women is lost on the vast majority of simpletons who are too dumb to look at a word like "feminism" and see anything beyond the first 3 letters.

If the point is to continue the fight until the last breath of the last die-hard patriarch just so we can all show the world that "ha! women ARE strong!" then Feminism is great. But if the point is to completely eliminate gender as a consideration in the math of a person's value altogether, then why not switch to gender neutrality?

Because to the point that there are issues on the ground that need to be addressed--issues that are overwhelmingly oppressive to one specific class in our society--simply removing the label "woman" from that oppressed class basically reads like "Three Pounds of Flax".

--Not disagreeing with where you're going, just saying that there's a lot of in-between to getting there.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 10, 2012, 07:34:48 AM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on August 09, 2012, 08:53:24 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 07, 2012, 10:37:28 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 07, 2012, 10:31:16 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 07, 2012, 10:24:03 PM
The idea that any person should be considered in any way different from any other person on the basis of anything other than what they do is perplexing and foreign to me, even submerged in a culture that is fraught with these kinds of assessments.

"The fleshy package your personality is wrapped in is in some ways dissimilar, and in other ways similar, to the one mine is wrapped in."

That is the most meaningful statement that can be made concerning the differences between male and female. But the same statement can be made to distinguish any two people, so it is ultimately meaningless.

We can't expect to arrive at any real gender neutrality when we leave the social structures of patriarchy in place. Matriarchy would be the same thing in reverse, so that's a no-go. "Feminism" is probably something closer to the right way, but the fact that its root word is specifically and exclusively female pays too much lip service to this illusion of some inherent distinction between a person who is a woman, and a person who is a man.
I really, really hate repeating myself, but, Vex, women and females are an oppressed group even still. We need a specific movement that denotes who it works for because the work feminism started out to do, way back when, is still not done. Its work won't be done until the kyriarchy has been dismantled because an injury to one oppressed group is ultimately an injury to us all.

I don't disagree with you at all. I just question the usefulness of a movement that specifies females as its intended beneficiary. Even if that benefit is deserved, which it is of course, I'm asking if that goal might be better met by a truly and thoroughly gender-neutral movement at this point. "Feminism," which I agree with, is often written off by those who oppose it simply because it is "for women," and they're dumb enough to be "against women." That feminism is beneficial to both men and women is lost on the vast majority of simpletons who are too dumb to look at a word like "feminism" and see anything beyond the first 3 letters.

If the point is to continue the fight until the last breath of the last die-hard patriarch just so we can all show the world that "ha! women ARE strong!" then Feminism is great. But if the point is to completely eliminate gender as a consideration in the math of a person's value altogether, then why not switch to gender neutrality?

Because to the point that there are issues on the ground that need to be addressed--issues that are overwhelmingly oppressive to one specific class in our society--simply removing the label "woman" from that oppressed class basically reads like "Three Pounds of Flax".

--Not disagreeing with where you're going, just saying that there's a lot of in-between to getting there.

Yup.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on August 13, 2012, 03:06:14 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 09, 2012, 05:28:35 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 09, 2012, 11:15:24 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 08, 2012, 01:13:52 AM
Yes.  That's your prerogative to not like it when people cry, and I don't blame you in the least. 




To further the discussion, I agree that while men don't lose as much as women do in the grand scheme of things, I think as people they get a pretty raw deal.  They have to be just so, fit in this box, or -gasp- LOSE YOUR MAN CARD!  If you MUST get touchy-feely, you may only indulge in a short, furtive side hug (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_Oj0-splZw) (btw FUCK YUO ALTY), after which you have to make a rape or sexist joke lol, or talk about boobs or sports or whatever it is you men talk about.  You can't show emotion, cuz that's actin' like a pussy, dawg.  You got worries?  Shit, I don't wanna hear about worries you have about the future!  Talk about tits and ass instead.  You got some deep thoughts on feminism, or what you find to be beautiful in the world, or maybe want to bounce some poetry off me?  FUCKIN' FAG! 

Honestly, I'm running through all the things that guys are supposed to like to do, and I can only come up with some of the most shallow, vile crap that is untrue, I hope.  I mean, like Nigel said upthread, that can't be good for their spirituality or humanity.

Been thinking a bit about this and I'd say that, speaking as a guy, a lot of macho shit is fun and totally suits me, as long as it's not taken seriously. There's a switch in my brain that gets a buzz out of challenging one of my mates to do something mental or he's a pussy. Likewise - to rise to a similar challenge and make a dent in that lamp post, using the power of my head, to earn "man points". I see no reason not to indulge flicking that particular switch, from time to time, in the right company and setting.

I see no harm in it but, if that's all you have, like there's no intellectual, or emotional side to you then you've pretty much overdosed and become a walking cliche.
I just wanna take a second to point out that "pussy" is a gendered insult.

Yeah, but only barely. I don't think it's as bad as saying something like "you drive like a woman" which would definitely be a gendered insult. Referring to a bodypart, tho, is more on par with calling someone a dick or an asshole. And it should be noted that, if you are the type of person who would take offence to me saying something like that then I'm much more likely to do it around you because I'm a bit of a cunt like that. :evil:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 13, 2012, 03:11:36 PM
:facepalm:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 13, 2012, 03:12:02 PM
I don't find it particularly offensive. Just pointing it out.


Eta: me or him?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 13, 2012, 03:15:33 PM
Also, Freaky:  In the UK, "cunt" is a form of punctuation.

Like a semicolon.  It's just there to make them look educated.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 13, 2012, 03:17:31 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 13, 2012, 03:12:02 PM
I don't find it particularly offensive. Just pointing it out.


Eta: me or him?

Him.

I find the connotation of pussy more indignation inducing than offensive. Soft, weak, so on.

Women pop small watermelons out of there all the time.  Is that weak or soft? I dare dudes to give themselves gall stones. If you refuse, you're a fucking pussy.

Note: not really a challenge.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 13, 2012, 03:18:26 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 13, 2012, 03:15:33 PM
Also, Freaky:  In the UK, "cunt" is a form of punctuation.

Like a semicolon.  It's just there to make them look educated.

Stop be ruining my precious indignation, sir!   :argh!:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on August 13, 2012, 03:22:30 PM
Cunt is the funniest word over here. It's generally considered the worst of the swear words but at the same time 90% of it's use is non insulting. Referring to someone as "this cunt over here" is not an insult, it just means "this person" Calling someone a "bastard" or a "dick", however, both very "tame" swear words is always a direct insult and an excellent way to get a fight started.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 13, 2012, 03:25:21 PM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 13, 2012, 03:17:31 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 13, 2012, 03:12:02 PM
I don't find it particularly offensive. Just pointing it out.


Eta: me or him?

Him.

I find the connotation of pussy more indignation inducing than offensive. Soft, weak, so on.

Women pop small watermelons out of there all the time.  Is that weak or soft? I dare dudes to give themselves gall stones. If you refuse, you're a fucking pussy.

Note: not really a challenge.
This is true.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 13, 2012, 03:22:30 PM
Cunt is the funniest word over here. It's generally considered the worst of the swear words but at the same time 90% of it's use is non insulting. Referring to someone as "this cunt over here" is not an insult, it just means "this person" Calling someone a "bastard" or a "dick", however, both very "tame" swear words is always a direct insult and an excellent way to get a fight started.
What. You people are weird.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 13, 2012, 03:27:06 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 13, 2012, 03:22:30 PM
Cunt is the funniest word over here. It's generally considered the worst of the swear words but at the same time 90% of it's use is non insulting. Referring to someone as "this cunt over here" is not an insult, it just means "this person" Calling someone a "bastard" or a "dick", however, both very "tame" swear words is always a direct insult and an excellent way to get a fight started.

So reveresd then. :lulz:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on August 13, 2012, 03:34:19 PM
Seriously. If someone says cunt on teevee, it's still front page news but it's totally non aggressive. "Some cunt must have done that for me" - thanks kind mystery person. "I'm feeling totally cunted" - I'm quite tired. "I knocked my cunt in today" - I had a hard day at work ...

It's a totally awesome word and polite folks really take the hump when you use it, like Roger said - as punctuation  :lulz:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Faust on August 13, 2012, 03:42:08 PM
Yeah, it looks like some people need a Guy Ritchie education marathon. Cunt, faggot and Nigger is used all the time here and is considered mild. Call someone a prick though and you are saying they have pissed you off, there's no jokey way to call someone a prick but scumbags call each other cunt, faggot or nigger all the time.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 13, 2012, 03:51:20 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 13, 2012, 03:34:19 PM
Seriously. If someone says cunt on teevee, it's still front page news but it's totally non aggressive. "Some cunt must have done that for me" - thanks kind mystery person. "I'm feeling totally cunted" - I'm quite tired. "I knocked my cunt in today" - I had a hard day at work ...

It's a totally awesome word and polite folks really take the hump when you use it, like Roger said - as punctuation  :lulz:

One of my favorite Britishisms is "No bastard".  As in "No bastard told me that the curry was India hot."

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 13, 2012, 03:52:34 PM
Quote from: Faust on August 13, 2012, 03:42:08 PM
Yeah, it looks like some people need a Guy Ritchie education marathon.

I spent a lot of time in Liverpool in the 80s and 90s, and when I saw Guy Ritchie's stuff, I thought he was toning it down a tad.

:lulz:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 13, 2012, 04:47:36 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 13, 2012, 03:06:14 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 09, 2012, 05:28:35 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 09, 2012, 11:15:24 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 08, 2012, 01:13:52 AM
Yes.  That's your prerogative to not like it when people cry, and I don't blame you in the least. 




To further the discussion, I agree that while men don't lose as much as women do in the grand scheme of things, I think as people they get a pretty raw deal.  They have to be just so, fit in this box, or -gasp- LOSE YOUR MAN CARD!  If you MUST get touchy-feely, you may only indulge in a short, furtive side hug (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_Oj0-splZw) (btw FUCK YUO ALTY), after which you have to make a rape or sexist joke lol, or talk about boobs or sports or whatever it is you men talk about.  You can't show emotion, cuz that's actin' like a pussy, dawg.  You got worries?  Shit, I don't wanna hear about worries you have about the future!  Talk about tits and ass instead.  You got some deep thoughts on feminism, or what you find to be beautiful in the world, or maybe want to bounce some poetry off me?  FUCKIN' FAG! 

Honestly, I'm running through all the things that guys are supposed to like to do, and I can only come up with some of the most shallow, vile crap that is untrue, I hope.  I mean, like Nigel said upthread, that can't be good for their spirituality or humanity.

Been thinking a bit about this and I'd say that, speaking as a guy, a lot of macho shit is fun and totally suits me, as long as it's not taken seriously. There's a switch in my brain that gets a buzz out of challenging one of my mates to do something mental or he's a pussy. Likewise - to rise to a similar challenge and make a dent in that lamp post, using the power of my head, to earn "man points". I see no reason not to indulge flicking that particular switch, from time to time, in the right company and setting.

I see no harm in it but, if that's all you have, like there's no intellectual, or emotional side to you then you've pretty much overdosed and become a walking cliche.
I just wanna take a second to point out that "pussy" is a gendered insult.

Yeah, but only barely. I don't think it's as bad as saying something like "you drive like a woman" which would definitely be a gendered insult. Referring to a bodypart, tho, is more on par with calling someone a dick or an asshole. And it should be noted that, if you are the type of person who would take offence to me saying something like that then I'm much more likely to do it around you because I'm a bit of a cunt like that. :evil:

Well I guess you've bought in then, haven't you?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 13, 2012, 05:01:37 PM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 13, 2012, 03:17:31 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 13, 2012, 03:12:02 PM
I don't find it particularly offensive. Just pointing it out.


Eta: me or him?

Him.

I find the connotation of pussy more indignation inducing than offensive. Soft, weak, so on.

Women pop small watermelons out of there all the time.  Is that weak or soft? I dare dudes to give themselves gall stones. If you refuse, you're a fucking pussy.

Note: not really a challenge.

This is a fact.  Gallstones are enough to make a grown man cry, and they're tiny.

Pooping a watermelon?  The species would go extinct.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on August 13, 2012, 06:46:56 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 13, 2012, 04:47:36 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 13, 2012, 03:06:14 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 09, 2012, 05:28:35 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 09, 2012, 11:15:24 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 08, 2012, 01:13:52 AM
Yes.  That's your prerogative to not like it when people cry, and I don't blame you in the least. 




To further the discussion, I agree that while men don't lose as much as women do in the grand scheme of things, I think as people they get a pretty raw deal.  They have to be just so, fit in this box, or -gasp- LOSE YOUR MAN CARD!  If you MUST get touchy-feely, you may only indulge in a short, furtive side hug (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_Oj0-splZw) (btw FUCK YUO ALTY), after which you have to make a rape or sexist joke lol, or talk about boobs or sports or whatever it is you men talk about.  You can't show emotion, cuz that's actin' like a pussy, dawg.  You got worries?  Shit, I don't wanna hear about worries you have about the future!  Talk about tits and ass instead.  You got some deep thoughts on feminism, or what you find to be beautiful in the world, or maybe want to bounce some poetry off me?  FUCKIN' FAG! 

Honestly, I'm running through all the things that guys are supposed to like to do, and I can only come up with some of the most shallow, vile crap that is untrue, I hope.  I mean, like Nigel said upthread, that can't be good for their spirituality or humanity.

Been thinking a bit about this and I'd say that, speaking as a guy, a lot of macho shit is fun and totally suits me, as long as it's not taken seriously. There's a switch in my brain that gets a buzz out of challenging one of my mates to do something mental or he's a pussy. Likewise - to rise to a similar challenge and make a dent in that lamp post, using the power of my head, to earn "man points". I see no reason not to indulge flicking that particular switch, from time to time, in the right company and setting.

I see no harm in it but, if that's all you have, like there's no intellectual, or emotional side to you then you've pretty much overdosed and become a walking cliche.
I just wanna take a second to point out that "pussy" is a gendered insult.

Yeah, but only barely. I don't think it's as bad as saying something like "you drive like a woman" which would definitely be a gendered insult. Referring to a bodypart, tho, is more on par with calling someone a dick or an asshole. And it should be noted that, if you are the type of person who would take offence to me saying something like that then I'm much more likely to do it around you because I'm a bit of a cunt like that. :evil:

Well I guess you've bought in then, haven't you?

If you're prepared to label me as a misogynist on the strength of which swear words I use then you are exactly the kind of person I want to offend. Want to try the old "I don't realise it but..." bullshit? Good luck with that.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 13, 2012, 10:12:23 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 13, 2012, 05:01:37 PM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 13, 2012, 03:17:31 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO link=topic=32979.msg1198394#msg1198394
=1344867122

I don't find it particularly offensive. Just pointing it out.


Eta: me or him?

Him.

I find the connotation of pussy more indignation inducing than offensive. Soft, weak, so on.

Women pop small watermelons out of there all the time.  Is that weak or soft? I dare dudes to give themselves gall stones. If you refuse, you're a fucking pussy.

Note: not really a challenge.

This is a fact.  Gallstones are enough to make a grown man cry, and they're tiny.

Pooping a watermelon?  The species would go extinct.
I had a health teacher in high school say it was, proportionally, like trying to get a golf ball through your dick.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Dark Monk on August 13, 2012, 10:15:49 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 13, 2012, 10:12:23 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 13, 2012, 05:01:37 PM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 13, 2012, 03:17:31 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO link=topic=32979.msg1198394#msg1198394
=1344867122

I don't find it particularly offensive. Just pointing it out.


Eta: me or him?

Him.

I find the connotation of pussy more indignation inducing than offensive. Soft, weak, so on.

Women pop small watermelons out of there all the time.  Is that weak or soft? I dare dudes to give themselves gall stones. If you refuse, you're a fucking pussy.

Note: not really a challenge.

This is a fact.  Gallstones are enough to make a grown man cry, and they're tiny.

Pooping a watermelon?  The species would go extinct.
I had a health teacher in high school say it was, proportionally, like trying to get a golf ball through your dick.

I've pissed a ripping stone through a bladder infection. Definitely in the top 10 worst pains in my life, up there with gut dropping into my sack and rib punctured lung and frontal tooth smashy-outtie. (dental pain fucking SUCKS)
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 13, 2012, 11:17:32 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 13, 2012, 06:46:56 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 13, 2012, 04:47:36 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 13, 2012, 03:06:14 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 09, 2012, 05:28:35 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 09, 2012, 11:15:24 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 08, 2012, 01:13:52 AM
Yes.  That's your prerogative to not like it when people cry, and I don't blame you in the least. 




To further the discussion, I agree that while men don't lose as much as women do in the grand scheme of things, I think as people they get a pretty raw deal.  They have to be just so, fit in this box, or -gasp- LOSE YOUR MAN CARD!  If you MUST get touchy-feely, you may only indulge in a short, furtive side hug (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_Oj0-splZw) (btw FUCK YUO ALTY), after which you have to make a rape or sexist joke lol, or talk about boobs or sports or whatever it is you men talk about.  You can't show emotion, cuz that's actin' like a pussy, dawg.  You got worries?  Shit, I don't wanna hear about worries you have about the future!  Talk about tits and ass instead.  You got some deep thoughts on feminism, or what you find to be beautiful in the world, or maybe want to bounce some poetry off me?  FUCKIN' FAG! 

Honestly, I'm running through all the things that guys are supposed to like to do, and I can only come up with some of the most shallow, vile crap that is untrue, I hope.  I mean, like Nigel said upthread, that can't be good for their spirituality or humanity.

Been thinking a bit about this and I'd say that, speaking as a guy, a lot of macho shit is fun and totally suits me, as long as it's not taken seriously. There's a switch in my brain that gets a buzz out of challenging one of my mates to do something mental or he's a pussy. Likewise - to rise to a similar challenge and make a dent in that lamp post, using the power of my head, to earn "man points". I see no reason not to indulge flicking that particular switch, from time to time, in the right company and setting.

I see no harm in it but, if that's all you have, like there's no intellectual, or emotional side to you then you've pretty much overdosed and become a walking cliche.
I just wanna take a second to point out that "pussy" is a gendered insult.

Yeah, but only barely. I don't think it's as bad as saying something like "you drive like a woman" which would definitely be a gendered insult. Referring to a bodypart, tho, is more on par with calling someone a dick or an asshole. And it should be noted that, if you are the type of person who would take offence to me saying something like that then I'm much more likely to do it around you because I'm a bit of a cunt like that. :evil:

Well I guess you've bought in then, haven't you?

If you're prepared to label me as a misogynist on the strength of which swear words I use then you are exactly the kind of person I want to offend. Want to try the old "I don't realise it but..." bullshit? Good luck with that.

No, I just think you've gotten so caught up in showing everybody what a badass you are, you've forgotten how to walk upright. It just disappoints me in the way it always disappoints me when I know someone is capable of better. I know... you Don't Care™. I've heard it enough times to know it's part of your uniform.

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 13, 2012, 11:27:34 PM
A thought:  Why would you make fun of people who have genuine beliefs and an urge to make things better?

Ripping on that isn't booting a sacred cow, it's being part of The MachineTM.  I think (not sure, mind you, I've been more rational) that this might be the root cause of the disagreement, here.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 13, 2012, 11:28:13 PM
Basically, if your stance is the tired old "I'M NOT GUNNA THINK ABOUT OR OBJECTIVELY DISCUSS THE WIDER SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF COMMON LANGUAGE USAGES 'CAUSE I RAWK TOO HARD, FUCKEM" why are you even participating in this conversation? Don't you have a dominant paradigm to go uphold?

FFS. :lulz: I know, consciousness is hard. SHOWING US WHAT A TOUGH GUY YOU ARE is much, much easier, because you don't even have to take off your nametag.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 13, 2012, 11:30:52 PM
(Not directed at you, Roger, you just posted while I was posting)
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 13, 2012, 11:32:50 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 13, 2012, 11:30:52 PM
(Not directed at you, Roger, you just posted while I was posting)

S'ok, I kinda figured.  I'm feeling quite a bit better, today, so I don't think EVERYTHING is aimed at me.  These things are less and less severe, and last shorter and shorter amounts of time.  And they're less frequent. 
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 13, 2012, 11:36:16 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 13, 2012, 11:32:50 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 13, 2012, 11:30:52 PM
(Not directed at you, Roger, you just posted while I was posting)

S'ok, I kinda figured.  I'm feeling quite a bit better, today, so I don't think EVERYTHING is aimed at me.  These things are less and less severe, and last shorter and shorter amounts of time.  And they're less frequent.

Good!
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 14, 2012, 04:05:20 AM
I think there was a valid point there though. Using genital terms as slang isn't necessarily misogynistic.  I just recently heard about "Elevatorgate" some bizarre dustup in the skeptic/atheist community dealing with misogyny, hurt feelings, blog fights and other stuff that sounded a lot like "I am monkey, hear me beat my chest!!" Anyway, Dawkins came down on one side, and the feminists on the other.  Throughout the debate the feminists and the people that supported their side kept referring to Dawkins as "Dick", obviously due to his first name, his gender and their opinion of him.

I don't think that meant that they hated all men or felt that all men were horrible people, or lesser beings or anything like that. It was just petty name calling. Cunt certainly 'could' be misogynistic in some usages, just as 'dick' could be, or it could just be name calling.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 14, 2012, 04:26:24 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 14, 2012, 04:05:20 AM
I think there was a valid point there though. Using genital terms as slang isn't necessarily misogynistic.  I just recently heard about "Elevatorgate" some bizarre dustup in the skeptic/atheist community dealing with misogyny, hurt feelings, blog fights and other stuff that sounded a lot like "I am monkey, hear me beat my chest!!" Anyway, Dawkins came down on one side, and the feminists on the other.  Throughout the debate the feminists and the people that supported their side kept referring to Dawkins as "Dick", obviously due to his first name, his gender and their opinion of him.

I don't think that meant that they hated all men or felt that all men were horrible people, or lesser beings or anything like that. It was just petty name calling. Cunt certainly 'could' be misogynistic in some usages, just as 'dick' could be, or it could just be name calling.

Usage of "dick" vs "cunt" as insults aren't on the same level, though. I think Jessica Valenti (though I'm normally not a fan) said it best: the worst thing you can call a woman (slut, whore, bitch, cunt) is a woman. The worst thing you can call a man (pussy, mangina, fag, bitch) is a girl. In much the same way that "cracker" and "n***er" are both race-based insults, but one has a much stronger history of oppression and hatred behind it, saying "well some women call people dicks" isn't actually a valid counterpoint to "hey, using cunt as an insult is misogynistic."
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 14, 2012, 05:10:43 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 14, 2012, 04:26:24 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 14, 2012, 04:05:20 AM
I think there was a valid point there though. Using genital terms as slang isn't necessarily misogynistic.  I just recently heard about "Elevatorgate" some bizarre dustup in the skeptic/atheist community dealing with misogyny, hurt feelings, blog fights and other stuff that sounded a lot like "I am monkey, hear me beat my chest!!" Anyway, Dawkins came down on one side, and the feminists on the other.  Throughout the debate the feminists and the people that supported their side kept referring to Dawkins as "Dick", obviously due to his first name, his gender and their opinion of him.

I don't think that meant that they hated all men or felt that all men were horrible people, or lesser beings or anything like that. It was just petty name calling. Cunt certainly 'could' be misogynistic in some usages, just as 'dick' could be, or it could just be name calling.

Usage of "dick" vs "cunt" as insults aren't on the same level, though. I think Jessica Valenti (though I'm normally not a fan) said it best: the worst thing you can call a woman (slut, whore, bitch, cunt) is a woman. The worst thing you can call a man (pussy, mangina, fag, bitch) is a girl. In much the same way that "cracker" and "n***er" are both race-based insults, but one has a much stronger history of oppression and hatred behind it, saying "well some women call people dicks" isn't actually a valid counterpoint to "hey, using cunt as an insult is misogynistic."
Bless most of this post.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 14, 2012, 05:24:28 AM
I reclaimed "cunt".

"Damn right and don't you forget it", "I'm not a cunt, I'm THE cunt", etc.  :lulz:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 14, 2012, 05:33:53 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 14, 2012, 04:26:24 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 14, 2012, 04:05:20 AM
I think there was a valid point there though. Using genital terms as slang isn't necessarily misogynistic.  I just recently heard about "Elevatorgate" some bizarre dustup in the skeptic/atheist community dealing with misogyny, hurt feelings, blog fights and other stuff that sounded a lot like "I am monkey, hear me beat my chest!!" Anyway, Dawkins came down on one side, and the feminists on the other.  Throughout the debate the feminists and the people that supported their side kept referring to Dawkins as "Dick", obviously due to his first name, his gender and their opinion of him.

I don't think that meant that they hated all men or felt that all men were horrible people, or lesser beings or anything like that. It was just petty name calling. Cunt certainly 'could' be misogynistic in some usages, just as 'dick' could be, or it could just be name calling.

Usage of "dick" vs "cunt" as insults aren't on the same level, though. I think Jessica Valenti (though I'm normally not a fan) said it best: the worst thing you can call a woman (slut, whore, bitch, cunt) is a woman. The worst thing you can call a man (pussy, mangina, fag, bitch) is a girl. In much the same way that "cracker" and "n***er" are both race-based insults, but one has a much stronger history of oppression and hatred behind it, saying "well some women call people dicks" isn't actually a valid counterpoint to "hey, using cunt as an insult is misogynistic."

Nail, head.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 14, 2012, 05:50:26 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 14, 2012, 05:24:28 AM
I reclaimed "cunt".

"Damn right and don't you forget it", "I'm not a cunt, I'm THE cunt", etc.  :lulz:

I'm not quite at a point where I can reclaim cunt, yet. I'd like to get there.

Slut, though. Slut I will totally own.  :lulz:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 14, 2012, 06:54:16 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 14, 2012, 05:50:26 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 14, 2012, 05:24:28 AM
I reclaimed "cunt".

"Damn right and don't you forget it", "I'm not a cunt, I'm THE cunt", etc.  :lulz:

I'm not quite at a point where I can reclaim cunt, yet. I'd like to get there.

Slut, though. Slut I will totally own.  :lulz:

You have an army.  :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SlutWalk
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 14, 2012, 07:06:38 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 14, 2012, 06:54:16 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 14, 2012, 05:50:26 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 14, 2012, 05:24:28 AM
I reclaimed "cunt".

"Damn right and don't you forget it", "I'm not a cunt, I'm THE cunt", etc.  :lulz:

I'm not quite at a point where I can reclaim cunt, yet. I'd like to get there.

Slut, though. Slut I will totally own.  :lulz:

You have an army.  :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SlutWalk

Heh, I know. I'm on organising committees in two countries. SlutLord!
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 14, 2012, 07:19:44 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 14, 2012, 07:06:38 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 14, 2012, 06:54:16 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 14, 2012, 05:50:26 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 14, 2012, 05:24:28 AM
I reclaimed "cunt".

"Damn right and don't you forget it", "I'm not a cunt, I'm THE cunt", etc.  :lulz:

I'm not quite at a point where I can reclaim cunt, yet. I'd like to get there.

Slut, though. Slut I will totally own.  :lulz:

You have an army.  :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SlutWalk

Heh, I know. I'm on organising committees in two countries. SlutLord!

Ooooooo...a TITLE!  :cheers:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Johnny on August 14, 2012, 07:31:30 AM

Ive been on the fence regarding those "walks" for some time...

I mean, i understand its trying to give "slut" a positive connotation, but i dont think it accomplishes the intended intention to uncritical observers.

On one hand its the deconstruction of a stereotype, but its also assuming the stereotype to a point.

I mean, if i organized a "BeanerWalk" in a racist location, the people that showed up and marched with me would equate with a display of support for the so called "beaners" and a symbolic show that racism will not be tolerated, but does it really deconstruct and resignify the stereotype?

Wouldnt a "March against discrimination and violence" in both cases would be better and probably get even more support?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Johnny on August 14, 2012, 07:33:47 AM

To me it seems as useful as the "ZombieWalks" with the difference being that theres flyers and information that might be good.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 14, 2012, 07:41:13 AM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 14, 2012, 07:31:30 AM

Ive been on the fence regarding those "walks" for some time...

I mean, i understand its trying to give "slut" a positive connotation, but i dont think it accomplishes the intended intention to uncritical observers.

On one hand its the deconstruction of a stereotype, but its also assuming the stereotype to a point.

I mean, if i organized a "BeanerWalk" in a racist location, the people that showed up and marched with me would equate with a display of support for the so called "beaners" and a symbolic show that racism will not be tolerated, but does it really deconstruct and resignify the stereotype?

Wouldnt a "March against discrimination and violence" in both cases would be better and probably get even more support?

Well, "March against discrimination and violence" is really hard to fit on a poster and too long for a Twitter handle.

In all seriousness though, there's been a lot of discussion about the name of SlutWalks. Some offshoots have opted to rename, and that's awesome. We talked about it coming up to our second march this year and ultimately decided to keep the Slut moniker, at least for now. It's hard-hitting and in your face and it got us a lot of attention. Yes, that attention was both positive and negative, but the point of a protest march is attention in general, and we got something like twenty-five times the amount of people that Take Back the Night marches were getting in our city (and they haven't even had a TBTN in a few years now, which is a shame). And it's a great opportunity to educate people (those who want to be educated, anyway). Our biggest issue, actually, has always been in the media portrayals of our movement, because "WOMEN WANT TO DRESS/ACT LIKE SLUTTY SLUTTY SLUTS ALSO HEY DID WE MENTION LOLSLUTS" is a much better headline than "Rape culture is shit and here's an intersectional group of people who would really like to work towards breaking it down."

After the march last year, the voiceover on the news was "scantily-clad protesters braved the weather today; a group of women marched down..." blah blah blah complete inability to read press releases or stick around for the speeches. And my mother, when she watched it later, was yelling at the computer, "There's a ton of men there and most people are in jeans WHAT THE FUCK." Which was especially hilarious considering she side-eyed the fuck out of me when I told her I was organising it.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Johnny on August 14, 2012, 07:48:06 AM

Catch 22?

You get attention from the media for using a controversial word, but the message isnt passed on or is distorted.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 14, 2012, 08:02:01 AM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 14, 2012, 07:48:06 AM

Catch 22?

You get attention from the media for using a controversial word, but the message isnt passed on or is distorted.

Fuck TV. Anybody who's on facebook probably knows what SlutWalk is.

Has TV ever reported ANYTHING right?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on August 14, 2012, 08:04:26 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 13, 2012, 11:28:13 PM
Basically, if your stance is the tired old "I'M NOT GUNNA THINK ABOUT OR OBJECTIVELY DISCUSS THE WIDER SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF COMMON LANGUAGE USAGES 'CAUSE I RAWK TOO HARD, FUCKEM" why are you even participating in this conversation? Don't you have a dominant paradigm to go uphold?

FFS. :lulz: I know, consciousness is hard. SHOWING US WHAT A TOUGH GUY YOU ARE is much, much easier, because you don't even have to take off your nametag.

Patronising personal insults aside (I don't expect better from you) I'll have a stab at answering that. Using gendered insults, as intended gendered insults is a bad thing - no argument from me there. However, when something is not a gendered insult and merely a lighthearted pisstake between me and another consenting adult and then someone getting on my case about it reeks of censorship. It's everything that's bullshit about "politically correct" and it's headed straight to Newspeak town. Sure, some people might use a word with a certain mindset that should be attacked, where others are just using a word. Attacking the word and not the mindset is typical dumbfuck behaviour. I do not and will not respect that.

I maintain that, in a macho-bullshit setting, calling your pal a pussy is not an attack on seven thousand years of womens rights. That's my position the fact that I rawk too hard is merely coincidental.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 14, 2012, 08:06:24 AM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 14, 2012, 07:31:30 AM

Ive been on the fence regarding those "walks" for some time...

I mean, i understand its trying to give "slut" a positive connotation, but i dont think it accomplishes the intended intention to uncritical observers.

On one hand its the deconstruction of a stereotype, but its also assuming the stereotype to a point.

I mean, if i organized a "BeanerWalk" in a racist location, the people that showed up and marched with me would equate with a display of support for the so called "beaners" and a symbolic show that racism will not be tolerated, but does it really deconstruct and resignify the stereotype?

Wouldnt a "March against discrimination and violence" in both cases would be better and probably get even more support?

If it was big enough, they couldn't say shit.

And it would IRK them, the way hearing rappers drop n-bombs irks white racists who have to be careful to only say it around other white racists these days.

Irking racists is ALWAYS worthwhile, in my book.  :lulz:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Johnny on August 14, 2012, 08:09:13 AM
So its about preaching to and getting support from the choir?

I mean, if thats the purpose, fine, so be it, but its coming to my attention that these manifestations dont get thru to changing the oppositions view.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 14, 2012, 08:17:12 AM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 14, 2012, 08:09:13 AM
So its about preaching to and getting support from the choir?

I mean, if thats the purpose, fine, so be it, but its coming to my attention that these manifestations dont get thru to changing the oppositions view.

You CAN'T change the opposition's view.

What you CAN do is show them there's a lot of you and you're not going to stand for a bunch of bullshit.

I mean, FFS, "beaner"? The whole premise is retarded in the first place. "THOSE PEOPLE EAT BEANS!" WTF? It's like "cunt" - that's supposed to be the WORST word? That little old thang between a woman's legs that EVERYBODY'S TRYING TO GET  is the worst thing they can come up with?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 14, 2012, 08:23:17 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 14, 2012, 08:17:12 AM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 14, 2012, 08:09:13 AM
So its about preaching to and getting support from the choir?

I mean, if thats the purpose, fine, so be it, but its coming to my attention that these manifestations dont get thru to changing the oppositions view.

You CAN'T change the opposition's view.

What you CAN do is show them there's a lot of you and you're not going to stand for a bunch of bullshit.

I mean, FFS, "beaner"? The whole premise is retarded in the first place. "THOSE PEOPLE EAT BEANS!" WTF? It's like "cunt" - that's supposed to be the WORST word? That little old thang between a woman's legs that EVERYBODY'S TRYING TO GET  is the worst thing they can come up with?

This. People who oppose, with a few exceptions, will always oppose. But you can educate those who don't know. Fuck, I spent a good two hours last year teaching my mother and sister the concept of rape culture. And you can definitely, definitely show those who oppose you that it's not just you, that there are a lot of people who are not going to be silenced by oppressive bullshit. The most amazing, empowering feeling for me at the first SlutWalk was being surrounded by 1,200 other people who also recognised that our culture is fucked up when it comes to sexual assault and policing women's bodies. It's really easy to forget that it's not just me!
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 14, 2012, 08:32:02 AM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 14, 2012, 07:48:06 AM

Catch 22?

You get attention from the media for using a controversial word, but the message isnt passed on or is distorted.

I had an alarming number of conversations leading up to the first march that went something like this:

Stranger: I saw an article in [insert newspaper/website/television channel here] about this "slut" walk. What's the point in a march where you just yell about wanting to dress like sluts? No one is going to respect you for it. I agree that 'sluts' shouldn't get raped, but all you're doing is objectifying yourselves.
Signora: Leaving aside for the moment that the level of respect I deserve really has next-to-nothing to do with the amount of skin I do or do not cover up at any given time, that's not actually what SlutWalk is about at all. We are fighting the myths around the types of people who are sexually assaulted, who is responsible, and why they occur. This is a march to fight the myths around the types of people who are sexually assaulted, who is responsible, and why they occur. We are rallying to place the blame for sexual assault where it belongs: on the perpetrators. We are promoting the idea that women should be able to dress however they like without having to wonder if they will be blamed if they are attacked – and that 'slut' should not be seen as an inherently bad thing. We aim to put an end to victims' sexual history being brought up at trial as a weapon for the defence, and we wish to get the message out there: no means no, yes means yes, and only our words can consent for us – not our bodies or our clothes. We also firmly stand behind the truth that sexual assault is not only something done by men to women, and that not all sexual assault is rape.
Stranger: Oh. Well that's actually... when's the march again?

So while I have no doubt that there were people who saw an interview on TV, thought "LOL stupid sluts" and went on their merry way without bothering to educate themselves (so... fuck 'em!), there were also a lot of people who, because it was covered (albeit in a very distorted way) by the media, rocked up and marched alongside us on the day. Which is all we could ask for, really.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 14, 2012, 08:42:59 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 14, 2012, 08:32:02 AM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 14, 2012, 07:48:06 AM

Catch 22?

You get attention from the media for using a controversial word, but the message isnt passed on or is distorted.

I had an alarming number of conversations leading up to the first march that went something like this:

Stranger: I saw an article in [insert newspaper/website/television channel here] about this "slut" walk. What's the point in a march where you just yell about wanting to dress like sluts? No one is going to respect you for it. I agree that 'sluts' shouldn't get raped, but all you're doing is objectifying yourselves.
Signora: Leaving aside for the moment that the level of respect I deserve really has next-to-nothing to do with the amount of skin I do or do not cover up at any given time, that's not actually what SlutWalk is about at all. We are fighting the myths around the types of people who are sexually assaulted, who is responsible, and why they occur. This is a march to fight the myths around the types of people who are sexually assaulted, who is responsible, and why they occur. We are rallying to place the blame for sexual assault where it belongs: on the perpetrators. We are promoting the idea that women should be able to dress however they like without having to wonder if they will be blamed if they are attacked – and that 'slut' should not be seen as an inherently bad thing. We aim to put an end to victims' sexual history being brought up at trial as a weapon for the defence, and we wish to get the message out there: no means no, yes means yes, and only our words can consent for us – not our bodies or our clothes. We also firmly stand behind the truth that sexual assault is not only something done by men to women, and that not all sexual assault is rape.
Stranger: Oh. Well that's actually... when's the march again?

So while I have no doubt that there were people who saw an interview on TV, thought "LOL stupid sluts" and went on their merry way without bothering to educate themselves (so... fuck 'em!), there were also a lot of people who, because it was covered (albeit in a very distorted way) by the media, rocked up and marched alongside us on the day. Which is all we could ask for, really.

Yeah. Hell yeah. ^^
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Dark Monk on August 14, 2012, 09:28:25 AM
The curious ones will always inquire, they require no attention.
The opposing will always oppose, they require no attention.
The stupid will continue to be stupid, they require no attention.
The enlightened shall share their view, and be ridiculed for it, so many keep silent.
Once in a while one breaks loose, for they realize:
The aim is not for the stupid, for that is a disease curable only by death.
The aim is for those ignorant, who have a chance to actually live.

I believe an ignorant stranger became a bit enlightened that day ^.^

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 14, 2012, 04:37:49 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 14, 2012, 08:04:26 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 13, 2012, 11:28:13 PM
Basically, if your stance is the tired old "I'M NOT GUNNA THINK ABOUT OR OBJECTIVELY DISCUSS THE WIDER SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF COMMON LANGUAGE USAGES 'CAUSE I RAWK TOO HARD, FUCKEM" why are you even participating in this conversation? Don't you have a dominant paradigm to go uphold?

FFS. :lulz: I know, consciousness is hard. SHOWING US WHAT A TOUGH GUY YOU ARE is much, much easier, because you don't even have to take off your nametag.

Patronising personal insults aside (I don't expect better from you) I'll have a stab at answering that. Using gendered insults, as intended gendered insults is a bad thing - no argument from me there. However, when something is not a gendered insult and merely a lighthearted pisstake between me and another consenting adult and then someone getting on my case about it reeks of censorship. It's everything that's bullshit about "politically correct" and it's headed straight to Newspeak town. Sure, some people might use a word with a certain mindset that should be attacked, where others are just using a word. Attacking the word and not the mindset is typical dumbfuck behaviour. I do not and will not respect that.

I maintain that, in a macho-bullshit setting, calling your pal a pussy is not an attack on seven thousand years of womens rights. That's my position the fact that I rawk too hard is merely coincidental.

That wasn't a personal attack, it addressed your specific behavior that I take issue with, not your personhood. And you didn't reply to the post that directly addressed you, so just to make sure you read it:

Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 13, 2012, 11:17:32 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 13, 2012, 06:46:56 PM
If you're prepared to label me as a misogynist on the strength of which swear words I use then you are exactly the kind of person I want to offend. Want to try the old "I don't realise it but..." bullshit? Good luck with that.

No, I just think you've gotten so caught up in showing everybody what a badass you are, you've forgotten how to walk upright. It just disappoints me in the way it always disappoints me when I know someone is capable of better. I know... you Don't Care™. I've heard it enough times to know it's part of your uniform.


And, just like I explained to Roger a couple of days ago, these threads are about broader cultural implications, not about one person's use and intentions.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 14, 2012, 04:49:57 PM
Quote from: The Dark Monk on August 14, 2012, 09:28:25 AM
The curious ones will always inquire, they require no attention.
The opposing will always oppose, they require no attention.
The stupid will continue to be stupid, they require no attention.
The enlightened shall share their view, and be ridiculed for it, so many keep silent.
Once in a while one breaks loose, for they realize:
The aim is not for the stupid, for that is a disease curable only by death.
The aim is for those ignorant, who have a chance to actually live.

I believe an ignorant stranger became a bit enlightened that day ^.^

I believe he may have instead laughed at a pseudo-zen hippie.

But that's just my opinion.  I wasn't there.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on August 14, 2012, 05:15:03 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 14, 2012, 04:37:49 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 14, 2012, 08:04:26 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 13, 2012, 11:28:13 PM
Basically, if your stance is the tired old "I'M NOT GUNNA THINK ABOUT OR OBJECTIVELY DISCUSS THE WIDER SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF COMMON LANGUAGE USAGES 'CAUSE I RAWK TOO HARD, FUCKEM" why are you even participating in this conversation? Don't you have a dominant paradigm to go uphold?

FFS. :lulz: I know, consciousness is hard. SHOWING US WHAT A TOUGH GUY YOU ARE is much, much easier, because you don't even have to take off your nametag.

Patronising personal insults aside (I don't expect better from you) I'll have a stab at answering that. Using gendered insults, as intended gendered insults is a bad thing - no argument from me there. However, when something is not a gendered insult and merely a lighthearted pisstake between me and another consenting adult and then someone getting on my case about it reeks of censorship. It's everything that's bullshit about "politically correct" and it's headed straight to Newspeak town. Sure, some people might use a word with a certain mindset that should be attacked, where others are just using a word. Attacking the word and not the mindset is typical dumbfuck behaviour. I do not and will not respect that.

I maintain that, in a macho-bullshit setting, calling your pal a pussy is not an attack on seven thousand years of womens rights. That's my position the fact that I rawk too hard is merely coincidental.

That wasn't a personal attack, it addressed your specific behavior that I take issue with, not your personhood. And you didn't reply to the post that directly addressed you, so just to make sure you read it:

Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 13, 2012, 11:17:32 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 13, 2012, 06:46:56 PM
If you're prepared to label me as a misogynist on the strength of which swear words I use then you are exactly the kind of person I want to offend. Want to try the old "I don't realise it but..." bullshit? Good luck with that.

No, I just think you've gotten so caught up in showing everybody what a badass you are, you've forgotten how to walk upright. It just disappoints me in the way it always disappoints me when I know someone is capable of better. I know... you Don't Care™. I've heard it enough times to know it's part of your uniform.


And, just like I explained to Roger a couple of days ago, these threads are about broader cultural implications, not about one person's use and intentions.

First off - I read both those posts back to back, so I ended up replying to both of them.

QuoteNo, I just think you've gotten so caught up in showing everybody what a badass you are, you've forgotten how to walk upright. It just disappoints me in the way it always disappoints me when I know someone is capable of better.

this was the part that I took as a personal insult. It was the repeated use of the word "you" that did it for me.

Fair enough when I attack an attitude I do tend to adopt a fuck you attitude so I'll try and dial that back in the interest of getting my point across. Believe it or not I do actually have one. I accept the wider cultural implications of certain turns of phrase or language constructs or whatever but, I feel that a lot of it is actually harmless, the difference being intent.

Despite what you might think, I don't believe I'm the only one. Hell, I don't even think I'm necessarily in a minority. I think a lot of guys like me use gendered insults and/or swear words without necessarily hating on women, subconsciously or otherwise. For example - someone is bitching and whining about some gruelling task we've voluntarily subjected ourselves to, it's quite common for us to tell them to "man up" this is particularly amusing if it's a woman doing the complaining. You're implying that men are superior but you are not doing it in a serious way otherwise you'd be a complete dick and the woman would rightly take the hump over it.

I get the impression, tho, that because of these "wider cultural implications" some folks would be happier if they passed a law to make the saying of these kind of things illegal, just to deal with the minority who would say shit like that and wholeheartedly mean it or, even more insidiously, educate us all until we agree that it's badwrong and that's what I'm against - blanket censorship as a shortcut to thinking.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 14, 2012, 05:23:10 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 14, 2012, 05:15:03 PM
this was the part that I took as a personal insult. It was the repeated use of the word "you" that did it for me.

P3nt:  You had just done the very same thing yourself1.

Action/reaction.  What else would you expect from the universe, or anyone living in it?






1
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 13, 2012, 06:46:56 PM
If you're prepared to label me as a misogynist on the strength of which swear words I use then you are exactly the kind of person I want to offend. Want to try the old "I don't realise it but..." bullshit? Good luck with that.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on August 14, 2012, 06:44:12 PM
LOL. No shit, I hadn't even noticed that! But it's exactly what I said. The intention was hypothetical - "If you..." but there was no reason not to use "If someone"

I'm also aware that on a deep, dark level, which I'm only really aware of in retrospect, it was intentional. It was an attack. It had aggression behind it. Apologies Nigel, I'm letting my monkey show again.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 14, 2012, 07:06:24 PM
You say you don't mean any harm when you use gendered insults. I believe you. But I have to wonder, does this general use (that is, pent is included but not the only subject) of casual insulting enforce someone's women hating view? And doesn't that just perpetuate woman = insult no matter how mild?  I think it might.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on August 14, 2012, 07:11:00 PM
Hell hath no fury like an person of unspecified gender scorned.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 14, 2012, 07:24:28 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 14, 2012, 07:11:00 PM
Hell hath no fury like an person of unspecified gender scorned.

Fine, fuck you all then.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 14, 2012, 07:29:08 PM
I said I was leaving for the day.

And then I came back anyway.  Because I'm DUMB.  Because I seem to have some sort of unconscious addiction to BUTTHURT.

Fucking P3nt apologized.  He continues to get shat on.  That's a GREAT incentive for people to change their minds.  Vex makes a joke.  We can't have that, this is SRS BSNAZZ.

WHAT WE CAN'T SEEM TO FUCKING HAVE HERE IS A CONVERSATION THAT DOESN'T COME PRE-LOADED WITH ASININE BUTTHURT FROM 2010.

And we were doing SO well.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on August 14, 2012, 07:35:07 PM
shat on? Might have missed that, or saw it a different way or something
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 14, 2012, 07:41:29 PM
While I'm glad that happened, I don't think we've finished discussing gendered insults and that can be done without wank directed at any one person. So I, at least, would like the conversation to continue.

Freeky said what I would say, pretty much. Associating weakness with women/females contributes to the idea that we are lesser. It's femmephobia, whether or not you mean it to be.




edited for redundant wording.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 14, 2012, 07:47:31 PM
I just found Vex's post funny for the same reason I found the great Chicago debate about replacing "manhole" with "personhole" funny, back in 1997.

In any case, swearing is a personal thing.  It's like prayer, in some ways.  Provided that it isn't directed at a person, I fail to see what the problem is.  Even if it IS directed at a person, if it is used as a pronoun instead of a slam on perceived traits, I still don't see a problem.

Examples:

1.  This clutch plate is being a cunt.  <--- I do it all the time.

2.  That dickhole over there is the guy with whom you need to speak.  <--- no problem.

3.  You drive like a girl.  <--- Not good.

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 14, 2012, 07:49:53 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 14, 2012, 07:29:08 PM

Fucking P3nt apologized.  He continues to get shat on. 

Excuse me?  Trying to make a cogent point is shitting on someone?  Fuck you, Roger, that's god damn hurtful.

QuoteVex makes a joke.  We can't have that, this is SRS BSNAZZ.

It was a jab at me and what I was trying to say.  And shit, if no one takes me seriously ANYWAY, I might as well act like a complete psycho bitch, because LOL it's just Freeky, how silly!   

Why are you being like this at me?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 14, 2012, 07:51:14 PM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 14, 2012, 07:49:53 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 14, 2012, 07:29:08 PM

Fucking P3nt apologized.  He continues to get shat on. 

Excuse me?  Trying to make a cogent point is shitting on someone?  Fuck you, Roger, that's god damn hurtful.

QuoteVex makes a joke.  We can't have that, this is SRS BSNAZZ.

It was a jab at me and what I was trying to say.  And shit, if no one takes me seriously ANYWAY, I might as well act like a complete psycho bitch, because LOL it's just Freeky, how silly!   

Why are you being like this at me?

Well, I can approach it in a different way.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on August 14, 2012, 07:57:07 PM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 14, 2012, 07:49:53 PM
QuoteVex makes a joke.  We can't have that, this is SRS BSNAZZ.

It was a jab at me and what I was trying to say.  And shit, if no one takes me seriously ANYWAY, I might as well act like a complete psycho bitch, because LOL it's just Freeky, how silly!   

No, actually, it wasn't a jab at you. It was a joke intended to make fun of how silly an idea it is that singling people out based on gender is always an insult or sexist. The quote I corrupted is, in fact, used both by men to insult women and by women to claim feminine ownership of wrath. So my point was that words themselves cannot be considered "good" or "bad" without considering the context and intent.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 14, 2012, 08:02:57 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 14, 2012, 07:57:07 PM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 14, 2012, 07:49:53 PM
QuoteVex makes a joke.  We can't have that, this is SRS BSNAZZ.

It was a jab at me and what I was trying to say.  And shit, if no one takes me seriously ANYWAY, I might as well act like a complete psycho bitch, because LOL it's just Freeky, how silly!   

No, actually, it wasn't a jab at you. It was a joke intended to make fun of how silly an idea it is that singling people out based on gender is always an insult or sexist. The quote I corrupted is, in fact, used both by men to insult women and by women to claim feminine ownership of wrath. So my point was that words themselves cannot be considered "good" or "bad" without considering the context and intent.

Sorry about that, v3x.  I take it back. 
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 14, 2012, 08:15:17 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 14, 2012, 07:47:31 PM
I just found Vex's post funny for the same reason I found the great Chicago debate about replacing "manhole" with "personhole" funny, back in 1997.

In any case, swearing is a personal thing.  It's like prayer, in some ways.  Provided that it isn't directed at a person, I fail to see what the problem is.  Even if it IS directed at a person, if it is used as a pronoun instead of a slam on perceived traits, I still don't see a problem.

Examples:

1.  This clutch plate is being a cunt.  <--- I do it all the time.

2.  That dickhole over there is the guy with whom you need to speak.  <--- no problem.

3.  You drive like a girl.  <--- Not good.


The problem I have with that is that it continues to associate negative things with women and females. It's still contributing to femmephobia (which I am not accusing you of. It's something that a lot of people have internalized and our entire culture needs to deal with). There's not a lot, really, that's different in any of your examples, because in all cases thing that are negative are being associated with women/females.

1. Stubborn and inconvenient and annoying be associated with the vagina and therefore anyone who owns one/women.

2. Even if it's affectionate, it's still a bit demeaning because you're using a crude, somewhat demeaning, term for a female/feminine body part to make a person lesser.
(I am possibly not explaining this one well)

3. Agreed that it's not good and I acknowledge that that example is directly associating a gender with negative thing.


Could you explain to me why you think that swearing being personal separates it from my argument?


Quote from: v3x on August 14, 2012, 07:57:07 PM
So my point was that words themselves cannot be considered "good" or "bad" without considering the context and intent.
In relation to this, what's your response to "that person is being a pussy"? (context: unwilling to do something potentially embarrassing)

eta context
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 14, 2012, 08:21:53 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 14, 2012, 08:15:17 PM
The problem I have with that is that it continues to associate negative things with women and females.

Really?  Because when I hear the word "cunt", I don't think about women at all.  I think about stripped bolts, broken welds, and shit that SHOULD fit together, but doesn't.  I am utterly unable to see how this contributes to femmephobia.  I can see that it contributes to the aims and goals of Luddites, I suppose.

QuoteIt's still contributing to femmephobia (which I am not accusing you of. It's something that a lot of people have internalized and our entire culture needs to deal with). There's not a lot, really, that's different in any of your examples, because in all cases thing that are negative are being associated with women/females.

Okay, but then we're ALSO gonna have to eliminate all male-based cursewords, or any cursewords that could be used to demean either.

We lose:

Bugger.
Son of a bitch.
Son of a gun.
Fucker.
Bastard.
Dickhead.
Dick.
Cocksucker.


QuoteCould you explain to me why you think that swearing being personal separates it from my argument?

Well, what it MEANS is that when I burn myself with a piece of hot steel, I have to say "dog-gonnit" like my boss does.  Until Pita comes along and takes THAT away from me.  I do not get the release that a string of hideous profanity brings in such a situation.  I will be reduced to this horrible thing that passively looks at the blisters forming in the burn and says, "well, THAT was less than optimal".


Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on August 14, 2012, 08:27:02 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 14, 2012, 08:15:17 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 14, 2012, 07:47:31 PM
I just found Vex's post funny for the same reason I found the great Chicago debate about replacing "manhole" with "personhole" funny, back in 1997.

In any case, swearing is a personal thing.  It's like prayer, in some ways.  Provided that it isn't directed at a person, I fail to see what the problem is.  Even if it IS directed at a person, if it is used as a pronoun instead of a slam on perceived traits, I still don't see a problem.

Examples:

1.  This clutch plate is being a cunt.  <--- I do it all the time.

2.  That dickhole over there is the guy with whom you need to speak.  <--- no problem.

3.  You drive like a girl.  <--- Not good.


The problem I have with that is that it continues to associate negative things with women and females. It's still contributing to femmephobia (which I am not accusing you of. It's something that a lot of people have internalized and our entire culture needs to deal with). There's not a lot, really, that's different in any of your examples, because in all cases thing that are negative are being associated with women/females.

1. Stubborn and inconvenient and annoying be associated with the vagina and therefore anyone who owns one/women.

2. Even if it's affectionate, it's still a bit demeaning because you're using a crude, somewhat demeaning, term for a female/feminine body part to make a person lesser.
(I am possibly not explaining this one well)

3. Agreed that it's not good and I acknowledge that that example is directly associating a gender with negative thing.


Could you explain to me why you think that swearing being personal separates it from my argument?


Quote from: v3x on August 14, 2012, 07:57:07 PM
So my point was that words themselves cannot be considered "good" or "bad" without considering the context and intent.
In relation to this, what's your response to "that person is being a pussy"?

Try to think of it in the abstract, that's how (I think) most of us do. Pussy is an abstract phrase meaning cowardly or not macho enough. neither of these are things that even vaguely apply to reproductive organs. Yes, if one were to over-analyse it, it probably comes from centuries of repressed mommy issues but, in this day and age, it's not really about that, unless you choose to see it as such. At least not for most of the guys I've heard using it.

Likewise calling someone a dick doesn't mean someone hates men. Or does it?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 14, 2012, 08:49:24 PM
That's kind of like saying (in American English) "fag" can be abstractly separated from homosexual men. It doesn't really work that way.

I fully admit I use "dick" to refer to things and people who are inconvenient or unpleasant. I should probably stop, although I'm going to first point out that men have never been associated with weakness, nor their body parts. Women and females have, in both cases.


Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 14, 2012, 08:21:53 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 14, 2012, 08:15:17 PM
The problem I have with that is that it continues to associate negative things with women and females.

Really?  Because when I hear the word "cunt", I don't think about women at all.  I think about stripped bolts, broken welds, and shit that SHOULD fit together, but doesn't.  I am utterly unable to see how this contributes to femmephobia.  I can see that it contributes to the aims and goals of Luddites, I suppose.
Okay, but what's the word a noun for? The vagina. (ftr, I have no problem with the word when used to actually refer to the vagina). That's where the association comes from.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 14, 2012, 08:21:53 PM
QuoteIt's still contributing to femmephobia (which I am not accusing you of. It's something that a lot of people have internalized and our entire culture needs to deal with). There's not a lot, really, that's different in any of your examples, because in all cases thing that are negative are being associated with women/females.

Okay, but then we're ALSO gonna have to eliminate all male-based cursewords, or any cursewords that could be used to demean either.

We lose:

Bugger.
Son of a bitch.
Son of a gun.
Fucker.
Bastard.
Dickhead.
Dick.
Cocksucker.
Sure. That one's homophobic, too, since "buggery" only recently started to refer to bestiality and was traditionally associated with male sodomy.
Sure.
Sure
I have no problem with gender neutral insults and fucking is something anyone can do.
Sure.
Sure
Sure (I use this one, I admit. Perhaps I need to stop).
Anyone can suck cock. Gender-neutral is a-okay. (related: why would would gender-neutral insults need to be eliminated?)


Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 14, 2012, 08:21:53 PM
QuoteCould you explain to me why you think that swearing being personal separates it from my argument?

Well, what it MEANS is that when I burn myself with a piece of hot steel, I have to say "dog-gonnit" like my boss does.  Until Pita comes along and takes THAT away from me.  I do not get the release that a string of hideous profanity brings in such a situation.  I will be reduced to this horrible thing that passively looks at the blisters forming in the burn and says, "well, THAT was less than optimal".
Check your privilege, please. "I am not going to change my arsenal of swearwords, some of which are negatively associating women/females with things that are unpleasant, because they are less colorful and don't make me feel better about maiming myself on machinery."
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 14, 2012, 08:55:27 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 14, 2012, 08:49:24 PM
Check your privilege, please. "I am not going to change my arsenal of swearwords, some of which are negatively associating women/females with things that are unpleasant, because they are less colorful and don't make me feel better about maiming myself on machinery."

Well, it's not really so much privilege...Given that God gets a good bashing, too (and I am not an atheist), so much as it is the need to say horribly rotten shit on account of a bad burn or smashed hand.  Mark Twain once remarked that profanity (which by definition is vulgar) affords a release denied even by prayer.

Also, there's the fact that EVERYONE gets some.  I am fairly pan-catagorical (which I do not believe is actually a word, but should be) in my vulgarity, at least when pain or frustration are involved.

When I am swearing AT someone, I typically stick with "asshole", regardless of whom they may be.

I could very well be in the wrong on this (I AM omnifallible, of course, being a Holy Man™), but it seems to me that when addressing a balky piece of equipment, none of the associated meanings or values of the word have any relevance.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 14, 2012, 09:06:58 PM
No, it's privilege. You're a man who is unwilling to change his swearwords to stop insulting women and females because it's inconvenient.

God is not germaine to this discussion, nor is religion in general (considering the general reception of nontheists in America (I all but lost a job because I acknowledged that I was an atheist), let's not get into that discussion here).

Ditto.

I have already explained why I disagree like three times, so I'm disinclined to explain it again.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on August 14, 2012, 09:07:24 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 14, 2012, 08:15:17 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 14, 2012, 07:57:07 PM
So my point was that words themselves cannot be considered "good" or "bad" without considering the context and intent.
In relation to this, what's your response to "that person is being a pussy"? (context: unwilling to do something potentially embarrassing)

I don't associate the insult "pussy" with the slang for female parts, though they are the same word. Probably because I don't often use either one, but I can't think of a situation where context might be confusing as to which meaning someone intends to use. Granted, in general usage, "pussy" is more insulting to men than to women (and it's rarely used in that sense in reference to a woman), and that insult is grounded in the unspoken assumption that being feminine is equal to being scared or weak. For that reason I understand the word's inflammatory nature and how it perpetuates that unspoken assumption to the detriment of women, and why it might be offensive even when it's used in a context that has nothing to do with women per se.

Having said that I think there's a problem with trying to eliminate all aspects of language that are rooted in offensive history. Many words, like "pussy," retain their offensive edge even after the initial culture which gave it that edge has faded. The intended offense of calling someone a "pussy," which is to call them weak simply because you are calling them weak, can be distinguished easily from the historical offense, which was to call them weak by equating them with women. The insult is understood and most reactions to the statement "You're a pussy," do not include anything like "NO I'M NOT I HAVE A PENIS LOL." And, if someone did respond in that way, they'd be dismissed and probably called "A double-pussified pussycat pussy," or something, and then the two or so people engaging in this conversation would be sent to the Principal's office or held inside without recess.

Anyway, my point is that if I call someone a "pussy," it is understood that I mean "weak" and "fearful," and nobody would reasonably assume I was accusing anyone of being "a woman."
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 14, 2012, 09:12:05 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 14, 2012, 09:06:58 PM
No, it's privilege. You're a man who is unwilling to change his swearwords to stop insulting women and females because it's inconvenient.

Well, there's that.   :lulz:

I can't think of a decent counterargument, so I'm gonna have to say that I was - as I said was possible - in the wrong.

And as far as theism/atheism goes, I think my reputation here is solid on the subject.  I don't understand why I would be lumped in with some asshole who fired you for atheism (I was fired once for not being a theist or enough of a theist by my boss's standards).
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 14, 2012, 09:14:00 PM
Also, having been wrong, I must now perform the "proven wrong" ritual.

GRRRRR!  I HATE YUO GUISE!  YUO ARE THE CANCER THAT IS KILLING PD!  OOOOOOOK!

Dour,
Always willing to observe the proper forms & rituals.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 14, 2012, 09:14:18 PM
I think there is a big difference between changing a behavior that actively demeans a group and changing a behavior because some people within a group might choose to take offense. The former seems to fit with the idea of 'privilege', the latter seems to be a lot more fuzzy.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on August 14, 2012, 09:15:41 PM
So, we need to invent a new catalog of swear words. Resolved, then.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 14, 2012, 09:17:58 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 14, 2012, 09:15:41 PM
So, we need to invent a new catalog of swear words. Resolved, then.

We still have

Shit
Fuck
Damn
Cocksucker
Motherfucker (assuming strapons are available)

Now, what about using terms in a positive light?  As in "This new reverse F wrench design is the tits"?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on August 14, 2012, 09:22:59 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 14, 2012, 09:17:58 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 14, 2012, 09:15:41 PM
So, we need to invent a new catalog of swear words. Resolved, then.

We still have

Shit
Fuck
Damn
Cocksucker
Motherfucker (assuming strapons are available)

Now, what about using terms in a positive light?  As in "This new reverse F wrench design is the tits"?

"Motherfucker" implies moral or physical weakness on the part of the Mother, therefore it is banned.

Calling something "the tits" implies an inherent beauty to the female form. Since it is forbidden to assume anything about females is inherent, I don't see how that can be allowed.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 14, 2012, 09:24:55 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 14, 2012, 09:22:59 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 14, 2012, 09:17:58 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 14, 2012, 09:15:41 PM
So, we need to invent a new catalog of swear words. Resolved, then.

We still have

Shit
Fuck
Damn
Cocksucker
Motherfucker (assuming strapons are available)

Now, what about using terms in a positive light?  As in "This new reverse F wrench design is the tits"?

"Motherfucker" implies moral or physical weakness on the part of the Mother, therefore it is banned.

Calling something "the tits" implies an inherent beauty to the female form. Since it is forbidden to assume anything about females is inherent, I don't see how that can be allowed.

I'm gonna argue that, because I find women to be inherently beautiful, no matter how much of a pig it makes me.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 14, 2012, 09:26:06 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 14, 2012, 09:12:05 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 14, 2012, 09:06:58 PM
No, it's privilege. You're a man who is unwilling to change his swearwords to stop insulting women and females because it's inconvenient.

Well, there's that.   :lulz:

I can't think of a decent counterargument, so I'm gonna have to say that I was - as I said was possible - in the wrong.

And as far as theism/atheism goes, I think my reputation here is solid on the subject.  I don't understand why I would be lumped in with some asshole who fired you for atheism (I was fired once for not being a theist or enough of a theist by my boss's standards).

I'm a woman and I say shit like that.

My favorite expression for things that don't work right, take the skin off my knuckles, etc. is "fuckin whore".

Because it's so goddamn absurd. I don't think I need to explain the myriad reasons WHY it's absurd here. And I don't hate women, or "whores", for that matter. I've just loved the phrase ever since I heard some poor sap working under a car scream it.  :lol:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on August 14, 2012, 09:26:43 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 14, 2012, 09:24:55 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 14, 2012, 09:22:59 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 14, 2012, 09:17:58 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 14, 2012, 09:15:41 PM
So, we need to invent a new catalog of swear words. Resolved, then.

We still have

Shit
Fuck
Damn
Cocksucker
Motherfucker (assuming strapons are available)

Now, what about using terms in a positive light?  As in "This new reverse F wrench design is the tits"?

"Motherfucker" implies moral or physical weakness on the part of the Mother, therefore it is banned.

Calling something "the tits" implies an inherent beauty to the female form. Since it is forbidden to assume anything about females is inherent, I don't see how that can be allowed.

I'm gonna argue that, because I find women to be inherently beautiful, no matter how much of a pig it makes me.

I will have to join you in your piggishness, then. But I still think we need new profanity.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 14, 2012, 09:27:07 PM
Pussy for example has an interesting etymology. The usage for female genitals likely comes from Norse/Germanic words related to pouch/purse. The usage for wimpy/weak guy comes from an older English usage which means pampered/fat/spoiled (like pursy).

Pussy as a term from women dates back to the 15th century in the vlugar usage and has its origins in Germanic/Norse(we think). Pussy as a vulger term for men, has similarly old usage but comes from Latin/French roots.


Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on August 14, 2012, 09:27:34 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 14, 2012, 09:15:41 PM
So, we need to invent a new catalog of swear words. Resolved, then.

Yup. And I'll use the banned list almost exclusively, in the hope that it will offend exactly the kind of twats* that take the hump over that kind of thing.


* another word derived from the cunt-section of the female form and thus an direct attack on femininity in general
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 14, 2012, 09:29:13 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 14, 2012, 09:26:06 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 14, 2012, 09:12:05 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 14, 2012, 09:06:58 PM
No, it's privilege. You're a man who is unwilling to change his swearwords to stop insulting women and females because it's inconvenient.

Well, there's that.   :lulz:

I can't think of a decent counterargument, so I'm gonna have to say that I was - as I said was possible - in the wrong.

And as far as theism/atheism goes, I think my reputation here is solid on the subject.  I don't understand why I would be lumped in with some asshole who fired you for atheism (I was fired once for not being a theist or enough of a theist by my boss's standards).

I'm a woman and I say shit like that.

My favorite expression for things that don't work right, take the skin off my knuckles, etc. is "fuckin whore".

Because it's so goddamn absurd. I don't think I need to explain the myriad reasons WHY it's absurd here. And I don't hate women, or "whores", for that matter. I've just loved the phrase ever since I heard some poor sap working under a car scream it.  :lol:

Whore is gender-neutral.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 14, 2012, 09:31:26 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 14, 2012, 09:29:13 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 14, 2012, 09:26:06 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 14, 2012, 09:12:05 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 14, 2012, 09:06:58 PM
No, it's privilege. You're a man who is unwilling to change his swearwords to stop insulting women and females because it's inconvenient.

Well, there's that.   :lulz:

I can't think of a decent counterargument, so I'm gonna have to say that I was - as I said was possible - in the wrong.

And as far as theism/atheism goes, I think my reputation here is solid on the subject.  I don't understand why I would be lumped in with some asshole who fired you for atheism (I was fired once for not being a theist or enough of a theist by my boss's standards).

I'm a woman and I say shit like that.

My favorite expression for things that don't work right, take the skin off my knuckles, etc. is "fuckin whore".

Because it's so goddamn absurd. I don't think I need to explain the myriad reasons WHY it's absurd here. And I don't hate women, or "whores", for that matter. I've just loved the phrase ever since I heard some poor sap working under a car scream it.  :lol:

Whore is gender-neutral.

Hey, it is! WOOOOOT!

"Dad gummint", on the other hand, is male-specific. And BADWRONG.  :lulz:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 14, 2012, 09:41:24 PM
Cunt also has some mixed origins. Early English references indicate it references a stupid person, American references from the same time indicate it references females, Australian ones from the same time indicate it referenced males. Further, in all of those countries (except America) the word can have a positive connotation as well.

Granted this is taking reference material from online sources, but I only looked because I remembered some of those points from an etymology discussion a long time ago.

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 14, 2012, 09:51:32 PM
Holy jesus shit. I thoroughly respond to Vex and the thread explodes!  :lulz:


Vex -
You may not associate it with vagina, but ime it generally is, by both men and women (again, I have no objection to the word when used to actually refer to the organ itself).
It's not about confusing contexts. It's about contextualizing a body part belonging to women and females with negative concepts.

QuoteGranted, in general usage, "pussy" is more insulting to men than to women (and it's rarely used in that sense in reference to a woman), and that insult is grounded in the unspoken assumption that being feminine is equal to being scared or weak. For that reason I understand the word's inflammatory nature and how it perpetuates that unspoken assumption to the detriment of women, and why it might be offensive even when it's used in a context that has nothing to do with women per se.
I'm glad you realize this, but no buts.

QuoteHaving said that I think there's a problem with trying to eliminate all aspects of language that are rooted in offensive history.
Give me a couple examples of these, besides gendered insults (because I maintain that they are such).

QuoteAnyway, my point is that if I call someone a "pussy," it is understood that I mean "weak" and "fearful," and nobody would reasonably assume I was accusing anyone of being "a woman."
No, when you call someone a "pussy" you are associating them with things that are OF a woman or female. These things have negative connotations. End of story.

QuoteMany words, like "pussy," retain their offensive edge even after the initial culture which gave it that edge has faded. The intended offense of calling someone a "pussy," which is to call them weak simply because you are calling them weak, can be distinguished easily from the historical offense, which was to call them weak by equating them with women.
The edge has not faded. If it had, it would either not be an insult or it would be gender neutral (which you have acknowledged that it is not). It is still bad to be associated with femininity in this culture. "She's one of the guys" is a compliment, women who dress femininely are shat on by certain kinds of feminists, things that are "girly" - loufas and diet soda and irons - have to be masculinized to be sold to men, men receive shit for being interested in things that are associated with women's gender roles, it's not okay for a man to wear "women's" clothing and otherwise go outside their gender's boundaries, and so on.
Pussy is a term for a female sexual organ (and most females are women). Women have been seen as weak and lesser for a very, very long time. To be associated with women and females and anything that belongs to them is considered an insult. To call a recalcitrant piece of machinery a cunt is to associate them with what our society still sees as lesser beings.


Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 14, 2012, 09:12:05 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 14, 2012, 09:06:58 PM
No, it's privilege. You're a man who is unwilling to change his swearwords to stop insulting women and females because it's inconvenient.

Well, there's that.   :lulz:

I can't think of a decent counterargument, so I'm gonna have to say that I was - as I said was possible - in the wrong.

And as far as theism/atheism goes, I think my reputation here is solid on the subject.  I don't understand why I would be lumped in with some asshole who fired you for atheism (I was fired once for not being a theist or enough of a theist by my boss's standards).
:D
I'm not lumping you in with that sort of person. I'm just saying that it would be a bad idea to get into that discussion in this thread.

Quote from: v3x on August 14, 2012, 09:22:59 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 14, 2012, 09:17:58 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 14, 2012, 09:15:41 PM
So, we need to invent a new catalog of swear words. Resolved, then.

We still have

Shit
Fuck
Damn
Cocksucker
Motherfucker (assuming strapons are available)

Now, what about using terms in a positive light?  As in "This new reverse F wrench design is the tits"?

"Motherfucker" implies moral or physical weakness on the part of the Mother, therefore it is banned.

Calling something "the tits" implies an inherent beauty to the female form. Since it is forbidden to assume anything about females is inherent, I don't see how that can be allowed.
I was wondering about that word, actually. It's the incest.
No. It's okay to associate good things with that are feminine (although I'd prefer it not to be physical, myself). Just like it's okay to do the same with men or other genders. It's when most, if not all, associations are bad that it becomes a problem.

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 14, 2012, 09:26:06 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 14, 2012, 09:12:05 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 14, 2012, 09:06:58 PM
No, it's privilege. You're a man who is unwilling to change his swearwords to stop insulting women and females because it's inconvenient.

Well, there's that.   :lulz:

I can't think of a decent counterargument, so I'm gonna have to say that I was - as I said was possible - in the wrong.

And as far as theism/atheism goes, I think my reputation here is solid on the subject.  I don't understand why I would be lumped in with some asshole who fired you for atheism (I was fired once for not being a theist or enough of a theist by my boss's standards).

I'm a woman and I say shit like that.

My favorite expression for things that don't work right, take the skin off my knuckles, etc. is "fuckin whore".

Because it's so goddamn absurd. I don't think I need to explain the myriad reasons WHY it's absurd here. And I don't hate women, or "whores", for that matter. I've just loved the phrase ever since I heard some poor sap working under a car scream it.  :lol:
While I can see where you, and the others who disagree with me, are coming from, I kind of want to point out that the kind of language a society uses tells you a lot about their values. A culture where the dominant group associates bad things with subordinate ones is indicative of an oppressive and exploitative one.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 14, 2012, 09:53:18 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 14, 2012, 09:41:24 PM
Cunt also has some mixed origins. Early English references indicate it references a stupid person, American references from the same time indicate it references females, Australian ones from the same time indicate it referenced males. Further, in all of those countries (except America) the word can have a positive connotation as well.

Granted this is taking reference material from online sources, but I only looked because I remembered some of those points from an etymology discussion a long time ago.

English has it as female anatomy.  All the streets in England that are now called "Grope Street" or "Grope Lane" were originally "Gropecunt Lane", which was a helpful indication of where the red light district was.  This dates to before the Norman conquest.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 14, 2012, 10:01:09 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 14, 2012, 09:53:18 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 14, 2012, 09:41:24 PM
Cunt also has some mixed origins. Early English references indicate it references a stupid person, American references from the same time indicate it references females, Australian ones from the same time indicate it referenced males. Further, in all of those countries (except America) the word can have a positive connotation as well.

Granted this is taking reference material from online sources, but I only looked because I remembered some of those points from an etymology discussion a long time ago.

English has it as female anatomy.  All the streets in England that are now called "Grope Street" or "Grope Lane" were originally "Gropecunt Lane", which was a helpful indication of where the red light district was.  This dates to before the Norman conquest.

Yes, that's ture. I was reference the use as a epithet.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 14, 2012, 10:05:54 PM
Doesn't "cunt" have some kind of common root with "cunning" or "ken"?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 14, 2012, 10:08:56 PM
According to wikipedia:
QuoteThe etymology of "cunt" is a matter of debate,[7] but most sources consider the word to have derived from a Germanic word (Proto-Germanic *kuntō, stem *kuntōn-), which appeared as kunta in Old Norse. Scholars are uncertain of the origin of the Proto-Germanic form itself.[8] In Middle English, it appeared with many spellings, such as coynte, cunte and queynte, which did not always reflect the actual pronunciation of the word. There are cognates in most Germanic languages, such as the Swedish, Faroese and Nynorsk kunta; West Frisian and Middle Low German kunte; Middle Dutch conte; Dutch kut; Middle Low German kutte; Middle High German kotze ("prostitute"); German kott, and perhaps Old English cot. The etymology of the Proto-Germanic term is disputed. It may have arisen by Grimm's law operating on the Proto-Indo-European root *gen/gon "create, become" seen in gonads, genital, gamete, genetics, gene, or the Proto-Indo-European root *gʷneh₂/guneh₂ "woman" (Greek: gunê, seen in gynaecology). Relationships to similar-sounding words such as the Latin cunnus ("vulva"), and its derivatives French con, Spanish coño, and Portuguese cona, or in Persian kun (کون), have not been conclusively demonstrated. Other Latin words related to cunnus are cuneus ("wedge") and its derivative cunēre ("to fasten with a wedge", (figurative) "to squeeze in"), leading to English words such as cuneiform ("wedge-shaped").

The word in its modern meaning is attested in Middle English. Proverbs of Hendyng, a manuscript from some time before 1325, includes the advice:[9]

    Ȝeue þi cunte to cunnig and craue affetir wedding.
    (Give your cunt wisely and make (your) demands after the wedding.)
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 14, 2012, 10:22:28 PM
Kuntz (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgXpRqAVL64)

It's actually a song by an obscure Thai band. (http://moonglampers.net/media/Thai_Shotugun_-_Kuntz.mp3)

No idea what it means in Thai. Google translate failed me.  :lol:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Don Coyote on August 14, 2012, 10:24:22 PM
GUYS STOP BEING A BUNCH OF RUSTY SCABBARDS!!!!!!!!!!!! :argh!: :argh!: :argh!: :argh!:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on August 14, 2012, 10:31:46 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 14, 2012, 10:08:56 PM
According to wikipedia:
QuoteThe etymology of "cunt" is a matter of debate,[7] but most sources consider the word to have derived from a Germanic word (Proto-Germanic *kuntō, stem *kuntōn-), which appeared as kunta in Old Norse. Scholars are uncertain of the origin of the Proto-Germanic form itself.[8] In Middle English, it appeared with many spellings, such as coynte, cunte and queynte, which did not always reflect the actual pronunciation of the word. There are cognates in most Germanic languages, such as the Swedish, Faroese and Nynorsk kunta; West Frisian and Middle Low German kunte; Middle Dutch conte; Dutch kut; Middle Low German kutte; Middle High German kotze ("prostitute"); German kott, and perhaps Old English cot. The etymology of the Proto-Germanic term is disputed. It may have arisen by Grimm's law operating on the Proto-Indo-European root *gen/gon "create, become" seen in gonads, genital, gamete, genetics, gene, or the Proto-Indo-European root *gʷneh₂/guneh₂ "woman" (Greek: gunê, seen in gynaecology). Relationships to similar-sounding words such as the Latin cunnus ("vulva"), and its derivatives French con, Spanish coño, and Portuguese cona, or in Persian kun (کون), have not been conclusively demonstrated. Other Latin words related to cunnus are cuneus ("wedge") and its derivative cunēre ("to fasten with a wedge", (figurative) "to squeeze in"), leading to English words such as cuneiform ("wedge-shaped").

The word in its modern meaning is attested in Middle English. Proverbs of Hendyng, a manuscript from some time before 1325, includes the advice:[9]

    Ȝeue þi cunte to cunnig and craue affetir wedding.
    (Give your cunt wisely and make (your) demands after the wedding.)

I wasn't around back in the day when the word originated so I couldn't really comment. Back when I learned to use it, it wasn't til years later, when I learned about the concept of a vagina, that I found out that it could be used to refer to that particular new fangled invention as well.

"Pussy" was originally to do with cats and kittens, if memory serves. You aint a big, rough, tough macho beast, you're a little baby kitteh cat makes more sense than you're a female reproductive organ.

So you're one of those people who gets a bug in their (gender neutral) ass cos someone says pussy, right? That's a label, it's a uniform. It's angry, millitant, "I'm being oppressed" crusader, deliberately alienating those who are on their side because they're not on their side enough. Good luck with insisting that everyone in the world see things your (officially sanctioned) way and act in a manner laid down in the guidelines with regards what to think, say and do. It's been tried before, numerous times but, luckily for the rest of us, good generally triumphs.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 14, 2012, 10:35:57 PM
Your OOK and your privilege is showing again, P3nt. 
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 14, 2012, 10:42:22 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 14, 2012, 09:51:32 PM
While I can see where you, and the others who disagree with me, are coming from, I kind of want to point out that the kind of language a society uses tells you a lot about their values. A culture where the dominant group associates bad things with subordinate ones is indicative of an oppressive and exploitative one.

Well, yeah. And their while opression and exploitation are serious problems, their "values" are a laugh riot.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on August 14, 2012, 10:53:42 PM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 14, 2012, 10:35:57 PM
Your OOK and your privilege is showing again, P3nt. 

I don't think p3nt is the kind of IRL person who would be one of my friends, honestly. Not that he's a bad guy, I just see him as more of the outdoorsy macho type than I ever have a desire to be near.

HOWEVER

That he engages in traditionally "male" behavior, including activities, hobbies, speech or whatever else is not necessarily him being a monkey or engaging in "privilege." I don't think I've ever seen p3nt be an outright chauvinist here, and in fact he has shown himself to have more depth of character than I've ever seen any chauvinist to have. That alone, in my opinion, absolves him in this conversation of engaging in "privilege." What I see here is that he is being accused of reverting to non-bipedal behavior just because his behavior is abrasive to you.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 14, 2012, 11:08:00 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 14, 2012, 10:31:46 PMI wasn't around back in the day when the word originated so I couldn't really comment. Back when I learned to use it, it wasn't til years later, when I learned about the concept of a vagina, that I found out that it could be used to refer to that particular new fangled invention as well.
:roll: Did you even read what I posted?

Quote
"Pussy" was originally to do with cats and kittens, if memory serves. You aint a big, rough, tough macho beast, you're a little baby kitteh cat makes more sense than you're a female reproductive organ.
:cn:

QuoteSo you're one of those people who gets a bug in their (gender neutral) ass cos someone says pussy, right? That's a label, it's a uniform. It's angry, millitant, "I'm being oppressed" crusader, deliberately alienating those who are on their side because they're not on their side enough. Good luck with insisting that everyone in the world see things your (officially sanctioned) way and act in a manner laid down in the guidelines with regards what to think, say and do. It's been tried before, numerous times but, luckily for the rest of us, good generally triumphs.

A) I'm okay with labels. I wear them IF they fit and tweak them with modifiers as necessary, and take 'em off if they eventually don't work for me. Labels and uniforms are not the same thing. A label is used to describe something ("feminist" is a label, "macho" is a label, "Discordian" is a label, "biped" is a label), and these words are useful for describing yourself or talking about things. A uniform is a pre-made, one-size-fits-all identity. "Feminism" can be either, but don't confuse the label for the identity.
Please note that at no time was I angry (I tend to think that the person who raised their voice in anger first has lost the argument) or militant. I don't like the words, that's true. I tend to side-eye people who do use them. But at no time did I screech or show my inner monkey because I was disagreed with and criticized (unlike you).

I mainly wanted to provoke a discussion about these words, how we use them, where they come from, and what they mean. If asking you to think about these things alienated you, I see no reason to give a fuck. Ook ook, motherfucker.
(also, if it was a deliberate attempt to alienate you, it would have been far bigger and wouldn't involve asking you to think about words  :lulz:)


B) I am oppressed and validly angry about it, and I will not be cowed into silence by your hilariously out of proportion response to my attempt to make you look at the words you use.


Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 14, 2012, 10:42:22 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 14, 2012, 09:51:32 PM
While I can see where you, and the others who disagree with me, are coming from, I kind of want to point out that the kind of language a society uses tells you a lot about their values. A culture where the dominant group associates bad things with subordinate ones is indicative of an oppressive and exploitative one.

Well, yeah. And their while opression and exploitation are serious problems, their "values" are a laugh riot.
Expand, please? I'm not clear on what you mean.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 14, 2012, 11:12:48 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 14, 2012, 11:08:00 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 14, 2012, 10:42:22 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 14, 2012, 09:51:32 PM
While I can see where you, and the others who disagree with me, are coming from, I kind of want to point out that the kind of language a society uses tells you a lot about their values. A culture where the dominant group associates bad things with subordinate ones is indicative of an oppressive and exploitative one.

Well, yeah. And their while opression and exploitation are serious problems, their "values" are a laugh riot.
Expand, please? I'm not clear on what you mean.

The idea that body parts, labels for people who fuck around, etc. are considered "curse words".
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Faust on August 14, 2012, 11:14:22 PM
Meh words lose their meaning from overuse.

Look at the word punk, its basically a homophobic insult meaning catamite.

Words never offend me. People with Manager and PC speech are just as likely to discriminate against someone based on gender or sexuality as someone who talks like a sailor.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on August 14, 2012, 11:15:08 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 14, 2012, 11:08:00 PM
B) I am oppressed and validly angry about it, and I will not be cowed into silence by your hilariously out of proportion response to my attempt to make you look at the words you use.

:spittake:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 14, 2012, 11:19:59 PM
Quote from: Faust on August 14, 2012, 11:14:22 PM
Meh words lose their meaning from overuse.

Look at the word punk, its basically a homophobic insult meaning catamite.

Words never offend me. People with Manager and PC speech are just as likely to discriminate against someone based on gender or sexuality as someone who talks like a sailor.
There's literally no association with that here, so I'm only familiar with it via music. Interesting. I'll have to look into that.

That has more to do with being ignorant, I would argue.


Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 14, 2012, 11:15:08 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 14, 2012, 11:08:00 PM
B) I am oppressed and validly angry about it, and I will not be cowed into silence by your hilariously out of proportion response to my attempt to make you look at the words you use.

:spittake:
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_m231s4RUWK1qiqnbq.gif)
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on August 14, 2012, 11:20:39 PM
Quote from: Faust on August 14, 2012, 11:14:22 PM
Meh words lose their meaning from overuse.

Look at the word punk, its basically a homophobic insult meaning catamite.

Words never offend me. People with Manager and PC speech are just as likely to discriminate against someone based on gender or sexuality as someone who talks like a sailor.

This.

Also... no, basically just that.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Faust on August 14, 2012, 11:22:15 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 14, 2012, 11:19:59 PM
Quote from: Faust on August 14, 2012, 11:14:22 PM
Meh words lose their meaning from overuse.

Look at the word punk, its basically a homophobic insult meaning catamite.

Words never offend me. People with Manager and PC speech are just as likely to discriminate against someone based on gender or sexuality as someone who talks like a sailor.
There's literally no association with that here, so I'm only familiar with it via music. Interesting. I'll have to look into that.

That has more to do with being ignorant, I would argue.


Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 14, 2012, 11:15:08 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 14, 2012, 11:08:00 PM
B) I am oppressed and validly angry about it, and I will not be cowed into silence by your hilariously out of proportion response to my attempt to make you look at the words you use.

:spittake:
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_m231s4RUWK1qiqnbq.gif)

It literally doesn't have that association any more , punk has had several meanings before ever hitting the music name.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=punk
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 14, 2012, 11:25:53 PM
Thanks for the link, Faust! I agree that word has totally mutated enough for the origins not to matter anymore.

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 14, 2012, 11:12:48 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 14, 2012, 11:08:00 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 14, 2012, 10:42:22 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 14, 2012, 09:51:32 PM
While I can see where you, and the others who disagree with me, are coming from, I kind of want to point out that the kind of language a society uses tells you a lot about their values. A culture where the dominant group associates bad things with subordinate ones is indicative of an oppressive and exploitative one.

Well, yeah. And their while opression and exploitation are serious problems, their "values" are a laugh riot.
Expand, please? I'm not clear on what you mean.

The idea that body parts, labels for people who fuck around, etc. are considered "curse words".
Ah. The thing is is that the dominant group made those words into curse words. Which is the problem. *shrug* I'm all in favor of reclaiming them, though.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 14, 2012, 11:27:20 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 14, 2012, 11:20:39 PM
Quote from: Faust on August 14, 2012, 11:14:22 PM
Meh words lose their meaning from overuse.

Look at the word punk, its basically a homophobic insult meaning catamite.

Words never offend me. People with Manager and PC speech are just as likely to discriminate against someone based on gender or sexuality as someone who talks like a sailor.

This.

Also... no, basically just that.
Yes, I agree that words can mutate enough for the origin not to matter any more (like "punk" apparently). But my argument is that the words have not mutated enough for that association to be dead yet.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 14, 2012, 11:41:41 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 14, 2012, 11:08:00 PM

Quote
"Pussy" was originally to do with cats and kittens, if memory serves. You aint a big, rough, tough macho beast, you're a little baby kitteh cat makes more sense than you're a female reproductive organ.
:cn:


Actually I mentioned the origin a few posts back.

Pussy as in the female reproductive organ comes from Saxon/Norse roots relating to pocket and vulva.
Pussy as in "Dude, you're a pussy" comes from Latin/Old French origins and is either a corruption of the word "pursy" (or pursy is a corruption of pussy), which means to be fat and short of breath, pampered etc. So calling a guy a pussy means he is weak... not a female body part.

There doesn't appear to actually be a connection with the pussy as in cat.

They have completely separate roots.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 14, 2012, 11:42:15 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 14, 2012, 10:53:42 PM
That he engages in traditionally "male" behavior, including activities, hobbies, speech or whatever else is not necessarily him being a monkey or engaging in "privilege." I don't think I've ever seen p3nt be an outright chauvinist here, and in fact he has shown himself to have more depth of character than I've ever seen any chauvinist to have. That alone, in my opinion, absolves him in this conversation of engaging in "privilege." What I see here is that he is being accused of reverting to non-bipedal behavior just because his behavior is abrasive to you.

He was doing the same thing he did earlier in thus thread to Nigel, which he identified as letting his monkey show. And he was. He was framing things in an abrasive way that was aimed at Garbo. 

And he is priveleged enough to not have to think of every time someone uses that word that his bits are considered inferior bits.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 14, 2012, 11:55:16 PM
http://www.thefword.org.uk/features/2003/10/taboo_for_who (http://www.thefword.org.uk/features/2003/10/taboo_for_who)

Interesting article on the topic from Kate Allen, a feminist living in London. I think it covers both sides of this discussion pretty fairly.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pope Pixie Pickle on August 15, 2012, 12:06:00 AM
Slightly related... I have taken to saying "I'd call you a cunt but you don't have the warmth or the depth" as an insult.

This amuses me.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on August 15, 2012, 12:08:35 AM
Quote from: Pixie on August 15, 2012, 12:06:00 AM
Slightly related... I have taken to saying "I'd call you a cunt but you don't have the warmth or the depth" as an insult.

This amuses me.

Chauvinist!
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: EK WAFFLR on August 15, 2012, 12:11:36 AM
I love this thread. Very thought provoking!

When people call me a cunt, I usually reply with, why, thank you. They are wonderful, and I'm honored to be compared to one.

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 15, 2012, 12:49:50 AM
Quote from: Waffles, The Iron on August 15, 2012, 12:11:36 AM
I love this thread. Very thought provoking!

When people call me a cunt, I usually reply with, why, thank you. They are wonderful, and I'm honored to be compared to one.
Quote from: Pixie on August 15, 2012, 12:06:00 AM
Slightly related... I have taken to saying "I'd call you a cunt but you don't have the warmth or the depth" as an insult.

This amuses me.

:lulz: these are awesome.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 15, 2012, 01:13:05 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 14, 2012, 11:42:15 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 14, 2012, 10:53:42 PM
That he engages in traditionally "male" behavior, including activities, hobbies, speech or whatever else is not necessarily him being a monkey or engaging in "privilege." I don't think I've ever seen p3nt be an outright chauvinist here, and in fact he has shown himself to have more depth of character than I've ever seen any chauvinist to have. That alone, in my opinion, absolves him in this conversation of engaging in "privilege." What I see here is that he is being accused of reverting to non-bipedal behavior just because his behavior is abrasive to you.

He was doing the same thing he did earlier in thus thread to Nigel, which he identified as letting his monkey show. And he was. He was framing things in an abrasive way that was aimed at Garbo. 

And he is priveleged enough to not have to think of every time someone uses that word that his bits are considered inferior bits.
Privilege is not "privilege". Just sayin'. It's not a theoretical thing you can put in quotes. It's a factual thing nearly all of us have in one flavor or another.
Misogyny, indeed bigotry in general, is not always blatant. Racism is not always NIGGER CLEAN MY HOUSE. A lot of the time it's a white lady clutching her purse when a black dude comes by or PoCs always having a gang or crime related death in CSI. Misogyny is "man up and quit being a pussy", too. Because if you ain't acting like a man, there's something wrong with your behavior, and god help you if you're acting like a woman.


Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 14, 2012, 11:41:41 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 14, 2012, 11:08:00 PM

Quote
"Pussy" was originally to do with cats and kittens, if memory serves. You aint a big, rough, tough macho beast, you're a little baby kitteh cat makes more sense than you're a female reproductive organ.
:cn:


Actually I mentioned the origin a few posts back.

Pussy as in the female reproductive organ comes from Saxon/Norse roots relating to pocket and vulva.
Pussy as in "Dude, you're a pussy" comes from Latin/Old French origins and is either a corruption of the word "pursy" (or pursy is a corruption of pussy), which means to be fat and short of breath, pampered etc. So calling a guy a pussy means he is weak... not a female body part.

There doesn't appear to actually be a connection with the pussy as in cat.

They have completely separate roots.
Oooh, right! Thanks. :)
I'm gonna take a second here to point out to everyone, then, that "pussy" and "cunt" have been associated with women for centuries, if not millenia. "Punk" has no linguistic roots linked to homosexuality and its time as a homophobic insult was brief (as per Faust's link).


Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 14, 2012, 11:55:16 PM
http://www.thefword.org.uk/features/2003/10/taboo_for_who (http://www.thefword.org.uk/features/2003/10/taboo_for_who)

Interesting article on the topic from Kate Allen, a feminist living in London. I think it covers both sides of this discussion pretty fairly.
If someone, regardless or sex or gender, uses the word "pussy" or "cunt" in reference to an actual vagina, I see no reason to care. When used as an insult, I object to the objectification, the fact that men have linked cunts and pussies and vaginas (and therefore women and females) to weakness for, apparently, millenia, and the fact that calling a woman/female either of those words reduces them to a part of their reproductive tract.
(let's also take a second to jump back to Rog's post about cunt's origins in "Gropecunt" and then think about how prostitutes and promiscuous women in general have been treated)


Quote from: Waffles, The Iron on August 15, 2012, 12:11:36 AM
I love this thread. Very thought provoking!

When people call me a cunt, I usually reply with, why, thank you. They are wonderful, and I'm honored to be compared to one.
:lulz: You're adorable.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Faust on August 15, 2012, 01:35:33 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 15, 2012, 01:13:05 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 14, 2012, 11:42:15 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 14, 2012, 10:53:42 PM
That he engages in traditionally "male" behavior, including activities, hobbies, speech or whatever else is not necessarily him being a monkey or engaging in "privilege." I don't think I've ever seen p3nt be an outright chauvinist here, and in fact he has shown himself to have more depth of character than I've ever seen any chauvinist to have. That alone, in my opinion, absolves him in this conversation of engaging in "privilege." What I see here is that he is being accused of reverting to non-bipedal behavior just because his behavior is abrasive to you.

He was doing the same thing he did earlier in thus thread to Nigel, which he identified as letting his monkey show. And he was. He was framing things in an abrasive way that was aimed at Garbo. 

And he is priveleged enough to not have to think of every time someone uses that word that his bits are considered inferior bits.
Privilege is not "privilege". Just sayin'. It's not a theoretical thing you can put in quotes. It's a factual thing nearly all of us have in one flavor or another.
Misogyny, indeed bigotry in general, is not always blatant. Racism is not always NIGGER CLEAN MY HOUSE. A lot of the time it's a white lady clutching her purse when a black dude comes by or PoCs always having a gang or crime related death in CSI. Misogyny is "man up and quit being a pussy", too. Because if you ain't acting like a man, there's something wrong with your behavior, and god help you if you're acting like a woman.


Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 14, 2012, 11:41:41 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 14, 2012, 11:08:00 PM

Quote
"Pussy" was originally to do with cats and kittens, if memory serves. You aint a big, rough, tough macho beast, you're a little baby kitteh cat makes more sense than you're a female reproductive organ.
:cn:


Actually I mentioned the origin a few posts back.

Pussy as in the female reproductive organ comes from Saxon/Norse roots relating to pocket and vulva.
Pussy as in "Dude, you're a pussy" comes from Latin/Old French origins and is either a corruption of the word "pursy" (or pursy is a corruption of pussy), which means to be fat and short of breath, pampered etc. So calling a guy a pussy means he is weak... not a female body part.

There doesn't appear to actually be a connection with the pussy as in cat.

They have completely separate roots.
Oooh, right! Thanks. :)
I'm gonna take a second here to point out to everyone, then, that "pussy" and "cunt" have been associated with women for centuries, if not millenia. "Punk" has no linguistic roots linked to homosexuality and its time as a homophobic insult was brief (as per Faust's link).


Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 14, 2012, 11:55:16 PM
http://www.thefword.org.uk/features/2003/10/taboo_for_who (http://www.thefword.org.uk/features/2003/10/taboo_for_who)

Interesting article on the topic from Kate Allen, a feminist living in London. I think it covers both sides of this discussion pretty fairly.
If someone, regardless or sex or gender, uses the word "pussy" or "cunt" in reference to an actual vagina, I see no reason to care. When used as an insult, I object to the objectification, the fact that men have linked cunts and pussies and vaginas (and therefore women and females) to weakness for, apparently, millenia, and the fact that calling a woman/female either of those words reduces them to a part of their reproductive tract.
(let's also take a second to jump back to Rog's post about cunt's origins in "Gropecunt" and then think about how prostitutes and promiscuous women in general have been treated)


Quote from: Waffles, The Iron on August 15, 2012, 12:11:36 AM
I love this thread. Very thought provoking!

When people call me a cunt, I usually reply with, why, thank you. They are wonderful, and I'm honored to be compared to one.
:lulz: You're adorable.
But punk did have five hundred years of use as whore, prostitute or harlot before becoming gay slur before becoming a music type.

All you cunts need to stop circle jerking your sausage in this here forum. Now to listen to some cunt rock.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Placid Dingo on August 15, 2012, 01:51:04 AM
In Aus, we use cunt frequently as a term of affection, usually for men.

"whats up cunt"
"just chilling bro. Hey, who's that cunt?"
"thats Dazza."
"he cool?"
"yeah, he's a mad cunt eh"
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 01:54:01 AM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 14, 2012, 06:44:12 PM
LOL. No shit, I hadn't even noticed that! But it's exactly what I said. The intention was hypothetical - "If you..." but there was no reason not to use "If someone"

I'm also aware that on a deep, dark level, which I'm only really aware of in retrospect, it was intentional. It was an attack. It had aggression behind it. Apologies Nigel, I'm letting my monkey show again.

Thanks P3nt. Apology accepted; I appreciate it, and respect you for it.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 15, 2012, 02:00:20 AM
For me this seems like a very complex problem. On the one hand, words are just words. Words are not the thing they represent. Censorship, at any level seems like a very bad idea... with one exception, self-censorship. That is if a person says to themselves "These words might upset someone so I'm not gonna say them" then that's cool. I self-censor many words... including some of the ones being discussed here. I don't think I've ever used cunt as a curse word or slur. I think its good to discuss "Hey, these words upset some people and here's why".

On the other hand, trying to accuse someone of having a specific psychological state because of the words they use seems absurd to me. ("OMGZ YOU ARE A RACIST, MISOGYNIST, BAD PERSON because there's some word in your vocabulary doesn't seem right to me.") Most of us humans learn the words used by the tribe around us. If the curse word X is used by everyone in a particular way and it finds its way into your language because you grow up around it... I don't think it says anything about the person, except that they grew up in a particular tribe where that term was used/accepted. Then there's the problem I see of people getting upset by words. They're just words. I recall some state dept. outlawing the terminology "Master/Slave" when discussing IDE disk drive arrays because it might upset someone. That seems completely absurd to me. If you allow words to have some kind of power over you, that seems to be a failing on your part.

As Discordians, many of us seem to try to break out of our own BiP, or at least bust a few bricks and bend a few bars. In this thread, I feel like both sides are banging their heads on the wall in some sense. On the one hand, rigidly holding to tribal slang, just because... seems like a brick in the wall. Yet, allowing the tribal slang to mess with you psychologically seems to be an equally hard brick to bang your head on. Demanding other people adjust their vocabulary because of your personal BiP seems equally confining.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Cain on August 15, 2012, 02:01:16 AM
Is this a case where e-prime would actually be helpful?

Why yes, I think it could be.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 02:04:06 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 14, 2012, 07:47:31 PM
I just found Vex's post funny for the same reason I found the great Chicago debate about replacing "manhole" with "personhole" funny, back in 1997.

In any case, swearing is a personal thing.  It's like prayer, in some ways.  Provided that it isn't directed at a person, I fail to see what the problem is.  Even if it IS directed at a person, if it is used as a pronoun instead of a slam on perceived traits, I still don't see a problem.

Examples:

1.  This clutch plate is being a cunt.  <--- I do it all the time.

2.  That dickhole over there is the guy with whom you need to speak.  <--- no problem.

3.  You drive like a girl.  <--- Not good.

I thought V3x's joke was funny, on multiple levels, one of which being that it's absurd to the point of humor to imagine a culture in which popular sayings based on negative gender stereotypes are minimized or nonexistent.

That said, I think the point of the conversation is not that the people using these terms have sexist or misogynistic intentions, but rather that the culture which has produced them is rooted in patriarchy and devalues women and all things female. A culture which routinely and consistently associates negativity with femaleness in its language is a sexist culture. We all exist within it. I'm not saying changing the words we use in the answer, because the language will change when the culture changes. But being aware of it can really change your perspective.

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 15, 2012, 02:07:55 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 15, 2012, 02:04:06 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 14, 2012, 07:47:31 PM
I just found Vex's post funny for the same reason I found the great Chicago debate about replacing "manhole" with "personhole" funny, back in 1997.

In any case, swearing is a personal thing.  It's like prayer, in some ways.  Provided that it isn't directed at a person, I fail to see what the problem is.  Even if it IS directed at a person, if it is used as a pronoun instead of a slam on perceived traits, I still don't see a problem.

Examples:

1.  This clutch plate is being a cunt.  <--- I do it all the time.

2.  That dickhole over there is the guy with whom you need to speak.  <--- no problem.

3.  You drive like a girl.  <--- Not good.

I thought V3x's joke was funny, on multiple levels, one of which being that it's absurd to the point of humor to imagine a culture in which popular sayings based on negative gender stereotypes are minimized or nonexistent.

That said, I think the point of the conversation is not that the people using these terms have sexist or misogynistic intentions, but rather that the culture which has produced them is rooted in patriarchy and devalues women and all things female. A culture which routinely and consistently associates negativity with femaleness in its language is a sexist culture. We all exist within it. I'm not saying changing the words we use in the answer, because the language will change when the culture changes. But being aware of it can really change your perspective.

I think that is a fantastic observation, Nigel.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 02:08:19 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 14, 2012, 09:12:05 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 14, 2012, 09:06:58 PM
No, it's privilege. You're a man who is unwilling to change his swearwords to stop insulting women and females because it's inconvenient.

Well, there's that.   :lulz:

I can't think of a decent counterargument, so I'm gonna have to say that I was - as I said was possible - in the wrong.

And as far as theism/atheism goes, I think my reputation here is solid on the subject.  I don't understand why I would be lumped in with some asshole who fired you for atheism (I was fired once for not being a theist or enough of a theist by my boss's standards).

I should really learn to read the whole thread before replying.  :lulz:

Then again, I never know if I'm going to get to read the whole thing, so it's probably better that I just keep on doing it this way.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 02:10:02 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 14, 2012, 09:27:07 PM
Pussy for example has an interesting etymology. The usage for female genitals likely comes from Norse/Germanic words related to pouch/purse. The usage for wimpy/weak guy comes from an older English usage which means pampered/fat/spoiled (like pursy).

Pussy as a term from women dates back to the 15th century in the vlugar usage and has its origins in Germanic/Norse(we think). Pussy as a vulger term for men, has similarly old usage but comes from Latin/French roots.

Can I get some citation on that?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 02:17:38 AM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 14, 2012, 09:27:34 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 14, 2012, 09:15:41 PM
So, we need to invent a new catalog of swear words. Resolved, then.

Yup. And I'll use the banned list almost exclusively, in the hope that it will offend exactly the kind of twats* that take the hump over that kind of thing.


* another word derived from the cunt-section of the female form and thus an direct attack on femininity in general

Why?  :? And what are that "kind of twats", exactly, anyway?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 02:21:14 AM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 14, 2012, 10:31:46 PM
I wasn't around back in the day when the word originated so I couldn't really comment. Back when I learned to use it, it wasn't til years later, when I learned about the concept of a vagina, that I found out that it could be used to refer to that particular new fangled invention as well.

"Pussy" was originally to do with cats and kittens, if memory serves. You aint a big, rough, tough macho beast, you're a little baby kitteh cat makes more sense than you're a female reproductive organ.

So you're one of those people who gets a bug in their (gender neutral) ass cos someone says pussy, right? That's a label, it's a uniform. It's angry, millitant, "I'm being oppressed" crusader, deliberately alienating those who are on their side because they're not on their side enough. Good luck with insisting that everyone in the world see things your (officially sanctioned) way and act in a manner laid down in the guidelines with regards what to think, say and do. It's been tried before, numerous times but, luckily for the rest of us, good generally triumphs.

:lulz: :horrormirth: :lulz: :horrormirth: :lulz: :horrormirth:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 02:22:52 AM
Quote from: v3x on August 14, 2012, 10:53:42 PM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 14, 2012, 10:35:57 PM
Your OOK and your privilege is showing again, P3nt. 

I don't think p3nt is the kind of IRL person who would be one of my friends, honestly. Not that he's a bad guy, I just see him as more of the outdoorsy macho type than I ever have a desire to be near.

HOWEVER

That he engages in traditionally "male" behavior, including activities, hobbies, speech or whatever else is not necessarily him being a monkey or engaging in "privilege." I don't think I've ever seen p3nt be an outright chauvinist here, and in fact he has shown himself to have more depth of character than I've ever seen any chauvinist to have. That alone, in my opinion, absolves him in this conversation of engaging in "privilege." What I see here is that he is being accused of reverting to non-bipedal behavior just because his behavior is abrasive to you.

What I find fascinating about this thread is that, over and over again, women try to explain to men what the elements of our culture that reflect patriarchy and misogyny look like, and over and over again, men argue with us and tell us why we're wrong. 
:horrormirth:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 15, 2012, 02:24:14 AM
That.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 02:25:49 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 14, 2012, 11:41:41 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 14, 2012, 11:08:00 PM

Quote
"Pussy" was originally to do with cats and kittens, if memory serves. You aint a big, rough, tough macho beast, you're a little baby kitteh cat makes more sense than you're a female reproductive organ.
:cn:


Actually I mentioned the origin a few posts back.

Pussy as in the female reproductive organ comes from Saxon/Norse roots relating to pocket and vulva.
Pussy as in "Dude, you're a pussy" comes from Latin/Old French origins and is either a corruption of the word "pursy" (or pursy is a corruption of pussy), which means to be fat and short of breath, pampered etc. So calling a guy a pussy means he is weak... not a female body part.

There doesn't appear to actually be a connection with the pussy as in cat.

They have completely separate roots.

:lulz: You can't use yourself as a citation, dude.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 15, 2012, 02:27:23 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 15, 2012, 02:04:06 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 14, 2012, 07:47:31 PM
I just found Vex's post funny for the same reason I found the great Chicago debate about replacing "manhole" with "personhole" funny, back in 1997.

In any case, swearing is a personal thing.  It's like prayer, in some ways.  Provided that it isn't directed at a person, I fail to see what the problem is.  Even if it IS directed at a person, if it is used as a pronoun instead of a slam on perceived traits, I still don't see a problem.

Examples:

1.  This clutch plate is being a cunt.  <--- I do it all the time.

2.  That dickhole over there is the guy with whom you need to speak.  <--- no problem.

3.  You drive like a girl.  <--- Not good.

I thought V3x's joke was funny, on multiple levels, one of which being that it's absurd to the point of humor to imagine a culture in which popular sayings based on negative gender stereotypes are minimized or nonexistent.

That said, I think the point of the conversation is not that the people using these terms have sexist or misogynistic intentions, but rather that the culture which has produced them is rooted in patriarchy and devalues women and all things female. A culture which routinely and consistently associates negativity with femaleness in its language is a sexist culture. We all exist within it. I'm not saying changing the words we use in the answer, because the language will change when the culture changes. But being aware of it can really change your perspective.

There goes Nigel slicing through the bullshit again.  :)
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 02:29:48 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 15, 2012, 02:07:55 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 15, 2012, 02:04:06 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 14, 2012, 07:47:31 PM
I just found Vex's post funny for the same reason I found the great Chicago debate about replacing "manhole" with "personhole" funny, back in 1997.

In any case, swearing is a personal thing.  It's like prayer, in some ways.  Provided that it isn't directed at a person, I fail to see what the problem is.  Even if it IS directed at a person, if it is used as a pronoun instead of a slam on perceived traits, I still don't see a problem.

Examples:

1.  This clutch plate is being a cunt.  <--- I do it all the time.

2.  That dickhole over there is the guy with whom you need to speak.  <--- no problem.

3.  You drive like a girl.  <--- Not good.

I thought V3x's joke was funny, on multiple levels, one of which being that it's absurd to the point of humor to imagine a culture in which popular sayings based on negative gender stereotypes are minimized or nonexistent.

That said, I think the point of the conversation is not that the people using these terms have sexist or misogynistic intentions, but rather that the culture which has produced them is rooted in patriarchy and devalues women and all things female. A culture which routinely and consistently associates negativity with femaleness in its language is a sexist culture. We all exist within it. I'm not saying changing the words we use in the answer, because the language will change when the culture changes. But being aware of it can really change your perspective.

I think that is a fantastic observation, Nigel.

Thanks Rat!  :)
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 02:31:38 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 15, 2012, 02:27:23 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 15, 2012, 02:04:06 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 14, 2012, 07:47:31 PM
I just found Vex's post funny for the same reason I found the great Chicago debate about replacing "manhole" with "personhole" funny, back in 1997.

In any case, swearing is a personal thing.  It's like prayer, in some ways.  Provided that it isn't directed at a person, I fail to see what the problem is.  Even if it IS directed at a person, if it is used as a pronoun instead of a slam on perceived traits, I still don't see a problem.

Examples:

1.  This clutch plate is being a cunt.  <--- I do it all the time.

2.  That dickhole over there is the guy with whom you need to speak.  <--- no problem.

3.  You drive like a girl.  <--- Not good.

I thought V3x's joke was funny, on multiple levels, one of which being that it's absurd to the point of humor to imagine a culture in which popular sayings based on negative gender stereotypes are minimized or nonexistent.

That said, I think the point of the conversation is not that the people using these terms have sexist or misogynistic intentions, but rather that the culture which has produced them is rooted in patriarchy and devalues women and all things female. A culture which routinely and consistently associates negativity with femaleness in its language is a sexist culture. We all exist within it. I'm not saying changing the words we use in the answer, because the language will change when the culture changes. But being aware of it can really change your perspective.

There goes Nigel slicing through the bullshit again.  :)

Thanks!  :)
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:56:53 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 15, 2012, 02:08:19 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 14, 2012, 09:12:05 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 14, 2012, 09:06:58 PM
No, it's privilege. You're a man who is unwilling to change his swearwords to stop insulting women and females because it's inconvenient.

Well, there's that.   :lulz:

I can't think of a decent counterargument, so I'm gonna have to say that I was - as I said was possible - in the wrong.

And as far as theism/atheism goes, I think my reputation here is solid on the subject.  I don't understand why I would be lumped in with some asshole who fired you for atheism (I was fired once for not being a theist or enough of a theist by my boss's standards).

I should really learn to read the whole thread before replying.  :lulz:

Then again, I never know if I'm going to get to read the whole thing, so it's probably better that I just keep on doing it this way.

I have spent a lifetime operating under the theory "GO BATSHIT FIRST, YOU CAN ALWAYS REASON LATER", so I can hardly gripe when someone else does it.

:lulz:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Johnny on August 15, 2012, 03:54:23 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 15, 2012, 02:22:52 AM
Quote from: v3x on August 14, 2012, 10:53:42 PM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 14, 2012, 10:35:57 PM
Your OOK and your privilege is showing again, P3nt. 

I don't think p3nt is the kind of IRL person who would be one of my friends, honestly. Not that he's a bad guy, I just see him as more of the outdoorsy macho type than I ever have a desire to be near.

HOWEVER

That he engages in traditionally "male" behavior, including activities, hobbies, speech or whatever else is not necessarily him being a monkey or engaging in "privilege." I don't think I've ever seen p3nt be an outright chauvinist here, and in fact he has shown himself to have more depth of character than I've ever seen any chauvinist to have. That alone, in my opinion, absolves him in this conversation of engaging in "privilege." What I see here is that he is being accused of reverting to non-bipedal behavior just because his behavior is abrasive to you.

What I find fascinating about this thread is that, over and over again, women try to explain to men what the elements of our culture that reflect patriarchy and misogyny look like, and over and over again, men argue with us and tell us why we're wrong. 
:horrormirth:

Well, at least i have learned that "harpy" is a bad insult  :lulz:

I think a problem in this thread is a lot of counter-examples go like "BUT WHEN I SAY IT, IT DOESNT MEAN WHAT YOU THINK", which im starting to think is just a rationalization to not examine one's own behaviour and do you know, actual insight.

"I always call my girlfriend a bitch, but she knows, and i know, that im just playing, im just FUNNY like that"

I think Rat is going in the right direction by digging up etymologies, which has value, but it does need to be contrasted with current usage.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 15, 2012, 04:05:51 AM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 15, 2012, 03:54:23 AM
I think a problem in this thread is a lot of counter-examples go like "BUT WHEN I SAY IT, IT DOESNT MEAN WHAT YOU THINK", which im starting to think is just a rationalization to not examine one's own behaviour and do you know, actual insight.

"I always call my girlfriend a bitch, but she knows, and i know, that im just playing, im just FUNNY like that"

I think Rat is going in the right direction by digging up etymologies, which has value, but it does need to be contrasted with current usage.
I knew I liked you, Joh.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:08:17 AM
Yeah.  Let's try this out.


"YOU'RE A CUNT!"

"What did you say?"

"Well, in ancient Sanskrit, that meant 'apple turnover', so don't get all torqued up."

*thump, punch, slash, flense*

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 04:11:44 AM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 15, 2012, 03:54:23 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 15, 2012, 02:22:52 AM
Quote from: v3x on August 14, 2012, 10:53:42 PM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 14, 2012, 10:35:57 PM
Your OOK and your privilege is showing again, P3nt. 

I don't think p3nt is the kind of IRL person who would be one of my friends, honestly. Not that he's a bad guy, I just see him as more of the outdoorsy macho type than I ever have a desire to be near.

HOWEVER

That he engages in traditionally "male" behavior, including activities, hobbies, speech or whatever else is not necessarily him being a monkey or engaging in "privilege." I don't think I've ever seen p3nt be an outright chauvinist here, and in fact he has shown himself to have more depth of character than I've ever seen any chauvinist to have. That alone, in my opinion, absolves him in this conversation of engaging in "privilege." What I see here is that he is being accused of reverting to non-bipedal behavior just because his behavior is abrasive to you.

What I find fascinating about this thread is that, over and over again, women try to explain to men what the elements of our culture that reflect patriarchy and misogyny look like, and over and over again, men argue with us and tell us why we're wrong. 
:horrormirth:

Well, at least i have learned that "harpy" is a bad insult  :lulz:

I think a problem in this thread is a lot of counter-examples go like "BUT WHEN I SAY IT, IT DOESNT MEAN WHAT YOU THINK", which im starting to think is just a rationalization to not examine one's own behaviour and do you know, actual insight.

"I always call my girlfriend a bitch, but she knows, and i know, that im just playing, im just FUNNY like that"

I think Rat is going in the right direction by digging up etymologies, which has value, but it does need to be contrasted with current usage.

MOTORCYCLE!
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 15, 2012, 04:14:37 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 15, 2012, 02:10:02 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 14, 2012, 09:27:07 PM
Pussy for example has an interesting etymology. The usage for female genitals likely comes from Norse/Germanic words related to pouch/purse. The usage for wimpy/weak guy comes from an older English usage which means pampered/fat/spoiled (like pursy).

Pussy as a term from women dates back to the 15th century in the vlugar usage and has its origins in Germanic/Norse(we think). Pussy as a vulger term for men, has similarly old usage but comes from Latin/French roots.

Can I get some citation on that?

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913 + 1828):

QuotePussy (?), n. [Dim. of puss.]

1. A pet name for a cat; also, an endearing name for a girl.


Pus"sy (?), a. See Pursy. [Colloq. or Low]

Pur"sy (?), a. [OF. pourcif, poulsif, poussif, fr. pousser to push, thrust, heave, OF. also poulser: cf. F. pousse the heaves, asthma. See Push.] Fat and short-breathed; fat, short, and thick; swelled with pampering; as, pursy insolence. Shak.

Pursy important he sat him down. Sir W. Scot.

According to the dictionary in 1913, "Pussy" in reference to a girl was endearing and Pussy in reference to a vulgar slur was a variation on Pursy.

http://machaut.uchicago.edu/classic (http://machaut.uchicago.edu/classic)

The online etymology dictionary states that pussy was a term of endearment for women ("What do you think, pussy?" said her father to Eva. [Harriet Beecher Stowe, "Uncle Tom's Cabin," 1852]). Apparently it was also used as a reference to cats, rabbits and other soft furry things. Ala pussy willow.

So... it almost seems as though pussy isn't particularly a word developed my a misogynistic society, but rather a somewhat recent conflation of two separate definitions for the same word.

Something along the lines of:
"It means female"
"It means weak"
"Therefore... It means females are weak."

Or at least that's what this would seem to suggest. Also, I'm mostly looking at this from a "where did it come from" perspective, not a "should you say it" perspective.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:24:10 AM
Scrrrrraaaaaape.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 04:27:28 AM
I am actually unconvinced, as I saw the Webster's 1913 citation and found it very odd that there are absolutely no supporting citations other than a quote that is impossible to find elsewhere, nor has any other dictionary ever used that origin. I was hoping you would have something a little more substantive, especially since dictionary editors of that era were notorious for simply making shit up in order to claim to have better/different information than other dictionaries.

Not that it's particularly relevant to modern usage and understanding, but I just find that a bit sketchy.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 15, 2012, 04:28:21 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:24:10 AM
Scrrrrraaaaaape.

Yep right from the dictionary page. Also the Wikipedia page. You don't think I keep that depth of shit in my head do you? I remembered the etymology being different than assumed from a discussion a long time ago, but since I no longer have my books or notes I googled it. I think I mentioned that in one of the earlier posts.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:29:50 AM
It doesn't matter.

What does the word mean TODAY? 

What it meant 800 years ago in Belgium makes no difference at all.  It's just really weak rationalization, and it sounds like the heels of boots being dragged through caliche.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:30:28 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 15, 2012, 04:28:21 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:24:10 AM
Scrrrrraaaaaape.

Yep right from the dictionary page. Also the Wikipedia page. You don't think I keep that depth of shit in my head do you? I remembered the etymology being different than assumed from a discussion a long time ago, but since I no longer have my books or notes I googled it. I think I mentioned that in one of the earlier posts.

You're completely missing my point, or conflating my argument with Nigel's argument.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Johnny on August 15, 2012, 04:42:05 AM

Hes just attempting to see the origin of the word, he stated its not an argument to if it should be used or not.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Phox on August 15, 2012, 05:05:25 AM
Rat, the problem:

Then: "Pussy" as a term for women, cats, pussy willows, whatever.... meant "soft, fluffy, cuddly, etc."

Today: "Pussy" as an insult means "soft, weak, vagina, etc."

Do you see where there is overlap, regardless of actual origins?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞ on August 15, 2012, 05:08:53 AM
The following is a rationalization that my brain came up with. I know it's not right in spite of there being a little truth to it, but I thought I'd offer it up as an example of a way that patriarchal ideas can manifest. I'm also depositing it here for the sake of dissection.

Women tend to be physically smaller and have less upper body strength than men, so why is it such a no-no to link femininity to weakness? On one hand I hear women saying that men don't understand how inequality in strength and size fuels feelings of vulnerability around men, yet women seem to not want womanhood or femininity otherwise linked with weakness.

Unfortunately, it's entirely appropriate for women to be concerned about being physically overpowered as it's basic fact that most men are stronger than most women. For the average man, such a concern is less warranted as he's likely to have a more even match when push comes to shove. So when guys disparage one another using words conceptually linked to women it seems less about putting women down and more an inference that what is an appropriate concern for a woman is often not an appropriate concern for man.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 05:10:53 AM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 15, 2012, 04:42:05 AM

Hes just attempting to see the origin of the word, he stated its not an argument to if it should be used or not.

I think etymology can be enlightening, but I the relevance of every single etymology to the discussion varies a lot. I would say that most are interesting to know; for example, I think that it's very culturally revealing that "hysterical" has its roots in the same word as "uterus", but I wouldn't suggest changing our use of the word at this point because most people don't even make that association. It's just a little tidbit of historical misogyny trivia to toss around. Since the current use of the word "pussy" associates it with female genitalia and "girly" behavior, it's just another piece of the whole cultural puzzle to take in, whether it derives from a single or multiple root origins.

I'm interested in etymology, and I would say that if it did first emerge with a separate root, it's also revealing of our culture that it eventually merged with "pussy" meaning vulva. I'm just skeptical of that particular etymology, as it seems particularly tenuous and not at all well cited.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 15, 2012, 05:16:02 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 15, 2012, 04:27:28 AM
I am actually unconvinced, as I saw the Webster's 1913 citation and found it very odd that there are absolutely no supporting citations other than a quote that is impossible to find elsewhere, nor has any other dictionary ever used that origin. I was hoping you would have something a little more substantive, especially since dictionary editors of that era were notorious for simply making shit up in order to claim to have better/different information than other dictionaries.

Not that it's particularly relevant to modern usage and understanding, but I just find that a bit sketchy.

Which part seems unconvincing?

Pursy can be found in several historical quotes. Pussy as an endearing term can be found in several historical quotes. Pussy as a vulgar insult to a man seems defined in the 1828 and 1913 Websters and most other references I can find either directly source that dictionary, or make statements that appear very similar.

It could be made up. I have not, however, found any other dictionaries or reference material online that disagrees with it (and I originally remembered it from a lecture 20 years ago, but I'd guess the teacher probably got her source from Webster) . Maybe they're all just cribbing from Webster. I will go wander over to the library this weekend and see if I can find any older references.

And yeah, I'm looking for the origin of the word. The argument has been made that the word as vulgar slang for a guy exists because of the misogynistic culture they developed in. IF (and we must assume IF) the "weak man" is actually from 'pursy', rather than 'pussy' than the origin is no more misogynistic than 'niggardly' is racist.

When I think about how 'pussy' gets used in slang...

Pussy can mean vagina, or sex "Baby, I love to eat your pussy". That's not particularly misogynistic, any more than cock or dick.
Pussy can be denigrating to a woman "Look at that pussy that just walked in" and is obviously misogynistic in that usage.
Pussy can mean a weak guy, and that's the bit that I am trying to dig into. Is it "weak guy" because he's like a woman, or is it "weak guy" because he's "pursy"?

IF (and I'm trying to stress that here) the answer is that it does indeed come from pursy... then the word isn't particularly misogynistic except in a case where the usage is reducing the value of the woman to her sexual value, even in today's usage. 

Quote from: Phox, The Abdicator on August 15, 2012, 05:05:25 AM
Rat, the problem:

Then: "Pussy" as a term for women, cats, pussy willows, whatever.... meant "soft, fluffy, cuddly, etc."

Today: "Pussy" as an insult means "soft, weak, vagina, etc."

Do you see where there is overlap, regardless of actual origins?

Well, IF the Websters entry is right then "Then" (early 20the century) Pussy meant soft/fluffy/cuddly/cat/rabbit/fur (Saxon) from one root source. It meant 'endearing term for a girl' (French) from another root source and it meant 'weak' ('pursy') from a completely different root source.

Yes, today we might conflate them all together and it makes a good argument for people who want to be careful not to offend women to eschew its usage. However, the 'root' of the issue is if the term came about because of a misogynistic culture that saw women as weak, or if it came about from two completely different sources.

There are people that dislike the word niggardly because it overlaps the slur for a race and negative traits of being stingy or miserly. The word though has nothing, at all, to do with race, it just happens to sound like it. IF Websters is right, then 'pussy' suffers from the same issue.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 05:18:57 AM
Quote from: Net on August 15, 2012, 05:08:53 AM
The following is a rationalization that my brain came up with. I know it's not right in spite of there being a little truth to it, but I thought I'd offer it up as an example of a way that patriarchal ideas can manifest. I'm also depositing it here for the sake of dissection.

Women tend to be physically smaller and have less upper body strength than men, so why is it such a no-no to link femininity to weakness? On one hand I hear women saying that men don't understand how inequality in strength and size fuels feelings of vulnerability around men, yet women seem to not want womanhood or femininity otherwise linked with weakness.

Unfortunately, it's entirely appropriate for women to be concerned about being physically overpowered as it's basic fact that most men are stronger than most women. For the average man, such a concern is less warranted as he's likely to have a more even match when push comes to shove. So when guys disparage one another using words conceptually linked to women it seems less about putting women down and more an inference that what is an appropriate concern for a woman is often not an appropriate concern for man.

OK, I'm going to do one of those comparisons that people hate so much. Before I do, I want to make clear that I am doing this purely because I find it incredibly effective in highlighting the issue in terms that most of us are already familiar with, and not because I in any way think you endorse these views.

QuoteBlacks tend to be lower income and have less material wealth than whites, so why is it such a no-no to link blackness to poverty? On one hand I hear blacks saying that whites don't understand how inequality in income and assets fuels feelings of oppression and disparity around whites, yet blacks seem to not want African origins or dark skin otherwise linked with poverty.

Unfortunately, it's entirely appropriate for blacks to be concerned about being economically discriminated against as it's basic fact that most whites are paid more than most blacks. For the average white person, such a concern is less warranted as they're likely to have a more even match when applying for work. So when whites disparage one another using words conceptually linked to blacks it seems less about putting blacks down and more an inference that what is an appropriate concern for a black person is often not an appropriate concern for a white person.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Phox on August 15, 2012, 05:19:55 AM
Quote from: Net on August 15, 2012, 05:08:53 AM
The following is a rationalization that my brain came up with. I know it's not right in spite of there being a little truth to it, but I thought I'd offer it up as an example of a way that patriarchal ideas can manifest. I'm also depositing it here for the sake of dissection.

Women tend to be physically smaller and have less upper body strength than men, so why is it such a no-no to link femininity to weakness? On one hand I hear women saying that men don't understand how inequality in strength and size fuels feelings of vulnerability around men, yet women seem to not want womanhood or femininity otherwise linked with weakness.

Unfortunately, it's entirely appropriate for women to be concerned about being physically overpowered as it's basic fact that most men are stronger than most women. For the average man, such a concern is less warranted as he's likely to have a more even match when push comes to shove. So when guys disparage one another using words conceptually linked to women it seems less about putting women down and more an inference that what is an appropriate concern for a woman is often not an appropriate concern for man.
There are at least two factors here. The first is the very idea that "what is an appropriate concern for women is not for men" is very much "Othering".

The second is demeaning a man by comparing them to women implies that women are inferior to men. This is pretty obvious when men say "Stop being such a girl" or whatever when a fellow man is hesitant to do something that might range from being potentially embarrassing or dangerous to completely illegal and stupid. Very rarely is it explicitly linked with actual feats of physical strength. In those cases, it's more likely that they would say something more like "My grandmother could lift that thing", which is a bit different.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 05:27:27 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 15, 2012, 05:16:02 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 15, 2012, 04:27:28 AM
I am actually unconvinced, as I saw the Webster's 1913 citation and found it very odd that there are absolutely no supporting citations other than a quote that is impossible to find elsewhere, nor has any other dictionary ever used that origin. I was hoping you would have something a little more substantive, especially since dictionary editors of that era were notorious for simply making shit up in order to claim to have better/different information than other dictionaries.

Not that it's particularly relevant to modern usage and understanding, but I just find that a bit sketchy.

Which part seems unconvincing?

Pursy can be found in several historical quotes. Pussy as an endearing term can be found in several historical quotes. Pussy as a vulgar insult to a man seems defined in the 1828 and 1913 Websters and most other references I can find either directly source that dictionary, or make statements that appear very similar.

It could be made up. I have not, however, found any other dictionaries or reference material online that disagrees with it (and I originally remembered it from a lecture 20 years ago, but I'd guess the teacher probably got her source from Webster) . Maybe they're all just cribbing from Webster. I will go wander over to the library this weekend and see if I can find any older references.

And yeah, I'm looking for the origin of the word. The argument has been made that the word as vulgar slang for a guy exists because of the misogynistic culture they developed in. IF (and we must assume IF) the "weak man" is actually from 'pursy', rather than 'pussy' than the origin is no more misogynistic than 'niggardly' is racist.

When I think about how 'pussy' gets used in slang...

Pussy can mean vagina, or sex "Baby, I love to eat your pussy". That's not particularly misogynistic, any more than cock or dick.
Pussy can be denigrating to a woman "Look at that pussy that just walked in" and is obviously misogynistic in that usage.
Pussy can mean a weak guy, and that's the bit that I am trying to dig into. Is it "weak guy" because he's like a woman, or is it "weak guy" because he's "pursy"?

IF (and I'm trying to stress that here) the answer is that it does indeed come from pursy... then the word isn't particularly misogynistic except in a case where the usage is reducing the value of the woman to her sexual value, even in today's usage. 

Quote from: Phox, The Abdicator on August 15, 2012, 05:05:25 AM
Rat, the problem:

Then: "Pussy" as a term for women, cats, pussy willows, whatever.... meant "soft, fluffy, cuddly, etc."

Today: "Pussy" as an insult means "soft, weak, vagina, etc."

Do you see where there is overlap, regardless of actual origins?

Well, IF the Websters entry is right then "Then" (early 20the century) Pussy meant soft/fluffy/cuddly/cat/rabbit/fur (Saxon) from one root source. It meant 'endearing term for a girl' (French) from another root source and it meant 'weak' ('pursy') from a completely different root source.

Yes, today we might conflate them all together and it makes a good argument for people who want to be careful not to offend women to eschew its usage. However, the 'root' of the issue is if the term came about because of a misogynistic culture that saw women as weak, or if it came about from two completely different sources.

There are people that dislike the word niggardly because it overlaps the slur for a race and negative traits of being stingy or miserly. The word though has nothing, at all, to do with race, it just happens to sound like it. IF Websters is right, then 'pussy' suffers from the same issue.

1. See my post immediately before this one.

2. I think you are getting bogged down in semantics in a big, bad way, and failing to look at the issue holistically.

3. I already explained why I am skeptical of that etymology, and why I was hoping you would offer more substantive citations.

4. As I previously mentioned, whether the current common understanding of the word as a derogatory term has its origin in one root or two, the current association with female genitalia, and how the word developed in that direction, reveals a lot about our culture. Remember, the word "pussy" didn't always mean "vulva", either, but it does now. Information is not found solely in word origin, nor solely in current use, but also in the path it travels on its way from origin to current use.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 05:33:28 AM
Oh, and

Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 15, 2012, 05:16:02 AM
There are people that dislike the word niggardly because it overlaps the slur for a race and negative traits of being stingy or miserly. The word though has nothing, at all, to do with race, it just happens to sound like it. IF Websters is right, then 'pussy' suffers from the same issue.


5. No, they do not suffer from the same issue regardless of whether Websters 1913 is right, because while "pussy" is widely used both as a derogatory term and as slang for vulva, "niggardly" has never been used to mean "black person" or anything related.

As an aside, another thing I find suspicious about that entry is that it doesn't seem to have survived into later editions.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 05:35:56 AM
P.S. if you are just playing Devil's Advocate and the logical flaws in your posts are the result of just making up arguments for fun, please let me know so I can stop responding, as I will feel pretty jerked around if I find out you've been wasting my time. Especially with it being finals week.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 15, 2012, 05:37:08 AM
Quote from: Net on August 15, 2012, 05:08:53 AM
The following is a rationalization that my brain came up with. I know it's not right in spite of there being a little truth to it, but I thought I'd offer it up as an example of a way that patriarchal ideas can manifest. I'm also depositing it here for the sake of dissection.

Women tend to be physically smaller and have less upper body strength than men, so why is it such a no-no to link femininity to weakness? On one hand I hear women saying that men don't understand how inequality in strength and size fuels feelings of vulnerability around men, yet women seem to not want womanhood or femininity otherwise linked with weakness.

Unfortunately, it's entirely appropriate for women to be concerned about being physically overpowered as it's basic fact that most men are stronger than most women. For the average man, such a concern is less warranted as he's likely to have a more even match when push comes to shove. So when guys disparage one another using words conceptually linked to women it seems less about putting women down and more an inference that what is an appropriate concern for a woman is often not an appropriate concern for man.
What Phoxxy and Nigel said. Also, it's not physical weakness that comes up in debates like this (ime, that only comes up after all other forms have been proven wrong and is sometimes by accompanied implied violence in order to shut you up), it's weakness of character. For example, "quit being a pussy" and "man up" imply cowardice or emotional weaknesses.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Phox on August 15, 2012, 05:38:59 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 15, 2012, 05:16:02 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 15, 2012, 04:27:28 AM
I am actually unconvinced, as I saw the Webster's 1913 citation and found it very odd that there are absolutely no supporting citations other than a quote that is impossible to find elsewhere, nor has any other dictionary ever used that origin. I was hoping you would have something a little more substantive, especially since dictionary editors of that era were notorious for simply making shit up in order to claim to have better/different information than other dictionaries.

Not that it's particularly relevant to modern usage and understanding, but I just find that a bit sketchy.

Which part seems unconvincing?

Pursy can be found in several historical quotes. Pussy as an endearing term can be found in several historical quotes. Pussy as a vulgar insult to a man seems defined in the 1828 and 1913 Websters and most other references I can find either directly source that dictionary, or make statements that appear very similar.

It could be made up. I have not, however, found any other dictionaries or reference material online that disagrees with it (and I originally remembered it from a lecture 20 years ago, but I'd guess the teacher probably got her source from Webster) . Maybe they're all just cribbing from Webster. I will go wander over to the library this weekend and see if I can find any older references.

And yeah, I'm looking for the origin of the word. The argument has been made that the word as vulgar slang for a guy exists because of the misogynistic culture they developed in. IF (and we must assume IF) the "weak man" is actually from 'pursy', rather than 'pussy' than the origin is no more misogynistic than 'niggardly' is racist.

When I think about how 'pussy' gets used in slang...

Pussy can mean vagina, or sex "Baby, I love to eat your pussy". That's not particularly misogynistic, any more than cock or dick.
Pussy can be denigrating to a woman "Look at that pussy that just walked in" and is obviously misogynistic in that usage.
Pussy can mean a weak guy, and that's the bit that I am trying to dig into. Is it "weak guy" because he's like a woman, or is it "weak guy" because he's "pursy"?

IF (and I'm trying to stress that here) the answer is that it does indeed come from pursy... then the word isn't particularly misogynistic except in a case where the usage is reducing the value of the woman to her sexual value, even in today's usage. 

Quote from: Phox, The Abdicator on August 15, 2012, 05:05:25 AM
Rat, the problem:

Then: "Pussy" as a term for women, cats, pussy willows, whatever.... meant "soft, fluffy, cuddly, etc."

Today: "Pussy" as an insult means "soft, weak, vagina, etc."

Do you see where there is overlap, regardless of actual origins?

Well, IF the Websters entry is right then "Then" (early 20the century) Pussy meant soft/fluffy/cuddly/cat/rabbit/fur (Saxon) from one root source. It meant 'endearing term for a girl' (French) from another root source and it meant 'weak' ('pursy') from a completely different root source.

Yes, today we might conflate them all together and it makes a good argument for people who want to be careful not to offend women to eschew its usage. However, the 'root' of the issue is if the term came about because of a misogynistic culture that saw women as weak, or if it came about from two completely different sources.

There are people that dislike the word niggardly because it overlaps the slur for a race and negative traits of being stingy or miserly. The word though has nothing, at all, to do with race, it just happens to sound like it. IF Websters is right, then 'pussy' suffers from the same issue.
Err, as we keep trying to tell you. NONE OF THAT IS ACTUALLY FUCKING RELEVANT.

Regardless of what the usage of the word meant in decades past, or where it came from, when people use it today, they do not think of it in such terms.

This reminds me of that holist character (you remember, the homeopath dude). He was trying to make an argument that modern science was intentionally corrupt and untruthful, based on the fact that scio the Latin word that science ostensibly comes from is possibly related to the Indo-European root [iskie-[/i] which prbably meant something like "to cut". So, his argument ran that science is the art of cutting up facts or... something, I don't know....

But anyway, the point is what you are you doing is arguing from the same fallacy, that the origin of a word, regardless of how pertinent it is to current usage, trumps any connotation or understanding of its definition.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Johnny on August 15, 2012, 06:12:33 AM

Maybe im oversimplifying but, it all boils down to context and intent, alongside the current general representation of the word?

A) "He is a homosexual. He is gay." versus "He is a homosexual. He is a faggot."

B) "Why didn't you sneak into that building with us? You are so gay." versus idem

Regardless of etymology ("happy" or whatever), the current significance of "gay" tends to be "homosexual" or "unmanly".

Regarding "faggot", its an agressive way to call someone "gay".

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Johnny on August 15, 2012, 06:18:46 AM

Language is a convention that we use to communicate with others in as efficient manner as we can do.

When you scream at someone "FAGGOT" this is an attempt to infuriate or insult the other person.

This word is used as an insult, because its general meaning pertains to homosexuality, with the implicit reasoning that being homosexual is an insult and degrading.

How do we distinguish or know that the person is a homophobe or merely trying to anger us? We dont know.

What we do know, is that by using it as an insult (although very efficient), it perpetuates negative representations of homosexuals as something that is degrading.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Johnny on August 15, 2012, 06:22:24 AM

In conclusion, being cost-efficient in insulting someone, usually has the drawback of propagating stereotypes and prejudice.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Placid Dingo on August 15, 2012, 06:23:20 AM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 15, 2012, 06:12:33 AM

Maybe im oversimplifying but, it all boils down to context and intent, alongside the current general representation of the word?

A) "He is a homosexual. He is gay." versus "He is a homosexual. He is a faggot."

B) "Why didn't you sneak into that building with us? You are so gay." versus idem

Regardless of etymology ("happy" or whatever), the current significance of "gay" tends to be "homosexual" or "unmanly".

Regarding "faggot", its an agressive way to call someone "gay".

the general term for this is connotation vs denotation.

Denotation is the literal meaning, where connotation is the implied meaning.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 06:24:25 AM
Yeah, I think you're nailing it.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 15, 2012, 06:27:21 AM
OK... I think things have gotten pretty sidetracked from my original point. So I'm gonna try to clarify what I'm talking about.

FIRST:

I don't disagree with what you're saying Nigel, Phox, Garbo.

To your previous point with the example of blacks and poverty, I agree completely with you. If a woman is worried that she will be discriminated against as weak, then she would want nothing to do with slang that can reference soft furry bunnies, cats or weak 'out of breath' men.

I agree completely with that point.

Earlier we talked about how women get CEO jobs today, or titles that are equal to men's, but still make less money. The upshot is that people can look at the surface and say "Equality!" while the real problem persists. If we were to eschew all slur/slang terms for a woman's sex organs and the guys at the bar still had the same conversation, still reduced the woman walking in to a sexual object and nothing more... then wouldn't we be in an identical situation?

You made an excellent statement that words change as culture changes and that its culture that needs to change. With that, I couldn't agree more.

If we're talking only about "Look at the pussy that just walked into the bar", then of course its misogynistic. It would be equally misogynistic if they used any other term for a woman's sex organs. That usage and more importantly that whole fucking line of thinking needs to be wiped from our culture, if such a thing is possible.

BUT (and this is the ONLY point I was trying to make regarding the etymology)

The source of the word is important if we are going to substantiate the claim that pussy as slang exists because of a misogynistic culture. If (just for this bit of the argument) we assume Webster is right, then pussy the slur had nothing at all to do with women and its current usage is an artifact that has been confused and mangled with other meanings of the word.

Usage in some contexts are definitely misogynistic today. Usage in other contexts are obviously not... as to what it says about the history of our culture well I think that bears more research.

Ironically I ran across this on a blog... again, something that would be interesting to research further:

QuoteWell before "vagina" or "vulva" entered English as a stilted medical term, there was the Middle English "cunte." Why did this become crude? It became crude for all the reasons feminists would like to think that "vagina" is uncomfortable for people to say: because it is a frank term referring to female sexuality; it also was used by the lower classes, and used in a common way, not a medical or detached academic way. (See also "womb" instead of "uterus.") Like "uterus," "vagina" is a pretentious, specific, non-vernacular word. The very process of trying to incorporate it into the vernacular and to edge out anything else as being obscene is to endorse the domination of patriarchal Latin over frank Anglo-Saxon. It's classist and sexist and exclusionary—everything feminists claim not to be.

And Nigel, I'm not trying to play Devil's Advocate here... I'm not advocating for the usage of pussy as a derogatory term. I don't use it myself.

Also, I think Placid Dingo and Joh'Nyx are riding the correct motorcycle (too many posts while I'm posting!!!)
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 15, 2012, 06:29:54 AM
Forgot the link to the blog I mentioned: http://higharka.blogspot.com/2012/07/vaginas-cunts.html

I am totally going to do more research on that...
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 06:39:30 AM
There are also cases where the connotation is derived from the context: ie. "You have a sweet pussy" vs. "Don't be such a pussy", and "You've got some balls to talk to me like that" vs. "Wow, it took real balls to stand up to them like that!" vs. "It's all ballsed up".

Of course, it really takes looking at the bigger picture to try to figure out what the overall connotation of a word really is at any point in time. And it's subject to change over time. That's why it's so important to look at things like language use from a wide perspective. If you're coming into a culture and you don't know that, say, "persimmon" is a euphemism for people with pale hair, and you hear "persimmon" used as a slur, it can't be placed contextually within the culture unless you also know what it relates to and whether pale-haired people have higher or lower status than others in that culture.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Placid Dingo on August 15, 2012, 06:42:33 AM
Also context matters.

I know I will sometimes crap on about doing particularly manly things. "I'm such a man today, I'm gonna go home and punch a koala." It all buys into the existing patriarchal ideology but the truth is that it can be fun to party along with fucked up cultural values, as a joke or parody, when you're with people who share the joke.

I mean, thats why PD throws off at the Welsh and Australians. Because it's fun to use the language of racism to mock people, when the context allows people to not get hurt.

And that context is important. There was a recent controversy here about an Aboriginal Memes page on Facebook that made 'controvercial jokes' about how all Australian Aborigines are dole bludging petrol sniffers who never achieved anything. It was completely repulsive, because the context was of a group of racist dickheads attacking a minority group.

Compare that to me copping a good natured insult here for being an "upside downer". The people making the comments are people who are tolerant decent people, and as a white middle class first world male it's not like I'm deprived of a voice with which to express myself.

I do wonder a little... Cain posted an article that discussed Shrek for a while to make a point; it's sold as a film that mocks the structure of fairy tales. But really, it is a fairy tale. So, the prince is fat and the princess knows self defence, but in the end, the prince saves a princess from a dragon and marries her. Mocking the culture one is steeped in does not mean you're not buying into it.

No particular point I'm trying to make, just some thoughts.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Placid Dingo on August 15, 2012, 06:45:57 AM
Dammit Nigel beat me to the context post.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 06:46:21 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 15, 2012, 06:27:21 AM
BUT (and this is the ONLY point I was trying to make regarding the etymology)

The source of the word is important if we are going to substantiate the claim that pussy as slang exists because of a misogynistic culture. If (just for this bit of the argument) we assume Webster is right, then pussy the slur had nothing at all to do with women and its current usage is an artifact that has been confused and mangled with other meanings of the word.

Are we trying to substantiate that claim? Or just arguing that the current use of pussy is reflective of a misogynistic culture (which would be part of its etymology, regardless of the fact that it once meant "cat" and possibly also joined with another root that meant "purse", because, if that is its origin, the words have become intertwined?)

Are you arguing that somehow the confusion and mangling into what it's generally perceived as today is somehow indicative of a culture that is NOT devaluing of women?

I guess I am having a hard time seeing your point, if your point was anything other than introducing a tidbit of (potential) etymological trivia.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 06:49:09 AM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 15, 2012, 06:45:57 AM
Dammit Nigel beat me to the context post.

Yeah but yours made some really good points!
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Johnny on August 15, 2012, 06:49:50 AM
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"
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 06:50:57 AM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 15, 2012, 06:49:50 AM
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.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Johnny on August 15, 2012, 06:55:42 AM

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.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 07:00:19 AM
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.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Placid Dingo on August 15, 2012, 07:05:09 AM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 15, 2012, 06:49:50 AM
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?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Placid Dingo on August 15, 2012, 07:07:58 AM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 15, 2012, 06:55:42 AM

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.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bu🤠ns on August 15, 2012, 07:15:37 AM
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. :lol: 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 (http://camelphotos.com/tales_nose.html).  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.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 07:19:55 AM
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.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Placid Dingo on August 15, 2012, 07:31:23 AM
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.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 15, 2012, 07:32:17 AM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 15, 2012, 07:05:09 AM
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.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bu🤠ns on August 15, 2012, 07:33:46 AM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 15, 2012, 07:05:09 AM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 15, 2012, 06:49:50 AM
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) . (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDIoGJcWxM8#t=4m00s)  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."
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bu🤠ns on August 15, 2012, 07:37:50 AM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 15, 2012, 07:31:23 AM
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.
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 15, 2012, 07:19:55 AM
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.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 15, 2012, 07:48:09 AM
Quote from: Bu☆ns on August 15, 2012, 07:15:37 AM
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!
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 15, 2012, 07:55:16 AM
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)

Quote from: Bu☆ns on August 15, 2012, 07:33:46 AM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 15, 2012, 07:05:09 AM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 15, 2012, 06:49:50 AM
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) . (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDIoGJcWxM8#t=4m00s)  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.

Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 15, 2012, 07:32:17 AM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 15, 2012, 07:05:09 AM
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.


Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 15, 2012, 07:31:23 AM
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.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 15, 2012, 07:59:52 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 15, 2012, 07:55:16 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 15, 2012, 07:32:17 AM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 15, 2012, 07:05:09 AM
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. :lulz:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bu🤠ns on August 15, 2012, 08:03:58 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 15, 2012, 07:48:09 AM
Quote from: Bu☆ns on August 15, 2012, 07:15:37 AM
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 :)
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Cain on August 15, 2012, 08:05:05 AM
It's a terrible thing.  Phoxxy once the whole of Denver.  For real.

And Iron Waffles is Belgian. Enough said.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 15, 2012, 08:11:32 AM
Quote from: Bu☆ns on August 15, 2012, 08:03:58 AM
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!

It's all situational. I don't know many people who would be appreciative of someone coming up to them when they're walking along the street and saying "I would really like to fuck you, how about it?" Then again, maybe some people are cool with that, I don't know.

In terms of approaching someone for casual sex, say in a bar or a similar setting... the way I see it, it's more in how you react if you're turned down. It's the difference between a non-sarcastic "Oh, okay, well thank you for your time and enjoy your evening" and "But I think you're hot and I'll rock your world, baby, come awwwwwwn!"

Best of luck with your research! :)
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 15, 2012, 08:15:46 AM
Quote from: Cain on August 15, 2012, 08:05:05 AM
It's a terrible thing.  Phoxxy once the whole of Denver.  For real.

And Iron Waffles is Belgian. Enough said.
The few survivors have some real horror stories, Signora. Phoxxy, what she didn't do herself, called things out of the Rockies to do.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Placid Dingo on August 15, 2012, 08:47:58 AM
Yeah as far as 50 Shades goes, I'm pretty appalled by what I've heard but I don't want to tear it apart without yet having read it.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 15, 2012, 08:53:34 AM
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: It is full of horrormirth, from what I've seen thus far.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on August 15, 2012, 09:14:49 AM
Quote from: Bu☆ns on August 15, 2012, 07:15:37 AM
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 (http://camelphotos.com/tales_nose.html).  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.


This is why I get wound up whenever feminism comes up. It always comes down to - I'm a dumbfuck who can never possibly understand because I was born with a dick and privilege and my whole brain comes with built in misogyny and, although that can never change because I'm, y'know, a male, I'm in the wrong and damn well should fucking change. Even though I can't. It's like - what the fuck do you people want from me? I need to grow a uterus before you'll quit complaining at me?

And all I end up do is yelling "For fucksake - innocent until proven guilty. Just fucking trust me already!" but there's no way to yell that without coming across like an asshole and part of the problem and reinforcing the fact that men just don't get it. Can never get it. So it always comes down to this - feminism is a conversation for women, directed at men and that's a fucking shame, cos it's never going to work and shit really does need to change. A lot of us can see that, if you'd just give us a bit of credit.

Whether it's intentional or not, feminism make men feel like they're being attacked and (if you understand men at all) that is not conducive to change. Quite the opposite, in fact. That's going to make them dig in their heels and put up more barriers.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Verbal Mike on August 15, 2012, 09:33:49 AM
This thread is awesome in many ways and I'm glad I took the time to catch up on it just now.
Burns, you should keep up the questions when you get up, so far it's gotten us a hell of an interesting and enlightening response (and thanks for that, Signora!).

Just to try and contribute a perspective, even though I don't have much to add: I've definitely felt oppressed by the patriarchy, despite being male and having consistently identified as a heterosexual man. Because although I identify that way, and although I don't generally step too far outside the cis man box (thanks for making me look up that term, Garbo or whoever it was!), I've always been deeply averse to stereotypical macho cis man behavior, and have never been into physical activity enough to build up the muscle mass expected from me. And being different in these ways, since as long as I can remember myself, has always gotten me a fair amount of shit. At some point as a teenager I simply embraced being "weird", and have since been much likelier to do things that go clearly outside the cis man box (to a degree, because I'm also a coward and instinctively avoid confrontation) but I still have a bit of a thought pattern of being different from other guys and unable to fit in with them, even while wanting to.

At this point I probably don't need to mention that this is obviously less awful than fearing rape and other forms of physical violence every day, but patriarchy seems to me to put everyone other than the most stereotypical cis men under fear of physical violence – females just having rape to worry about on top of that. (I'm just not gonna bother trying to contextualize this with other forms of oppression of females, I think we've established that context here already, right?)

And to comment on some of the stuff that was going on here a couple of pages ago: I don't think it matters at all where words like "pussy" came from. If you use a word in such a way that some people belonging to an oppressed group (women, girls, LGBT, nice guys) might consider it a pejorative reference to an oppressed group, then your usage is not cool. If it's perceived as ironic or otherwise disarming of actual oppression, that's fine, but you have to pretty damn careful with that fine line, and as some have mentioned here that kind of thing has been known to backfire (which is an excellent example about how little language usage cares about original motivation and etymology.)
We can debate where words come from for ages, but (a) most speakers don't know about words' etymologies, and more importantly (b) if it's perceived by oppressed groups as a tool of oppression, that's a fact and it's pretty damn patronizing to try to correct their perception. Even if the perception of oppressive connotations is factually way off the mark, the perception itself deserves respect and attention, even though it's a pain in the ass to correct one's own vocabulary.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Placid Dingo on August 15, 2012, 10:07:17 AM
I think there was a bit of a misunderstanding there with where 'it comes from' being interpreted differently.

It doesn't come from a historically patriarchal tradition in that that's not the specific origin of the way in which the word is currently used.

But it does come from patriarchal tradition in that this is the culture that contextualises the current use.

At which point ones brain gets sore and we look for the more important and useful question; what is the impact it has on the way people think and feel, which Verbl covered nicely.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pope Pixie Pickle on August 15, 2012, 10:27:22 AM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 15, 2012, 07:05:09 AM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 15, 2012, 06:49:50 AM
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?

I think the bolded part is especially relevant.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Verbal Mike on August 15, 2012, 10:31:38 AM
Another thought I had now on my way to work: Despite my opinion as described above, that people should be considerate of oppressed groups, this is more a statement of ideal than anything else. Most people don't really understand the concept of oppressed group, not to mention having any interest in being considerate of their feelings.

So ultimately what I wrote above about words is mainly relevant as an intellectual argument: That the criterion for some usage being uncool should be that – taken in context – it's potentially inconsiderate, not any question of etymology or denotation, and certainly not some question of motivation/intention.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 15, 2012, 10:42:43 AM
VERBL, yep, cis stuff was me. Glad you find it useful. :)

Going back to Pixie's OP, good, interesting points about how patriarchy hurts men, too!

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 15, 2012, 09:14:49 AM
Quote from: Bu☆ns on August 15, 2012, 07:15:37 AM
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 (http://camelphotos.com/tales_nose.html).  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.


This is why I get wound up whenever feminism comes up. It always comes down to - I'm a dumbfuck who can never possibly understand because I was born with a dick and privilege and my whole brain comes with built in misogyny and, although that can never change because I'm, y'know, a male, I'm in the wrong and damn well should fucking change. Even though I can't. It's like - what the fuck do you people want from me? I need to grow a uterus before you'll quit complaining at me?

And all I end up do is yelling "For fucksake - innocent until proven guilty. Just fucking trust me already!" but there's no way to yell that without coming across like an asshole and part of the problem and reinforcing the fact that men just don't get it. Can never get it. So it always comes down to this - feminism is a conversation for women, directed at men and that's a fucking shame, cos it's never going to work and shit really does need to change. A lot of us can see that, if you'd just give us a bit of credit.

Whether it's intentional or not, feminism make men feel like they're being attacked and (if you understand men at all) that is not conducive to change. Quite the opposite, in fact. That's going to make them dig in their heels and put up more barriers.
First and second wave feminism might hold that men are incapable of change. Third wave does not. Third wave does not degrade men into unchangeable cavemen. We believe you can change and want you to.
No, you can't experience what its like to be a woman/female, any more than I can experience what its like to be a PoC. I'm hella white, end of story, and will never experience all the micro aggressions that are part if their lives. You're a cis man, end of story, and will never experience the micro aggressions we live with every day. It doesn't make either of us evil. It's just a fact.

I have trouble being concerned about men who dig in their heels because they feel attacked by the mere existence of feminism as a word and what it means. What are we supposed to do? Give up a term that literally means "belief in women" because men feel uncomfortable with it? No. That's not fair to us and its an awfully lot like saying that PoC should give up names and organizations that advance their cause because it makes white people sad. Stop your white crying (not you, necessarily, Pent). You, specifically, need to stop your cis man tears.
"what about us and our feelings?" is male privilege and invalidates our experiences and our very valid anger in favor of your poor precious fee-fees.

Women live in a culture dictated by men. Any discussion of how to change that requires your help and input because you perpetuate patriarchy without these discussions (in fact, cis man tears are part of the problem). Without them, you don't know how you are doing so and how to stop, or how to be an ally.

I am very aware of how men respond to this sort of thing. Discussions about feminism amply demonstrate that. Even though I'm generally a non-confrontational person, even basic and polite discussion results in monkey ass being bared on my direction. It results in men trying to intimidate me into shutting up. I'm still not sure why women have to change the name of the movement because of that. It's reminiscencent of gender roles that expect us to be submissive and to put male comfort above our own. Which we are not actually obligated to do.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on August 15, 2012, 10:53:38 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 15, 2012, 10:42:43 AM

I have trouble being concerned about men who dig in their heels because they feel attacked by the mere existence of feminism as a word and what it means. What are we supposed to do? Give up a term that literally means "belief in women" because men feel uncomfortable with it? No. That's not fair to us and its an awfully lot like saying that PoC should give up names and organizations that advance their cause because it makes white people sad. Stop your white crying (not you, necessarily, Pent). You, specifically, need to stop your cis man tears.
"what about us and our feelings?" is male privilege and invalidates our experiences and our very valid anger in favor of your poor precious fee-fees.


You should be concerned, not because of the poor men's delicate feelings. That's bullshit anyway, real men don't have delicate feelings :wink: You should be concerned because you're alienating potential comrades in arms. If you try to sell me something by calling me a useless dick who doesn't get it you wont get far but if there's another way you can sell it that makes me feel that there's something I can do to help and feel good about myself into the bargain then I'm more inclined to support you.

(again for the record I'm not talking "me" and "you" here, more people in general.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Johnny on August 15, 2012, 11:02:25 AM

HERE HERE, MADONNA SHOWS US WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A 2ND WAVE FEMINIST:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYwgG2oyUbA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYwgG2oyUbA)
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Placid Dingo on August 15, 2012, 11:03:05 AM
Pent said what I was about to.

I got into Feminism when I understood that men could genuinely play a meaningful role. I didn't want to watch someone else's party.

As far as what anyone is supposed to do, exactly what you and many others ARE doing; a quality job of correcting misconceptions about who can be a part of feminism, and what feminism means.

I don't think anyone's genuinely suggesting the name is bad, just that it comes with some baggage and misconceptions than anyone with a vested interest in feminism need to be proactive about addressing.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 15, 2012, 11:15:07 AM
If they're refusing to understand why the term "feminism" is important, I don't know if I want them as an ally. I don't know that they can be an ally, because they're denying that we experience discrimination and say "what about me?"instead. *cue cis man tears*
Again, at no time is feminism making out that men are useless dicks. In fact, as I have pointed out, you are necessary. We're often not taken seriously and accused of over reacting. A man who is a feminist gets kudos (while we get "are you a lesbian?" and such) and can communicate with other men in ways we can't.
We're just saying that you can't experience what we live with. You don't spend you entire life trying to avoid being raped, etc. That doesn't mean you're useless. It just means you need listen.

I figured you were talking people in general, haha.


Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 15, 2012, 11:03:05 AM
Pent said what I was about to.

I got into Feminism when I understood that men could genuinely play a meaningful role. I didn't want to watch someone else's party.

As far as what anyone is supposed to do, exactly what you and many others ARE doing; a quality job of correcting misconceptions about who can be a part of feminism, and what feminism means.

I don't think anyone's genuinely suggesting the name is bad, just that it comes with some baggage and misconceptions than anyone with a vested interest in feminism need to be proactive about addressing.
I try, haha.

It's been suggested, like, twice that the term be shed. Or someone got their underwear in a knot over implications of it.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 15, 2012, 12:22:11 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 15, 2012, 10:42:43 AM
VERBL, yep, cis stuff was me. Glad you find it useful. :)

Going back to Pixie's OP, good, interesting points about how patriarchy hurts men, too!

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 15, 2012, 09:14:49 AM
Quote from: Bu☆ns on August 15, 2012, 07:15:37 AM
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 (http://camelphotos.com/tales_nose.html).  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.


This is why I get wound up whenever feminism comes up. It always comes down to - I'm a dumbfuck who can never possibly understand because I was born with a dick and privilege and my whole brain comes with built in misogyny and, although that can never change because I'm, y'know, a male, I'm in the wrong and damn well should fucking change. Even though I can't. It's like - what the fuck do you people want from me? I need to grow a uterus before you'll quit complaining at me?

And all I end up do is yelling "For fucksake - innocent until proven guilty. Just fucking trust me already!" but there's no way to yell that without coming across like an asshole and part of the problem and reinforcing the fact that men just don't get it. Can never get it. So it always comes down to this - feminism is a conversation for women, directed at men and that's a fucking shame, cos it's never going to work and shit really does need to change. A lot of us can see that, if you'd just give us a bit of credit.

Whether it's intentional or not, feminism make men feel like they're being attacked and (if you understand men at all) that is not conducive to change. Quite the opposite, in fact. That's going to make them dig in their heels and put up more barriers.
First and second wave feminism might hold that men are incapable of change. Third wave does not. Third wave does not degrade men into unchangeable cavemen. We believe you can change and want you to.
No, you can't experience what its like to be a woman/female, any more than I can experience what its like to be a PoC. I'm hella white, end of story, and will never experience all the micro aggressions that are part if their lives. You're a cis man, end of story, and will never experience the micro aggressions we live with every day. It doesn't make either of us evil. It's just a fact.

I have trouble being concerned about men who dig in their heels because they feel attacked by the mere existence of feminism as a word and what it means. What are we supposed to do? Give up a term that literally means "belief in women" because men feel uncomfortable with it? No. That's not fair to us and its an awfully lot like saying that PoC should give up names and organizations that advance their cause because it makes white people sad. Stop your white crying (not you, necessarily, Pent). You, specifically, need to stop your cis man tears.
"what about us and our feelings?" is male privilege and invalidates our experiences and our very valid anger in favor of your poor precious fee-fees.

Women live in a culture dictated by men. Any discussion of how to change that requires your help and input because you perpetuate patriarchy without these discussions (in fact, cis man tears are part of the problem). Without them, you don't know how you are doing so and how to stop, or how to be an ally.

I am very aware of how men respond to this sort of thing. Discussions about feminism amply demonstrate that. Even though I'm generally a non-confrontational person, even basic and polite discussion results in monkey ass being bared on my direction. It results in men trying to intimidate me into shutting up. I'm still not sure why women have to change the name of the movement because of that. It's reminiscencent of gender roles that expect us to be submissive and to put male comfort above our own. Which we are not actually obligated to do.

I came to write a long-winded response to this even though it's late and bed is beckoning but yeah, Garbo said pretty much everything I wanted to say.

The only thing I would add is that in my experience, the best male allies are the ones who come in knowing that they're going to have to earn trust from some feminists and just, you know, quietly do that instead of whining about how Really Really Nice They Are, Why Are You Oppressing Me With Your Mistrust.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pope Pixie Pickle on August 15, 2012, 12:33:53 PM
Heh, Paes has said in short form what I laid out in a fucking essay. Well I spent an age writing this so imma press post anyway.

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 15, 2012, 09:14:49 AM
Quote from: Bu☆ns on August 15, 2012, 07:15:37 AM
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 (http://camelphotos.com/tales_nose.html).  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.


This is why I get wound up whenever feminism comes up. It always comes down to - I'm a dumbfuck who can never possibly understand because I was born with a dick and privilege and my whole brain comes with built in misogyny and, although that can never change because I'm, y'know, a male, I'm in the wrong and damn well should fucking change. Even though I can't. It's like - what the fuck do you people want from me? I need to grow a uterus before you'll quit complaining at me?

And all I end up do is yelling "For fucksake - innocent until proven guilty. Just fucking trust me already!" but there's no way to yell that without coming across like an asshole and part of the problem and reinforcing the fact that men just don't get it. Can never get it. So it always comes down to this - feminism is a conversation for women, directed at men and that's a fucking shame, cos it's never going to work and shit really does need to change. A lot of us can see that, if you'd just give us a bit of credit.

Whether it's intentional or not, feminism make men feel like they're being attacked and (if you understand men at all) that is not conducive to change. Quite the opposite, in fact. That's going to make them dig in their heels and put up more barriers.

All we ask is that instead of kneejerking that you all just listen. Also feminists I know don't see gender difference as an essentialist/biological difference in the brain, rather as a social construct, so saying you "cannot change because penis" is usually fucking infuriating.  If people see gender differences as being hardwired, this totally causes a kneejerk in some people. If you add up unreliable books like Women are from Venus, Men are from Mars ect which have entered the Pop Science sphere in the last few decades, and into the popular conciousness and these essentialist ideas give the lie that men and women are almost a different fucking species as the justification for "and this is why there are inequalities".  Seeing the gender binary as a social construct, however usually means people have to think about societal memes and tropes as not being self evident truths.

To put ideas like privilege it in terms of the BIP, the small window in your cell is a small view on the world, it's a foot square that gives you only a certain view of the territory and the horizon. Now if a certain group can only see that part of the horizon, and the people outside the cell with privilege have a bigger window that shows the view from the privileged group or person's window and a whole bigger territory that the privileged just don't see or even have to see to get by, there's going to be a difference in worldview.  Getting past that difference means breaking out of that cell and trying to get one with a bigger window, that shows the same territory as the people in the non privilege cells. To do that it takes listening to the experiences of others and thinking about the implications of the difference between windows. Simply put, people with privilege don't see the experience of the people without, but you can bet your last can of beer that those without it see representations of those with privilege and their experience.

I can see how the technical terms of feminism can be daunting,  Its alien terminology (to most people, anyway) is also somewhat an intellectualisation of anger and frustration. Which is why when I talk about feminism to guys I tend not to use technical terms, but on the other hand it would be nice for some of you to read some basics and get to grips with the terminology a little, and try and meet us all halfway, because the technical terms are something that for feminists are a shorter way of outlining some very complex ideas, and conversations we have had over and over again amongst ourselves.

You don't need to grow a uterus to get us to stop complaining. What is needed is to listen to the experience of someone or a group of people that you don't usually see the big picture of, and think on that.

Innocent until proven guilty would be nice to feel secure enough to do, but there are some assholes out there that are making it harder for women to trust men as a whole group.  You factor in that most rape, sexual assault and violence against women is by someone they KNOW rather than a stranger, the "oh he's harmless really" response to the male friend in a social group that is a little handsy with the ladies, or worse, and there's a climate of not being taken seriously over serious matters, or being seen as just complaining for complaings sake, irrational, hysterical, overreacting and so on when trying to voice a beef with something, someone or a situation. On an individual level, of course, things are and can be different, and if you aren't a guy who just writes off the view and experiences of women or POC or disabled people, or LGBT folks, respects boundaries and isn't a PUA/creepy dude/Mr Handsy/Rapey guy then cool, we aren't talking about you.

What we need from the decent guys out there is backup, and backup that respects the non privileged's person's experience, like calling people on their sexist/racist/whateverist crap, telling Mr Handsy or Street Harrassment Guy to fucking pack it in rather than telling a woman that they are overreacting and harmless guy is harmless, and treating our frustrations as valid issues.

My housemates, for example, are guys who treat me differently (and in a bad way) when Payne isn't around. It may not be conscious, on their part, but it's pretty fucking galling none the less. They are also lazy and generally inconsiderate jerkasses to Payne too, but they are worse with me.     I basically get ignored when I ask them to help keep the place clean, but if Payne asks, he gets a slightly better result.  I fucking hate living with these guys because I'm like a non-entity or an annoyance here, despite hauling ass to make sure that they weren't homeless or having to move in with their parents, and doing most of the work and fronting about £1300 for the move. 

If I had just said "fuck em, lazy cocksuckers" I'd have a job by now and me and Payne could most likely afford a nicer place on our own.

They may not be concious of being assholes, but you don't have to be malicious to be an inconsiderate waste of fucking space.


Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 15, 2012, 12:47:32 PM
Quote from: Pixie on August 15, 2012, 12:33:53 PM
What we need from the decent guys out there is backup, and backup that respects the non privileged's person's experience, like calling people on their sexist/racist/whateverist crap, telling Mr Handsy or Street Harrassment Guy to fucking pack it in rather than telling a woman that they are overreacting and harmless guy is harmless, and treating our frustrations as valid issues.

This is it in a nutshell. And what I find... frustrating, but also quite useful, is that when I get told I'm being too emotional, too angry, too militant, too female (though they never quite come out and say that), male feminists/allies can make my exact points and actually stand a chance of being listened to. It's fucking annoying having to pander to people's bullshit biases, but hey. If there's even a slight chance that it might help someone to realise that patriarchy is actually pretty shit I'll use all the resources I've got.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on August 15, 2012, 01:03:31 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 15, 2012, 11:15:07 AM
If they're refusing to understand why the term "feminism" is important, I don't know if I want them as an ally. I don't know that they can be an ally, because they're denying that we experience discrimination and say "what about me?"instead. *cue cis man tears*

If you're willing to turn away allies and swing-votes cos you're not sure if they're good enough to stand beside you then, tactically, I'm pretty sure your cause is as good as fucked. It's not about everybody getting it. Statistically, most people are idiots, they'll never get anything. They're either part of the solution or part of the problem. If you're perfectly happy to leave them as part of the problem or (even worse) make them part of the problem that they weren't to begin with by alienating them because they don't live up to some unrealistic ideal then what the fuck are you doing to solve the problem? Strikes me you're actually making it worse.

Amusing as I find that whole concept, it is kinda a shame.

Here's a suggestion - drop the whole condescending notion of "if you've never been a woman you can't possibly understand..."

1 - it alienates guys who otherwise might support your cause

2 - it's actually complete bullshit. You have to go through something to experience it, yes but to understand? To empathise? Fuck no. I wasn't in Auschwitz but do I understand what happened and why it was wrong? Duh! The whole "you can't possibly understand, you're a man" thing is, quite frankly, offensive. When I, like a lot of men (and probably women too) feel offended by a particularly condescending bullshit statement, the person making it ceases to be a person and becomes a target. Not arguing the rights or wrongs of this, merely stating pragmatic fact with regards the overall mission objective. The way I see it, the end result is what's important, not that we get there by a virtuous and righteous crusade. Fight dirty, compromise some of your unrealistic principles. Accept help wherever you find it. Never look a gift horse in the mouth. You want equal rights or do you want an ideal world?

Fight smart and we'll win.

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on August 15, 2012, 01:14:24 PM
Quote from: Pixie on August 15, 2012, 12:33:53 PM
All we ask is that instead of kneejerking that you all just listen. Also feminists I know don't see gender difference as an essentialist/biological difference in the brain, rather as a social construct, so saying you "cannot change because penis" is usually fucking infuriating.  If people see gender differences as being hardwired, this totally causes a kneejerk in some people. If you add up unreliable books like Women are from Venus, Men are from Mars ect which have entered the Pop Science sphere in the last few decades, and into the popular conciousness and these essentialist ideas give the lie that men and women are almost a different fucking species as the justification for "and this is why there are inequalities".  Seeing the gender binary as a social construct, however usually means people have to think about societal memes and tropes as not being self evident truths.

Maybe people are refusing to listen because of the kneejerk? Maybe the kneejerk is caused by the way that they're being asked to listen? Maybe a more diplomatic tack might make them more inclined to lend an ear?

But you shouldn't have to be diplomatic, right? And this is more important than getting the message across?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 15, 2012, 01:23:32 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 15, 2012, 01:03:31 PM
it's actually complete bullshit. You have to go through something to experience it, yes but to understand? To empathise? Fuck no. I wasn't in Auschwitz but do I understand what happened and why it was wrong?

I don't actually think that any intellectual understanding of the horrors of Auschwitz is even remotely comparable to the utter, utter terror of actually living through it. Like, at all. Even the most imaginative person's "understanding and empathy" will summon approximately 1/1999th of the feeling than an actual memory of actual lived experience.

I'm not even going to touch the rest of your post, because every point you've made has already been raised, countered and refuted and at this point I can only assume that you are deliberately and willfully not absorbing what Garbo, Pixie and others are telling you.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 01:44:41 PM
Well, if I can't understand, then I'm not gonna try.

Game point, SP wins.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: AFK on August 15, 2012, 01:45:50 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 15, 2012, 01:03:31 PM

2 - it's actually complete bullshit. You have to go through something to experience it, yes but to understand? To empathise? Fuck no. I wasn't in Auschwitz but do I understand what happened and why it was wrong? Duh! The whole "you can't possibly understand, you're a man" thing is, quite frankly, offensive. When I, like a lot of men (and probably women too) feel offended by a particularly condescending bullshit statement, the person making it ceases to be a person and becomes a target. Not arguing the rights or wrongs of this, merely stating pragmatic fact with regards the overall mission objective. The way I see it, the end result is what's important, not that we get there by a virtuous and righteous crusade. Fight dirty, compromise some of your unrealistic principles. Accept help wherever you find it. Never look a gift horse in the mouth. You want equal rights or do you want an ideal world?

Fight smart and we'll win.


I don't have a whole lot to add to this discussion but wanted to echo this sentiment, particularly #2. 
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: AFK on August 15, 2012, 01:50:43 PM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 15, 2012, 01:23:32 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 15, 2012, 01:03:31 PM
it's actually complete bullshit. You have to go through something to experience it, yes but to understand? To empathise? Fuck no. I wasn't in Auschwitz but do I understand what happened and why it was wrong?

I don't actually think that any intellectual understanding of the horrors of Auschwitz is even remotely comparable to the utter, utter terror of actually living through it. Like, at all. Even the most imaginative person's "understanding and empathy" will summon approximately 1/1999th of the feeling than an actual memory of actual lived experience.

I'm not even going to touch the rest of your post, because every point you've made has already been raised, countered and refuted and at this point I can only assume that you are deliberately and willfully not absorbing what Garbo, Pixie and others are telling you.


That's bullshit.  Of course we can't fully understand the actual level of emotional and physical trauma suffered.  But we CAN, intellectually, understand, as Pent said, the ideas, the fundamentals, and the nature of what was happening, why, and why it was wrong. 


Otherwise, we should go ahead and cancel every history class everywhere forever.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 15, 2012, 02:00:12 PM
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 15, 2012, 01:50:43 PM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 15, 2012, 01:23:32 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 15, 2012, 01:03:31 PM
it's actually complete bullshit. You have to go through something to experience it, yes but to understand? To empathise? Fuck no. I wasn't in Auschwitz but do I understand what happened and why it was wrong?

I don't actually think that any intellectual understanding of the horrors of Auschwitz is even remotely comparable to the utter, utter terror of actually living through it. Like, at all. Even the most imaginative person's "understanding and empathy" will summon approximately 1/1999th of the feeling than an actual memory of actual lived experience.

I'm not even going to touch the rest of your post, because every point you've made has already been raised, countered and refuted and at this point I can only assume that you are deliberately and willfully not absorbing what Garbo, Pixie and others are telling you.


That's bullshit.  Of course we can't fully understand the actual level of emotional and physical trauma suffered.  But we CAN, intellectually, understand, as Pent said, the ideas, the fundamentals, and the nature of what was happening, why, and why it was wrong. 


Otherwise, we should go ahead and cancel every history class everywhere forever.

I think this http://www.shakesville.com/2009/08/terrible-bargain-we-have-regretfully.html (http://www.shakesville.com/2009/08/terrible-bargain-we-have-regretfully.html) has probably the best articulation of why "we understand intellectually!" is problematic as hell:
Quote
There are the occasions that men—intellectual men, clever men, engaged men—insist on playing devil's advocate, desirous of a debate on some aspect of feminist theory or reproductive rights or some other subject generally filed under the heading: Women's Issues. These intellectual, clever, engaged men want to endlessly probe my argument for weaknesses, want to wrestle over details, want to argue just for fun—and they wonder, these intellectual, clever, engaged men, why my voice keeps raising and why my face is flushed and why, after an hour of fighting my corner, hot tears burn the corners of my eyes. Why do you have to take this stuff so personally? ask the intellectual, clever, and engaged men, who have never considered that the content of the abstract exercise that's so much fun for them is the stuff of my life.

It's this simple: as a cis man, you have never had to experience life as a woman. I can't understand why so many men get so butthurt when we tell you this, as though we're excluding you from the magical club of oppression.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:07:40 PM
This has gone from a discussion about how men are also harmed by the patriarchy, to a rather interesting examination of views on language previously taken for granted, to an explanation of the following (from 3 users):

1.  Men can't understand.
2.  Men can't be trusted.
3.  Allies are not desired.  Put on the whole uniform or GTFO.
4.  "Decent men" are needed for support, which assumes that "decent" isn't the default position.
5.  Men somehow want to join the "club of the oppressed".

This conversation is now a self-parody, and cannot - in its present form - have any possible desirable outcome.  It is no longer about eglatarianism, it is now the sort of thing that is used as ammunition by people opposed to feminism.

The upside is, before it turned into a pissing contest, I got one good thing out of it (thanks, Garbo).

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on August 15, 2012, 02:15:46 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:07:40 PM
This has gone from a discussion about how men are also harmed by the patriarchy, to a rather interesting examination of views on language previously taken for granted, to an explanation of the following (from 3 users):

1.  Men can't understand.
2.  Men can't be trusted.
3.  Allies are not desired.  Put on the whole uniform or GTFO.
4.  "Decent men" are needed for support, which assumes that "decent" isn't the default position.
5.  Men somehow want to join the "club of the oppressed".

This conversation is now a self-parody, and cannot - in its present form - have any possible desirable outcome.  It is no longer about eglatarianism, it is now the sort of thing that is used as ammunition by people opposed to feminism.

The upside is, before it turned into a pissing contest, I got one good thing out of it (thanks, Garbo).

Perfectly fucking illustrated. Feminism is fucked and I'm not sure it's the patriarchy that's it's biggest enemy  :lulz:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:16:31 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 15, 2012, 02:15:46 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:07:40 PM
This has gone from a discussion about how men are also harmed by the patriarchy, to a rather interesting examination of views on language previously taken for granted, to an explanation of the following (from 3 users):

1.  Men can't understand.
2.  Men can't be trusted.
3.  Allies are not desired.  Put on the whole uniform or GTFO.
4.  "Decent men" are needed for support, which assumes that "decent" isn't the default position.
5.  Men somehow want to join the "club of the oppressed".

This conversation is now a self-parody, and cannot - in its present form - have any possible desirable outcome.  It is no longer about eglatarianism, it is now the sort of thing that is used as ammunition by people opposed to feminism.

The upside is, before it turned into a pissing contest, I got one good thing out of it (thanks, Garbo).

Perfectly fucking illustrated. Feminism is fucked and I'm not sure it's the patriarchy that's it's biggest enemy  :lulz:

I disagree that feminism is fucked.  I said this conversation is fucked.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pæs on August 15, 2012, 02:22:07 PM
"Hey there, I see that you're currently victim to the horrors of Auschwitz. I can imagine how that must feel for you. While not a resident myself,  I am going to tell you all about Auschwitz as the local authority on Auschwitz. What's that? No, I think you're wrong about that detail. Why does that upset you? How come your side of the Auschwitz yay or nay argument is the best and I have to listen to you? If you want your situation to get better, you need to be more respectful towards people who aren't in Auschwitz when they explain Auschwitz to you.What do you mean I can't be an official Auschwitz ally if I go about misrepresenting Auschwitz and insist that the interpretation from within is somehow invalid?" to expand on the already fairly dangerous comparison.

Roger, I'm not reading that into it at all. Maybe I'm more familiar with the positions being represented here and there's a miscommunication I'm reading past. Comparing quotes of statements to those of replies and interpretations is a bit beyond the capabilities of my phone, but the thread reads like "men can absolutely be helpful and involved but cannot be primary sources on the experiences of women", "hey, fuck you for excluding me."
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pope Pixie Pickle on August 15, 2012, 02:24:44 PM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 15, 2012, 02:22:07 PM
"Hey there, I see that you're currently victim to the horrors of Auschwitz. I can imagine how that must feel for you. While not a resident myself,  I am going to tell you all about Auschwitz as the local authority on Auschwitz. What's that? No, I think you're wrong about that detail. Why does that upset you? How come your side of the Auschwitz yay or nay argument is the best and I have to listen to you? If you want your situation to get better, you need to be more respectful towards people who aren't in Auschwitz when they explain Auschwitz to you.What do you mean I can't be an official Auschwitz ally if I go about misrepresenting Auschwitz and insist that the interpretation from within is somehow invalid?" to expand on the already fairly dangerous comparison.

Roger, I'm not reading that into it at all. Maybe I'm more familiar with the positions being represented here and there's a miscommunication I'm reading past. Comparing quotes of statements to those of replies and interpretations is a bit beyond the capabilities of my phone, but the thread reads like "men can absolutely be helpful and involved but cannot be primary sources on the experiences of women", "hey, fuck you for excluding me."
This!
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on August 15, 2012, 02:25:38 PM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 15, 2012, 02:22:07 PM
"Hey there, I see that you're currently victim to the horrors of Auschwitz. I can imagine how that must feel for you. While not a resident myself,  I am going to tell you all about Auschwitz as the local authority on Auschwitz. What's that? No, I think you're wrong about that detail. Why does that upset you? How come your side of the Auschwitz yay or nay argument is the best and I have to listen to you? If you want your situation to get better, you need to be more respectful towards people who aren't in Auschwitz when they explain Auschwitz to you.What do you mean I can't be an official Auschwitz ally if I go about misrepresenting Auschwitz and insist that the interpretation from within is somehow invalid?" to expand on the already fairly dangerous comparison.

Roger, I'm not reading that into it at all. Maybe I'm more familiar with the positions being represented here and there's a miscommunication I'm reading past. Comparing quotes of statements to those of replies and interpretations is a bit beyond the capabilities of my phone, but the thread reads like "men can absolutely be helpful and involved but cannot be primary sources on the experiences of women", "hey, fuck you for excluding me."

What's that? You were actually in Auschwitz? And it's happening again? That's terrible, we need to fight these new monsters. What? Oh I can't possibly understand? You don't want my support? Fair enough. Enjoy them ovens when you get there.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: AFK on August 15, 2012, 02:26:43 PM
The language discussion is interesting.  Though, I posit that a discussion about PC-ing insults seems rather, awkward.  Insults, by their nature, are generally derived in such a way to instill a feeling of "not-worthiness" or "less-than".  I mean, that's why they are insults, that is what they are SUPPOSED to do.


That's not to suggest I condone language that has demeaning connotations to women, minorities, the mentally ill, etc.  But, then again, I'm the sort of person who tends to try to NOT insult people.  If someone pisses me off I'm more prone to tell them to fuck off and ignore them.


But, all that said, it has been a very interesting and educational discussion.  Good work spags!
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:27:25 PM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 15, 2012, 02:22:07 PM
"Hey there, I see that you're currently victim to the horrors of Auschwitz. I can imagine how that must feel for you. While not a resident myself,  I am going to tell you all about Auschwitz as the local authority on Auschwitz. What's that? No, I think you're wrong about that detail. Why does that upset you? How come your side of the Auschwitz yay or nay argument is the best and I have to listen to you? If you want your situation to get better, you need to be more respectful towards people who aren't in Auschwitz when they explain Auschwitz to you.What do you mean I can't be an official Auschwitz ally if I go about misrepresenting Auschwitz and insist that the interpretation from within is somehow invalid?" to expand on the already fairly dangerous comparison.

Roger, I'm not reading that into it at all. Maybe I'm more familiar with the positions being represented here and there's a miscommunication I'm reading past. Comparing quotes of statements to those of replies and interpretations is a bit beyond the capabilities of my phone, but the thread reads like "men can absolutely be helpful and involved but cannot be primary sources on the experiences of women", "hey, fuck you for excluding me."

That, of course, has nothing to do with anything I said.

It does, however, bring up an interesting question:  Why are men supposed to be incapable of being primary sources on eglatarianism?  Or is the current definition (in this thread) of feminism gone from "eglatarianism" to "Women's historical and current problems"?

I've heard both definitions of feminism.  One is inclusive, and one is exclusive.  I prefer the inclusive version that states a goal of "all people of all genders, races, and orientations are and should be considered equal members in society". 
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:29:04 PM
Quote from: Pixie on August 15, 2012, 02:24:44 PM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 15, 2012, 02:22:07 PM
"Hey there, I see that you're currently victim to the horrors of Auschwitz. I can imagine how that must feel for you. While not a resident myself,  I am going to tell you all about Auschwitz as the local authority on Auschwitz. What's that? No, I think you're wrong about that detail. Why does that upset you? How come your side of the Auschwitz yay or nay argument is the best and I have to listen to you? If you want your situation to get better, you need to be more respectful towards people who aren't in Auschwitz when they explain Auschwitz to you.What do you mean I can't be an official Auschwitz ally if I go about misrepresenting Auschwitz and insist that the interpretation from within is somehow invalid?" to expand on the already fairly dangerous comparison.

Roger, I'm not reading that into it at all. Maybe I'm more familiar with the positions being represented here and there's a miscommunication I'm reading past. Comparing quotes of statements to those of replies and interpretations is a bit beyond the capabilities of my phone, but the thread reads like "men can absolutely be helpful and involved but cannot be primary sources on the experiences of women", "hey, fuck you for excluding me."
This!

Right, then, if that's how I'm coming off, then I am neither suitable for this conversation or the general struggle it describes.  Signor Paisor can keep explaining my position for me, I guess, since he feels he is capable of stating what I really think.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 15, 2012, 02:30:20 PM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 15, 2012, 02:22:07 PM
Roger, I'm not reading that into it at all. Maybe I'm more familiar with the positions being represented here and there's a miscommunication I'm reading past. Comparing quotes of statements to those of replies and interpretations is a bit beyond the capabilities of my phone, but the thread reads like "men can absolutely be helpful and involved but cannot be primary sources on the experiences of women", "hey, fuck you for excluding me."

OHAI.

From what I can see, the conversation was devolved into:
"Here are my preconceived notions that I'm going to use to explain why I think feminism is shit!"
"Your preconceived notions aren't actually correct; here's how it really is!"
"I'm going to argue your point by holding on to my preconceived notions."
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:37:00 PM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 15, 2012, 02:30:20 PM
"Here are my preconceived notions that I'm going to use to explain why I think feminism is shit!"

Please quote where I said anything remotely close to that.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 15, 2012, 02:38:41 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:27:25 PM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 15, 2012, 02:22:07 PM
"Hey there, I see that you're currently victim to the horrors of Auschwitz. I can imagine how that must feel for you. While not a resident myself,  I am going to tell you all about Auschwitz as the local authority on Auschwitz. What's that? No, I think you're wrong about that detail. Why does that upset you? How come your side of the Auschwitz yay or nay argument is the best and I have to listen to you? If you want your situation to get better, you need to be more respectful towards people who aren't in Auschwitz when they explain Auschwitz to you.What do you mean I can't be an official Auschwitz ally if I go about misrepresenting Auschwitz and insist that the interpretation from within is somehow invalid?" to expand on the already fairly dangerous comparison.

Roger, I'm not reading that into it at all. Maybe I'm more familiar with the positions being represented here and there's a miscommunication I'm reading past. Comparing quotes of statements to those of replies and interpretations is a bit beyond the capabilities of my phone, but the thread reads like "men can absolutely be helpful and involved but cannot be primary sources on the experiences of women", "hey, fuck you for excluding me."

That, of course, has nothing to do with anything I said.

It does, however, bring up an interesting question:  Why are men supposed to be incapable of being primary sources on eglatarianism?  Or is the current definition (in this thread) of feminism gone from "eglatarianism" to "Women's historical and current problems"?

I've heard both definitions of feminism.  One is inclusive, and one is exclusive.  I prefer the inclusive version that states a goal of "all people of all genders, races, and orientations are and should be considered equal members in society".

For me, feminism is intersectional. It acknowledges that while women are systemically oppressed by patriarchy, it's pretty shit for men too. Intersectional feminism also means I don't have to choose between Being A Woman and Being Queer at any given point for the purposes of activism. But (and this is more of a point for people who think that there's a finite amount of privilege to go around so YOU CAN'T HAVE MINE, which no one on this thread has done, but it's the easiest way for me to explain my point at 1.40am); feminism focuses on women's rights rather than the harm patriarchy does to all genders in much the same way the gay rights movement focuses on the queer community rather than people of all sexual orientations -- because when we don't have equal rights, the focus is on those who are suffering under that to bring them up to the level of the privileged.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 15, 2012, 02:41:55 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:37:00 PM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 15, 2012, 02:30:20 PM
"Here are my preconceived notions that I'm going to use to explain why I think feminism is shit!"

Please quote where I said anything remotely close to that.

...you didn't? That was an overly-simplified version of the last two pages of this thread as I see them, which you weren't involved in (I think) until you called out the thread as turning into self-parody.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:43:25 PM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 15, 2012, 02:38:41 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:27:25 PM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 15, 2012, 02:22:07 PM
"Hey there, I see that you're currently victim to the horrors of Auschwitz. I can imagine how that must feel for you. While not a resident myself,  I am going to tell you all about Auschwitz as the local authority on Auschwitz. What's that? No, I think you're wrong about that detail. Why does that upset you? How come your side of the Auschwitz yay or nay argument is the best and I have to listen to you? If you want your situation to get better, you need to be more respectful towards people who aren't in Auschwitz when they explain Auschwitz to you.What do you mean I can't be an official Auschwitz ally if I go about misrepresenting Auschwitz and insist that the interpretation from within is somehow invalid?" to expand on the already fairly dangerous comparison.

Roger, I'm not reading that into it at all. Maybe I'm more familiar with the positions being represented here and there's a miscommunication I'm reading past. Comparing quotes of statements to those of replies and interpretations is a bit beyond the capabilities of my phone, but the thread reads like "men can absolutely be helpful and involved but cannot be primary sources on the experiences of women", "hey, fuck you for excluding me."

That, of course, has nothing to do with anything I said.

It does, however, bring up an interesting question:  Why are men supposed to be incapable of being primary sources on eglatarianism?  Or is the current definition (in this thread) of feminism gone from "eglatarianism" to "Women's historical and current problems"?

I've heard both definitions of feminism.  One is inclusive, and one is exclusive.  I prefer the inclusive version that states a goal of "all people of all genders, races, and orientations are and should be considered equal members in society".

For me, feminism is intersectional. It acknowledges that while women are systemically oppressed by patriarchy, it's pretty shit for men too. Intersectional feminism also means I don't have to choose between Being A Woman and Being Queer at any given point for the purposes of activism. But (and this is more of a point for people who think that there's a finite amount of privilege to go around so YOU CAN'T HAVE MINE, which no one on this thread has done, but it's the easiest way for me to explain my point at 1.40am); feminism focuses on women's rights rather than the harm patriarchy does to all genders in much the same way the gay rights movement focuses on the queer community rather than people of all sexual orientations -- because when we don't have equal rights, the focus is on those who are suffering under that to bring them up to the level of the privileged.

Well, for me, I have now been told by Signor Paisor and yourself that I am a ball of preconceived notions, because those notions (that I never expressed in any way, shape, or form), because another poster who happens to be of my gender expressed those notions.

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pæs on August 15, 2012, 02:44:22 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:29:04 PM
Right, then, if that's how I'm coming off, then I am neither suitable for this conversation or the general struggle it describes.  Signor Paisor can keep explaining my position for me, I guess, since he feels he is capable of stating what I really think.

Care to highlight where I represented your position, accurately or not?
The only part of my post addressed to you was after I used your name to address you and the content of the quote there clearly (imo) referred to the thread, rather than to you.

I suggest that this another miscommunication. Would you like to examine that or make assumptions about MY intent and then bitch about how that's what I'm doing to you some more? Because the former is how biped approach conversation and the latter is for hypocrites and gives you little room for criticising the quality of the discussion.

you do realise that not all replies are replies to you?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:45:05 PM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 15, 2012, 02:41:55 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:37:00 PM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 15, 2012, 02:30:20 PM
"Here are my preconceived notions that I'm going to use to explain why I think feminism is shit!"

Please quote where I said anything remotely close to that.

...you didn't? That was an overly-simplified version of the last two pages of this thread as I see them, which you weren't involved in (I think) until you called out the thread as turning into self-parody.

How was what I said oversimplified?  Shall I present direct quotes?  Or would you prefer to simply continue issuing me my opinion?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:46:51 PM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 15, 2012, 02:44:22 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:29:04 PM
Right, then, if that's how I'm coming off, then I am neither suitable for this conversation or the general struggle it describes.  Signor Paisor can keep explaining my position for me, I guess, since he feels he is capable of stating what I really think.

Care to highlight where I represented your position, accurately or not?
The only part of my post addressed to you was after I used your name to address you and the content of the quote there clearly (imo) referred to the thread, rather than to you.

I suggest that this another miscommunication. Would you like to examine that or make assumptions about MY intent and then bitch about how that's what I'm doing to you some more? Because the former is how biped approach conversation and the latter is for hypocrites and gives you little room for criticising the quality of the discussion.

you do realise that not all replies are replies to you?

Yes, I fucking do.  I also am just smart enough to read when people differentiate between "P3nt" and "all of you".  No such differentiation was made.

This isn't a conversation anymore.  It's just another stupid dominance game, played for points.

And the irony in THAT, in THIS subject, is too ticklish for words.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: AFK on August 15, 2012, 02:48:18 PM
I don't read ANYONE in this thread bashing Feminism, big F.  What I see are some expressing that any strain or version of feminism, little f, that is practiced to exclude men because they are men and don't have the experience of being women, is a strain that is probably too insular for it's own good.


I think ANY movement designed to better the lives of any subset of humans can be bettered by having people who aren't necessarily part of the affected group, but who have the passion and the skill sets to advance the cause.  The people from the affected group will have the unique experiential knowledge, but they may not have the advocacy or media savy that an "outsider" would have. 


It just helps to make a well-rounded and robust approach, as anyone who does any kind of grass roots work will tell you.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pæs on August 15, 2012, 02:51:04 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:43:25 PM
Well, for me, I have now been told by Signor Paisor and yourself that I am a ball of preconceived notions, because those notions (that I never expressed in any way, shape, or form), because another poster who happens to be of my gender expressed those notions.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:45:05 PM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 15, 2012, 02:41:55 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:37:00 PM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 15, 2012, 02:30:20 PM
"Here are my preconceived notions that I'm going to use to explain why I think feminism is shit!"

Please quote where I said anything remotely close to that.

...you didn't? That was an overly-simplified version of the last two pages of this thread as I see them, which you weren't involved in (I think) until you called out the thread as turning into self-parody.

How was what I said oversimplified?  Shall I present direct quotes?  Or would you prefer to simply continue issuing me my opinion?
If it were anyone else, I would call a strawman including claims of misrepresentation a fairly amusing troll. I'm STILL trying to examine where you are getting your bad data from, but operating on it any further is just going to read like deliberate dishonesty.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:51:39 PM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 15, 2012, 02:51:04 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:43:25 PM
Well, for me, I have now been told by Signor Paisor and yourself that I am a ball of preconceived notions, because those notions (that I never expressed in any way, shape, or form), because another poster who happens to be of my gender expressed those notions.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:45:05 PM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 15, 2012, 02:41:55 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:37:00 PM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 15, 2012, 02:30:20 PM
"Here are my preconceived notions that I'm going to use to explain why I think feminism is shit!"

Please quote where I said anything remotely close to that.

...you didn't? That was an overly-simplified version of the last two pages of this thread as I see them, which you weren't involved in (I think) until you called out the thread as turning into self-parody.

How was what I said oversimplified?  Shall I present direct quotes?  Or would you prefer to simply continue issuing me my opinion?
If it were anyone else, I would call a strawman including claims of misrepresentation a fairly amusing troll. I'm STILL trying to examine where you are getting your bad data from, but operating on it any further is just going to read like deliberate dishonesty.

Well, then, I guess I'd better leave you folks to it.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 15, 2012, 02:53:04 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:43:25 PM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 15, 2012, 02:38:41 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:27:25 PM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 15, 2012, 02:22:07 PM
"Hey there, I see that you're currently victim to the horrors of Auschwitz. I can imagine how that must feel for you. While not a resident myself,  I am going to tell you all about Auschwitz as the local authority on Auschwitz. What's that? No, I think you're wrong about that detail. Why does that upset you? How come your side of the Auschwitz yay or nay argument is the best and I have to listen to you? If you want your situation to get better, you need to be more respectful towards people who aren't in Auschwitz when they explain Auschwitz to you.What do you mean I can't be an official Auschwitz ally if I go about misrepresenting Auschwitz and insist that the interpretation from within is somehow invalid?" to expand on the already fairly dangerous comparison.

Roger, I'm not reading that into it at all. Maybe I'm more familiar with the positions being represented here and there's a miscommunication I'm reading past. Comparing quotes of statements to those of replies and interpretations is a bit beyond the capabilities of my phone, but the thread reads like "men can absolutely be helpful and involved but cannot be primary sources on the experiences of women", "hey, fuck you for excluding me."

That, of course, has nothing to do with anything I said.

It does, however, bring up an interesting question:  Why are men supposed to be incapable of being primary sources on eglatarianism?  Or is the current definition (in this thread) of feminism gone from "eglatarianism" to "Women's historical and current problems"?

I've heard both definitions of feminism.  One is inclusive, and one is exclusive.  I prefer the inclusive version that states a goal of "all people of all genders, races, and orientations are and should be considered equal members in society".

For me, feminism is intersectional. It acknowledges that while women are systemically oppressed by patriarchy, it's pretty shit for men too. Intersectional feminism also means I don't have to choose between Being A Woman and Being Queer at any given point for the purposes of activism. But (and this is more of a point for people who think that there's a finite amount of privilege to go around so YOU CAN'T HAVE MINE, which no one on this thread has done, but it's the easiest way for me to explain my point at 1.40am); feminism focuses on women's rights rather than the harm patriarchy does to all genders in much the same way the gay rights movement focuses on the queer community rather than people of all sexual orientations -- because when we don't have equal rights, the focus is on those who are suffering under that to bring them up to the level of the privileged.

Well, for me, I have now been told by Signor Paisor and yourself that I am a ball of preconceived notions, because those notions (that I never expressed in any way, shape, or form), because another poster who happens to be of my gender expressed those notions.

Roger, I do not believe that at any point (please quote me if I'm wrong, it's rather late here) I said that you, or all men, are "a ball of preconceived notions". I was paraphrasing the arguments being made in the thread thus far, none of which were made by you.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:45:05 PM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 15, 2012, 02:41:55 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:37:00 PM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 15, 2012, 02:30:20 PM
"Here are my preconceived notions that I'm going to use to explain why I think feminism is shit!"

Please quote where I said anything remotely close to that.

...you didn't? That was an overly-simplified version of the last two pages of this thread as I see them, which you weren't involved in (I think) until you called out the thread as turning into self-parody.

How was what I said oversimplified?  Shall I present direct quotes?  Or would you prefer to simply continue issuing me my opinion?

I was saying that what I said was oversimplified. Was that not clear from the fact that I was replying to something where you quoted said over-simplification directly?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pæs on August 15, 2012, 03:04:50 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:51:39 PM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 15, 2012, 02:51:04 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:43:25 PM
Well, for me, I have now been told by Signor Paisor and yourself that I am a ball of preconceived notions, because those notions (that I never expressed in any way, shape, or form), because another poster who happens to be of my gender expressed those notions.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:45:05 PM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 15, 2012, 02:41:55 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:37:00 PM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 15, 2012, 02:30:20 PM
"Here are my preconceived notions that I'm going to use to explain why I think feminism is shit!"

Please quote where I said anything remotely close to that.

...you didn't? That was an overly-simplified version of the last two pages of this thread as I see them, which you weren't involved in (I think) until you called out the thread as turning into self-parody.

How was what I said oversimplified?  Shall I present direct quotes?  Or would you prefer to simply continue issuing me my opinion?
If it were anyone else, I would call a strawman including claims of misrepresentation a fairly amusing troll. I'm STILL trying to examine where you are getting your bad data from, but operating on it any further is just going to read like deliberate dishonesty.

Well, then, I guess I'd better leave you folks to it.
Um, okay then. If you ever want to come back and examine whether anyone actually issued you an opinion, I'm cool with discussing whatever issue we ran into here. It's the responses to those requests to stop and consider whether we are being clear with further "well, fine, tell me what I think" that would look like using claims of derailment to derail if I didn"t think you have more respect for the topic (which I do).
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pæs on August 15, 2012, 03:08:04 PM
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 15, 2012, 02:48:18 PM
I don't read ANYONE in this thread bashing Feminism, big F.  What I see are some expressing that any strain or version of feminism, little f, that is practiced to exclude men because they are men and don't have the experience of being women, is a strain that is probably too insular for it's own good.

Who is advocating the exclusion of men and will anyone with that point of contention quote the offending suggestion so it can be clarified or defended?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pæs on August 15, 2012, 03:09:56 PM
Sleeping now.

Mebbe someone can repair this discussion so it's all pretty for me in the morning.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 03:16:36 PM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 15, 2012, 03:08:04 PM
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 15, 2012, 02:48:18 PM
I don't read ANYONE in this thread bashing Feminism, big F.  What I see are some expressing that any strain or version of feminism, little f, that is practiced to exclude men because they are men and don't have the experience of being women, is a strain that is probably too insular for it's own good.

Who is advocating the exclusion of men and will anyone with that point of contention quote the offending suggestion so it can be clarified or defended?

Well, here's one:

Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 15, 2012, 12:22:11 PM

The only thing I would add is that in my experience, the best male allies are the ones who come in knowing that they're going to have to earn trust from some feminists and just, you know, quietly do that instead of whining about how Really Really Nice They Are, Why Are You Oppressing Me With Your Mistrust.

To everyone who agrees with the above statement:

I am not fucking required to gain anyone's trust.  I am required as a biped to be an eglatarian, defined as "all human beings are equal and to be judged - when judgement is necessary - according to their individual merits".  I do not require that anyone trust me for me to do that.  I am not joining a club, or even an organization.  Your or anyone else's "trust" is meaningless in this context.  I am an elgatarian because it is the right thing to do.

So, you know, fuck this "alliance" business.  I am going to do what works, which is to set an example, and not tolerate inequality in my workplace, the crew I run, my family, my home, or my social circle.  Alliances lead to dominance games, and it's become fairly self-evident, at least in this group, that this becomes counterproductive and requires a uniform. 

So you can take your trust requirement and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.  I'm not doing this for you, and I do not require the approval of other feminists to be a feminist.

And if that's not good enough, then too fucking bad.

There are other examples upthread.  I can get into them, if you like.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pope Pixie Pickle on August 15, 2012, 03:18:09 PM
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 15, 2012, 02:48:18 PM
I don't read ANYONE in this thread bashing Feminism, big F.  What I see are some expressing that any strain or version of feminism, little f, that is practiced to exclude men because they are men and don't have the experience of being women, is a strain that is probably too insular for it's own good.


I think ANY movement designed to better the lives of any subset of humans can be bettered by having people who aren't necessarily part of the affected group, but who have the passion and the skill sets to advance the cause.  The people from the affected group will have the unique experiential knowledge, but they may not have the advocacy or media savy that an "outsider" would have. 


It just helps to make a well-rounded and robust approach, as anyone who does any kind of grass roots work will tell you.

I agree with this. The people with the privilege and the skills still need to listen to the main core of the movement/s, and take what they say seriously.

I'm about to compile a bunch of stuff that is designed for dude-peoples to grasp feminist ideas, and on how to be a good ally. I'm specifically choosing the less academic style of texts, without too much of the particular and specific-to-feminist-discussions language, as I have found that it can be an obstacle to some people. Terms such as patriarchy, rape culture and so on can come across as very loaded, and I'd like to avoid that as much as physically possible. What I want to do is to attempt to bypass the kneejerk reactions and get to a place of self analysis and contemplation. People may not entirely grasp a lived experience, but a teaspoon of understanding of that experience from those who haven't had it is better than none.  This is where I hope to get to initially, because that teaspoons worth of understanding is the basis for building on more and actually making progress.

Oh and Roger, i think most of the last 2 pages were referring to P3nt's take on it, rather than you.  You are a decent guy and it SHOULD be the default position, but in my experience, it's not always the case.   

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 03:24:41 PM
Quote from: Pixie on August 15, 2012, 03:18:09 PM
Oh and Roger, i think most of the last 2 pages were referring to P3nt's take on it, rather than you.  You are a decent guy and it SHOULD be the default position, but in my experience, it's not always the case.

Actually, I've spend most of my life as a bit of a monster.  I am about as "decent" as William Calley.

And I think you're working off of false positives, here.  In my experience, 80-90% of men are what you would call "decent"1.  The ones who AREN'T are the ones who get noticed.

I am not suggesting blind faith.  I am not suggesting you let strangers at parties mix your drinks out of your sight, any more than I'd suggest you tape a hundred pound note to your head and walk through London alleyways at night.  I AM suggesting that one key component of eglatarianism is that everyone is innocent until proven to be a swine (again, this does not preclude caution).


1  This doesn't include Phoenix.  They're up to their arseholes in religious weirdos there that make the Taliban look like Leo Buscaglia.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 15, 2012, 03:25:33 PM
Oh come on Spags, this was a really good conversation... let's not ruin it before 50 pages!!! :D

I keep seeing layers in the conversation of people talking past each other. The women are making some excellent points, the guys are making some excellent points... but both sides seem to be misinterpreting the intent behind those points (in my opinion).

First off, I have to say that if I had lived my whole life being treated differently because of my race, sex etc that would feel pretty shitty and I would be pissed off about it. So full points to the girls as to why this is an intense issue.

Secondly, if I go through my day thinking people are equal and treating people as equal and then some person says "Well, you say curse word X and therefore are a misogynist and are coming from 'privilege'" then I'm gonna get defensive.

In my opinion, its probably better for the health of this debate to recognize both of these points. The women might yell a bit louder or make some insulting remarks, because they've been abused by society. Anyone coming out of an abusive situation tends to yell pretty loudly about it, even if its not the best tactic for convincing other people. The guys might be a little defensive, especially if they are told subjective opinions as fact "If you say cunt/pussy etc you ARE a misogynist", "If you aren't a woman you CAN'T understand...", simply because they feel like they're being attacked and lumped in with the knuckle dragging, male monkeys that embarrass the hell out of the rest of us guys.

Cain said e-Prime would be useful in this and I think he's right. (though I didn't want to say it since me and e-Prime comments turn threads into hours of drift.)

But, lets compare:

"If you say cunt/pussy etc you ARE a misogynist"

"If you use cunt/pussy as a slur, you appear misogynistic to many women."

The first is an opinion, being presented as fact. The second is fact being presented as fact.

That being said, I think especially here in this debate that getting defensive and digging in your heels as a guy isn't really useful. I may get shit on for this (and I hope not because I'm not trying to be misogynistic here) but if you're dealing with people that have been abused, you gotta make some allowances for behavior. Women have been abused, they're pissed, they might say shit that sounds like angry accusations and might even hurt, but FFS, let it go. Read through the anger and see what they're trying to say. I for one have been enjoying the hell out of this thread and the earlier one. It's really made me focus on a topic I hadn't paid much attention to previously.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Placid Dingo on August 15, 2012, 03:27:29 PM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 15, 2012, 02:00:12 PM
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 15, 2012, 01:50:43 PM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 15, 2012, 01:23:32 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 15, 2012, 01:03:31 PM
it's actually complete bullshit. You have to go through something to experience it, yes but to understand? To empathise? Fuck no. I wasn't in Auschwitz but do I understand what happened and why it was wrong?

I don't actually think that any intellectual understanding of the horrors of Auschwitz is even remotely comparable to the utter, utter terror of actually living through it. Like, at all. Even the most imaginative person's "understanding and empathy" will summon approximately 1/1999th of the feeling than an actual memory of actual lived experience.

I'm not even going to touch the rest of your post, because every point you've made has already been raised, countered and refuted and at this point I can only assume that you are deliberately and willfully not absorbing what Garbo, Pixie and others are telling you.


That's bullshit.  Of course we can't fully understand the actual level of emotional and physical trauma suffered.  But we CAN, intellectually, understand, as Pent said, the ideas, the fundamentals, and the nature of what was happening, why, and why it was wrong. 


Otherwise, we should go ahead and cancel every history class everywhere forever.

I think this http://www.shakesville.com/2009/08/terrible-bargain-we-have-regretfully.html (http://www.shakesville.com/2009/08/terrible-bargain-we-have-regretfully.html) has probably the best articulation of why "we understand intellectually!" is problematic as hell:
Quote
There are the occasions that men—intellectual men, clever men, engaged men—insist on playing devil's advocate, desirous of a debate on some aspect of feminist theory or reproductive rights or some other subject generally filed under the heading: Women's Issues. These intellectual, clever, engaged men want to endlessly probe my argument for weaknesses, want to wrestle over details, want to argue just for fun—and they wonder, these intellectual, clever, engaged men, why my voice keeps raising and why my face is flushed and why, after an hour of fighting my corner, hot tears burn the corners of my eyes. Why do you have to take this stuff so personally? ask the intellectual, clever, and engaged men, who have never considered that the content of the abstract exercise that's so much fun for them is the stuff of my life.

It's this simple: as a cis man, you have never had to experience life as a woman. I can't understand why so many men get so butthurt when we tell you this, as though we're excluding you from the magical club of oppression.

I think it was around here Paes. Personally I suspect the example given is a bad one as the men in question are not so much trying to assume that they can understand the experience of being a woman as just being shithouse at being empathetic.

Empathy is an emotional understanding, really. And some things don't have an obvious emotional impact. For example, dudes always coming onto me is such a foreign concept as far as a negative goes because in the opposite scenario, if I'm always getting cracked onto by women, I'd be over the moon. So it takes those conversations with women to be able to understand where a perspective comes from, for a woman. But I don't know how that means that a man, listening to a woman, empathetic and intellectually understanding of a situation, is unable to 'truely understand' well enough to be an effective part of Feminism. I don't if that's what's being suggested, but I suspect something similar to that is what's being conveyed.

Also, I sleep now too.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pope Pixie Pickle on August 15, 2012, 03:31:21 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 03:16:36 PM

To everyone who agrees with the above statement:

I am not fucking required to gain anyone's trust.  I am required as a biped to be an eglatarian, defined as "all human beings are equal and to be judged - when judgement is necessary - according to their individual merits".  I do not require that anyone trust me for me to do that.  I am not joining a club, or even an organization.  Your or anyone else's "trust" is meaningless in this context.  I am an elgatarian because it is the right thing to do.

So, you know, fuck this "alliance" business.  I am going to do what works, which is to set an example, and not tolerate inequality in my workplace, the crew I run, my family, my home, or my social circle.
  Alliances lead to dominance games, and it's become fairly self-evident, at least in this group, that this becomes counterproductive and requires a uniform. 

So you can take your trust requirement and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.  I'm not doing this for you.

And if that's not good enough, then too fucking bad.

There are other examples upthread.  I can get into them, if you like.

As to the bolded bit...

You're already riding the correct motorcycle as an ally as far as I am concerned. YOU already get it, and you aren't demanding cookies for being decent, which is awesome.

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2092/1996389857_3a0843ad03.jpg)

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 15, 2012, 03:38:17 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 03:16:36 PM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 15, 2012, 03:08:04 PM
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 15, 2012, 02:48:18 PM
I don't read ANYONE in this thread bashing Feminism, big F.  What I see are some expressing that any strain or version of feminism, little f, that is practiced to exclude men because they are men and don't have the experience of being women, is a strain that is probably too insular for it's own good.

Who is advocating the exclusion of men and will anyone with that point of contention quote the offending suggestion so it can be clarified or defended?

Well, here's one:

Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 15, 2012, 12:22:11 PM

The only thing I would add is that in my experience, the best male allies are the ones who come in knowing that they're going to have to earn trust from some feminists and just, you know, quietly do that instead of whining about how Really Really Nice They Are, Why Are You Oppressing Me With Your Mistrust.

To everyone who agrees with the above statement:

I am not fucking required to gain anyone's trust.  I am required as a biped to be an eglatarian, defined as "all human beings are equal and to be judged - when judgement is necessary - according to their individual merits".  I do not require that anyone trust me for me to do that.  I am not joining a club, or even an organization.  Your or anyone else's "trust" is meaningless in this context.  I am an elgatarian because it is the right thing to do.

So, you know, fuck this "alliance" business.  I am going to do what works, which is to set an example, and not tolerate inequality in my workplace, the crew I run, my family, my home, or my social circle.  Alliances lead to dominance games, and it's become fairly self-evident, at least in this group, that this becomes counterproductive and requires a uniform. 

So you can take your trust requirement and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.  I'm not doing this for you, and I do not require the approval of other feminists to be a feminist.

And if that's not good enough, then too fucking bad.

There are other examples upthread.  I can get into them, if you like.

Right. I thought the meaning of that quote was fairly clear based on the context it was posted in, but in case not, let me restate my position.

Men who come into feminist spaces should not immediately expect, nor feel entitled to, the blind faith or trust that they will be a Good Male Feminist* from the get-go.

Even restating that, considering my statement was "the best male allies", which well and truly allows for the participation of men in feminism, I'm really unclear as to how this is evidence of my advocation the exclusion of men.

*There's an interesting discussion to be had around the fact that we hold cis male feminists to a higher standard than pretty much anyone else, rightly or wrongly, but it's probably a discussion for another thread.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 15, 2012, 03:42:46 PM
I think Dingo made a good point. Just because I can't intimately and completely share the same reality with with women on this topic, doesn't mean I can't empathize that our society is shitty towards women in general. Just because women may seem a little aggressively accusatory towards guys on this topic, doesn't mean we should drop trying to empathize. However, just because the guys can't completely understand the experience, doesn't mean that they can't "get it".

Signora also made a good point in clearing up what was intended, because I read the original comment as Roger did. Thanks for that.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 15, 2012, 03:46:24 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 15, 2012, 03:27:29 PM
But I don't know how that means that a man, listening to a woman, empathetic and intellectually understanding of a situation, is unable to 'truely understand' well enough to be an effective part of Feminism. I don't if that's what's being suggested, but I suspect something similar to that is what's being conveyed.

I certainly didn't mean to suggest that men cannot truly understand enough to be an effective part of feminism. What I was trying to point out (poorly, it seems) is that a man's intellectual, empathetic understanding should always take a back seat in feminist discussions to the actual lived experiences of women.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pope Pixie Pickle on August 15, 2012, 03:52:21 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 03:24:41 PM
Quote from: Pixie on August 15, 2012, 03:18:09 PM
Oh and Roger, i think most of the last 2 pages were referring to P3nt's take on it, rather than you.  You are a decent guy and it SHOULD be the default position, but in my experience, it's not always the case.

And I think you're working off of false positives, here.  In my experience, 80-90% of men are what you would call "decent"1.  The ones who AREN'T are the ones who get noticed.


In certain situations, a false positive is better than the outcome of failing to spot someone who is dangerous.  It sucks to be the false positive, for sure, but if it's a choice between reading someone too harshly, or not reading a fucking asshole harshly enough, I'm sorry I had to bail on the hidden decent person, but the asshole doesn't usually overtly advertise his assholeness. If it comes down to my basic survival and well being I'm going to act on the false positive.

http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/meet-the-predators/

This article pretty much explains why.


Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 15, 2012, 03:54:19 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 15, 2012, 05:18:57 AM
Quote from: Net on August 15, 2012, 05:08:53 AM
The following is a rationalization that my brain came up with. I know it's not right in spite of there being a little truth to it, but I thought I'd offer it up as an example of a way that patriarchal ideas can manifest. I'm also depositing it here for the sake of dissection.

Women tend to be physically smaller and have less upper body strength than men, so why is it such a no-no to link femininity to weakness? On one hand I hear women saying that men don't understand how inequality in strength and size fuels feelings of vulnerability around men, yet women seem to not want womanhood or femininity otherwise linked with weakness.

Unfortunately, it's entirely appropriate for women to be concerned about being physically overpowered as it's basic fact that most men are stronger than most women. For the average man, such a concern is less warranted as he's likely to have a more even match when push comes to shove. So when guys disparage one another using words conceptually linked to women it seems less about putting women down and more an inference that what is an appropriate concern for a woman is often not an appropriate concern for man.

OK, I'm going to do one of those comparisons that people hate so much. Before I do, I want to make clear that I am doing this purely because I find it incredibly effective in highlighting the issue in terms that most of us are already familiar with, and not because I in any way think you endorse these views.

QuoteBlacks tend to be lower income and have less material wealth than whites, so why is it such a no-no to link blackness to poverty? On one hand I hear blacks saying that whites don't understand how inequality in income and assets fuels feelings of oppression and disparity around whites, yet blacks seem to not want African origins or dark skin otherwise linked with poverty.

Unfortunately, it's entirely appropriate for blacks to be concerned about being economically discriminated against as it's basic fact that most whites are paid more than most blacks. For the average white person, such a concern is less warranted as they're likely to have a more even match when applying for work. So when whites disparage one another using words conceptually linked to blacks it seems less about putting blacks down and more an inference that what is an appropriate concern for a black person is often not an appropriate concern for a white person.

Question (not gauntlet): Aren't there more poor Blacks because of a rigged social/economic system? If everybody had the same advantages here, the numbers would be different, obviously. Men don't have more upper-body strength because of better nutrition or because gyms keep women out, so I'm not sure about this analogy.

I don't have a problem with being seen as inherently physically weaker, it doesn't mean "inferior" anyway. We have other things we tend to do better, we're just as good, but not identical. I like being able to ask guys to to heavy lifting because they know it's easier for them. It would be another story if I'd grown up watching boys get better food and play outdoors while I was locked in a room mending socks or something.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 15, 2012, 03:55:09 PM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 15, 2012, 03:46:24 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 15, 2012, 03:27:29 PM
But I don't know how that means that a man, listening to a woman, empathetic and intellectually understanding of a situation, is unable to 'truely understand' well enough to be an effective part of Feminism. I don't if that's what's being suggested, but I suspect something similar to that is what's being conveyed.

I certainly didn't mean to suggest that men cannot truly understand enough to be an effective part of feminism. What I was trying to point out (poorly, it seems) is that a man's intellectual, empathetic understanding should always take a back seat in feminist discussions to the actual lived experiences of women.

I think back seat might be a poor word choice there.*

Experience and empathy are not the same thing. They shouldn't need to compete for the drivers seat. Discussions about experience should be discussions about experience, discussions about "how to fix it" or "support" should provide an equal playing ground. An empathetic guy should be able to listen and modify their position if someone says "I understand what you're saying but in my experience..."  When we're discussing solutions, though, inclusion seems preferable to exclusion or discrimination.



* I swear I won't make some comment about getting in the back seat with a feminist experience  :argh!:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 15, 2012, 04:06:23 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 15, 2012, 07:00:19 AM
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.

This probably explains the "cunt is derived from the same root as cunning or ken" thing that I saw some years ago, and can't find now. Thanks.  :)
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on August 15, 2012, 04:10:13 PM
Being oppressed is traumatic and obviously terrible. But it also can have the effect of turning people sour and seeking revenge. This is fact, and nobody is above it. See: ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY. Being oppressed does not lend itself to giving a balanced view of the situation even if that oppression ends. Whole nations of humans have formed for the specific purpose of seeking revenge for oppression - and they do it, and they're no better than their oppressors were, but they don't see it, because their ability to be fair has been violated and destroyed by the original oppression.

I'm not saying feminism is necessarily going to go down this path, but it's possible (and you can't really say it's impossible without being self-righteous and just plain wrong). So it seems to me that feminism needs detached, outside opinions and observations in order to keep that possibility in check.

Saying things like "men don't/can't understand" or "a man's view is inherently inferior or inadequate" or that it must "take a back seat" to a woman's opinions is evidence of that counter-oppressive possibility.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: AFK on August 15, 2012, 04:10:34 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 15, 2012, 03:55:09 PM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 15, 2012, 03:46:24 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 15, 2012, 03:27:29 PM
But I don't know how that means that a man, listening to a woman, empathetic and intellectually understanding of a situation, is unable to 'truely understand' well enough to be an effective part of Feminism. I don't if that's what's being suggested, but I suspect something similar to that is what's being conveyed.

I certainly didn't mean to suggest that men cannot truly understand enough to be an effective part of feminism. What I was trying to point out (poorly, it seems) is that a man's intellectual, empathetic understanding should always take a back seat in feminist discussions to the actual lived experiences of women.

I think back seat might be a poor word choice there.*

Experience and empathy are not the same thing. They shouldn't need to compete for the drivers seat. Discussions about experience should be discussions about experience, discussions about "how to fix it" or "support" should provide an equal playing ground. An empathetic guy should be able to listen and modify their position if someone says "I understand what you're saying but in my experience..."  When we're discussing solutions, though, inclusion seems preferable to exclusion or discrimination.



* I swear I won't make some comment about getting in the back seat with a feminist experience  :argh!:


THIS well said.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:15:24 PM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 15, 2012, 03:38:17 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 03:16:36 PM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 15, 2012, 03:08:04 PM
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 15, 2012, 02:48:18 PM
I don't read ANYONE in this thread bashing Feminism, big F.  What I see are some expressing that any strain or version of feminism, little f, that is practiced to exclude men because they are men and don't have the experience of being women, is a strain that is probably too insular for it's own good.

Who is advocating the exclusion of men and will anyone with that point of contention quote the offending suggestion so it can be clarified or defended?

Well, here's one:

Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 15, 2012, 12:22:11 PM

The only thing I would add is that in my experience, the best male allies are the ones who come in knowing that they're going to have to earn trust from some feminists and just, you know, quietly do that instead of whining about how Really Really Nice They Are, Why Are You Oppressing Me With Your Mistrust.

To everyone who agrees with the above statement:

I am not fucking required to gain anyone's trust.  I am required as a biped to be an eglatarian, defined as "all human beings are equal and to be judged - when judgement is necessary - according to their individual merits".  I do not require that anyone trust me for me to do that.  I am not joining a club, or even an organization.  Your or anyone else's "trust" is meaningless in this context.  I am an elgatarian because it is the right thing to do.

So, you know, fuck this "alliance" business.  I am going to do what works, which is to set an example, and not tolerate inequality in my workplace, the crew I run, my family, my home, or my social circle.  Alliances lead to dominance games, and it's become fairly self-evident, at least in this group, that this becomes counterproductive and requires a uniform. 

So you can take your trust requirement and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.  I'm not doing this for you, and I do not require the approval of other feminists to be a feminist.

And if that's not good enough, then too fucking bad.

There are other examples upthread.  I can get into them, if you like.

Right. I thought the meaning of that quote was fairly clear based on the context it was posted in, but in case not, let me restate my position.

Men who come into feminist spaces should not immediately expect, nor feel entitled to, the blind faith or trust that they will be a Good Male Feminist* from the get-go.

Even restating that, considering my statement was "the best male allies", which well and truly allows for the participation of men in feminism, I'm really unclear as to how this is evidence of my advocation the exclusion of men.

*There's an interesting discussion to be had around the fact that we hold cis male feminists to a higher standard than pretty much anyone else, rightly or wrongly, but it's probably a discussion for another thread.

I'm taking issue with "male allies" or even "allies".  Either you're an eglatarian (in which case "allies" is a useless term) or you're not (in which case you can't be allies, because there's nothing in common to ally over).

I am a "CIS male".  This is utterly irrelevant as to whether or not I am an elgatarian.  And I don't see any "feminist space".  I see people who want to be recognized as people and/or who recognize other people as people.  There is no "space" here to enter.  There is no territory upon which to infringe.  You are, or you aren't.  Nothing else matters.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:18:51 PM
Quote from: Pixie on August 15, 2012, 03:52:21 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 03:24:41 PM
Quote from: Pixie on August 15, 2012, 03:18:09 PM
Oh and Roger, i think most of the last 2 pages were referring to P3nt's take on it, rather than you.  You are a decent guy and it SHOULD be the default position, but in my experience, it's not always the case.

And I think you're working off of false positives, here.  In my experience, 80-90% of men are what you would call "decent"1.  The ones who AREN'T are the ones who get noticed.


In certain situations, a false positive is better than the outcome of failing to spot someone who is dangerous.  It sucks to be the false positive, for sure, but if it's a choice between reading someone too harshly, or not reading a fucking asshole harshly enough, I'm sorry I had to bail on the hidden decent person, but the asshole doesn't usually overtly advertise his assholeness. If it comes down to my basic survival and well being I'm going to act on the false positive.

http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/meet-the-predators/

This article pretty much explains why.

As I said, caution is always advisable...But looking at the balance of any group as "probably swine" is a trap.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 15, 2012, 04:20:38 PM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 15, 2012, 07:59:52 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 15, 2012, 07:55:16 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 15, 2012, 07:32:17 AM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 15, 2012, 07:05:09 AM
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. :lulz:

It's a Very Good thing. Srs!  :)
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:21:11 PM
Also, it occurs to me that the "CIS" thing is worth exploring here, as it fits in nicely with the original topic.

CIS makes no difference at all.  Gender orientation is utterly meaningless, as is anything else, in determining whether or not someone believes that ALL people are equally human.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 04:23:51 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 15, 2012, 09:14:49 AM
Quote from: Bu☆ns on August 15, 2012, 07:15:37 AM
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 (http://camelphotos.com/tales_nose.html).  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.


This is why I get wound up whenever feminism comes up. It always comes down to - I'm a dumbfuck who can never possibly understand because I was born with a dick and privilege and my whole brain comes with built in misogyny and, although that can never change because I'm, y'know, a male, I'm in the wrong and damn well should fucking change. Even though I can't. It's like - what the fuck do you people want from me? I need to grow a uterus before you'll quit complaining at me?

And all I end up do is yelling "For fucksake - innocent until proven guilty. Just fucking trust me already!" but there's no way to yell that without coming across like an asshole and part of the problem and reinforcing the fact that men just don't get it. Can never get it. So it always comes down to this - feminism is a conversation for women, directed at men and that's a fucking shame, cos it's never going to work and shit really does need to change. A lot of us can see that, if you'd just give us a bit of credit.

Whether it's intentional or not, feminism make men feel like they're being attacked and (if you understand men at all) that is not conducive to change. Quite the opposite, in fact. That's going to make them dig in their heels and put up more barriers.

The many, many, many men who are joining the feminist movement and identifying as feminist, and the many many men who are joining the anti-rape-culture movement, don't seem to agree with you, so it is more than a bit possible that your reaction does not represent or define the reaction of men as a whole.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 15, 2012, 04:30:15 PM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 15, 2012, 02:22:07 PM
"Hey there, I see that you're currently victim to the horrors of Auschwitz. I can imagine how that must feel for you. While not a resident myself,  I am going to tell you all about Auschwitz as the local authority on Auschwitz. What's that? No, I think you're wrong about that detail. Why does that upset you? How come your side of the Auschwitz yay or nay argument is the best and I have to listen to you? If you want your situation to get better, you need to be more respectful towards people who aren't in Auschwitz when they explain Auschwitz to you.What do you mean I can't be an official Auschwitz ally if I go about misrepresenting Auschwitz and insist that the interpretation from within is somehow invalid?" to expand on the already fairly dangerous comparison.

Roger, I'm not reading that into it at all. Maybe I'm more familiar with the positions being represented here and there's a miscommunication I'm reading past. Comparing quotes of statements to those of replies and interpretations is a bit beyond the capabilities of my phone, but the thread reads like "men can absolutely be helpful and involved but cannot be primary sources on the experiences of women", "hey, fuck you for excluding me."

ANNNNND... Godwin.  :horrormirth:

This begs the question whether contemporary feminism is for everybody, as people or claiming, or just women? Everybody wasn't in Auschwitz.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on August 15, 2012, 04:35:31 PM
Yes but can men join as equals, intellectually and otherwise? Or are men expected to join as foot soldiers and solidarity trophies, expected to place their own beliefs and experiences and ideas on a lower level than women's? If that's the kind of joining I would have to do, then no thanks. I understand that the experience of being a woman can only be had by women (though there's some wiggle-room there), but a heartfelt understanding and empathy with women can be had by anyone, and anyone can have valid observations and ideas about how to improve things. It turns a lot of men off even trying, and turns a few of them against feminism, to just say, "lol you're a man what do you know."
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:36:20 PM
Quote from: Pixie on August 15, 2012, 03:31:21 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 03:16:36 PM

To everyone who agrees with the above statement:

I am not fucking required to gain anyone's trust.  I am required as a biped to be an eglatarian, defined as "all human beings are equal and to be judged - when judgement is necessary - according to their individual merits".  I do not require that anyone trust me for me to do that.  I am not joining a club, or even an organization.  Your or anyone else's "trust" is meaningless in this context.  I am an elgatarian because it is the right thing to do.

So, you know, fuck this "alliance" business.  I am going to do what works, which is to set an example, and not tolerate inequality in my workplace, the crew I run, my family, my home, or my social circle.
  Alliances lead to dominance games, and it's become fairly self-evident, at least in this group, that this becomes counterproductive and requires a uniform. 

So you can take your trust requirement and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.  I'm not doing this for you.

And if that's not good enough, then too fucking bad.

There are other examples upthread.  I can get into them, if you like.

As to the bolded bit...

You're already riding the correct motorcycle as an ally as far as I am concerned. YOU already get it, and you aren't demanding cookies for being decent, which is awesome.

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2092/1996389857_3a0843ad03.jpg)

1.  Can't see the pic.

2.  I don't want a cookie.  I just want to be a better person than I used to be.  This requires that I be an eglatarian, because the way you make monsters is this:  You convince young people that "the enemy" is a subset of a group that isn't actually human.  This means that it is okay and even admirable to do rotten shit to those people.  The ONLY way to escape this sort of conditioning or potential conditioning is to establish and maintain the view that all people are in fact equally human, no matter what or who they are.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:36:52 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 15, 2012, 04:35:31 PM
Yes but can men join as equals, intellectually and otherwise?

Join what?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pope Pixie Pickle on August 15, 2012, 04:40:50 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 15, 2012, 03:25:33 PM
Oh come on Spags, this was a really good conversation... let's not ruin it before 50 pages!!! :D

I keep seeing layers in the conversation of people talking past each other. The women are making some excellent points, the guys are making some excellent points... but both sides seem to be misinterpreting the intent behind those points (in my opinion).

First off, I have to say that if I had lived my whole life being treated differently because of my race, sex etc that would feel pretty shitty and I would be pissed off about it. So full points to the girls as to why this is an intense issue.

Secondly, if I go through my day thinking people are equal and treating people as equal and then some person says "Well, you say curse word X and therefore are a misogynist and are coming from 'privilege'" then I'm gonna get defensive.

In my opinion, its probably better for the health of this debate to recognize both of these points. The women might yell a bit louder or make some insulting remarks, because they've been abused by society. Anyone coming out of an abusive situation tends to yell pretty loudly about it, even if its not the best tactic for convincing other people. The guys might be a little defensive, especially if they are told subjective opinions as fact "If you say cunt/pussy etc you ARE a misogynist", "If you aren't a woman you CAN'T understand...", simply because they feel like they're being attacked and lumped in with the knuckle dragging, male monkeys that embarrass the hell out of the rest of us guys.

Cain said e-Prime would be useful in this and I think he's right. (though I didn't want to say it since me and e-Prime comments turn threads into hours of drift.)

But, lets compare:

"If you say cunt/pussy etc you ARE a misogynist"

"If you use cunt/pussy as a slur, you appear misogynistic to many women."

The first is an opinion, being presented as fact. The second is fact being presented as fact.

That being said, I think especially here in this debate that getting defensive and digging in your heels as a guy isn't really useful. I may get shit on for this (and I hope not because I'm not trying to be misogynistic here) but if you're dealing with people that have been abused, you gotta make some allowances for behavior. Women have been abused, they're pissed, they might say shit that sounds like angry accusations and might even hurt, but FFS, let it go. Read through the anger and see what they're trying to say. I for one have been enjoying the hell out of this thread and the earlier one. It's really made me focus on a topic I hadn't paid much attention to previously.

Rat is riding the correct motorcycle. Unfortunately it tends to get frustrating in a discussion about feminism that when feminists talk in broad terms, it is seen as a broad attack, when the kind of dudes who actually want to engage with feminism by and large are not the assholes who would pull some kind of egregious shit see it as an attack. We do not automatically assume that all men are like this.   If you aren't That Guy Women Need to Avoid, by and large we are not addressing you.

It's a situation that comes up time and time again. Having to make the disclaimer time and time again however often seems to derail the conversation, and slow it to a crawl.  I try not to get snarky or angry or frustrated, but these conversations are the meat and bones of women's lives. I can count six women that I know without even thinking for more than 30 seconds who have been either raped or sexually abused. I can count 2 men in that time also. All of them knew their attackers and either never said anything, or did and weren't believed. I can't count even one conviction in those people. It's also not out of the realms of possibility that I know more who haven't made me privy to their past. That creates the culture of fear and mistrust, and why I said a false positive is better than the worse alternative.  That said, I do try to give people the benefit of the doubt, but I don't feel I can brush off red flags in behaviour or attitude.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0Ti-gkJiXc

Jay Smooth does it right.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 04:42:25 PM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 15, 2012, 02:22:07 PM
"Hey there, I see that you're currently victim to the horrors of Auschwitz. I can imagine how that must feel for you. While not a resident myself,  I am going to tell you all about Auschwitz as the local authority on Auschwitz. What's that? No, I think you're wrong about that detail. Why does that upset you? How come your side of the Auschwitz yay or nay argument is the best and I have to listen to you? If you want your situation to get better, you need to be more respectful towards people who aren't in Auschwitz when they explain Auschwitz to you.What do you mean I can't be an official Auschwitz ally if I go about misrepresenting Auschwitz and insist that the interpretation from within is somehow invalid?" to expand on the already fairly dangerous comparison.

Roger, I'm not reading that into it at all. Maybe I'm more familiar with the positions being represented here and there's a miscommunication I'm reading past. Comparing quotes of statements to those of replies and interpretations is a bit beyond the capabilities of my phone, but the thread reads like "men can absolutely be helpful and involved but cannot be primary sources on the experiences of women", "hey, fuck you for excluding me."

YES! Thank you, Paes!
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 15, 2012, 04:45:21 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:07:40 PM
This has gone from a discussion about how men are also harmed by the patriarchy, to a rather interesting examination of views on language previously taken for granted, to an explanation of the following (from 3 users):

1.  Men can't understand.
2.  Men can't be trusted.
3.  Allies are not desired.  Put on the whole uniform or GTFO.
4.  "Decent men" are needed for support, which assumes that "decent" isn't the default position.
5.  Men somehow want to join the "club of the oppressed".

This conversation is now a self-parody, and cannot - in its present form - have any possible desirable outcome.  It is no longer about eglatarianism, it is now the sort of thing that is used as ammunition by people opposed to feminism.

The upside is, before it turned into a pissing contest, I got one good thing out of it (thanks, Garbo).

It's starting to sound like that rusty old Gloria Steinem/Marlo Thomas rhetoric that ruined the first wave feminism by assuming we all wanted to HATE MENS AND BE FORKLIFT OPERATORS.

"A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle."
"A liberated woman is one who has sex before marriage and a job after."
"We are becoming the men we wanted to marry"
"A woman reading Playboy feels a little like a Jew reading a Nazi manual."
"Women have two choices: Either she's a feminist or a masochist."

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on August 15, 2012, 04:50:36 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:36:52 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 15, 2012, 04:35:31 PM
Yes but can men join as equals, intellectually and otherwise?

Join what?

the feminist cause, the fight for equality. saying "mens ideas must take a back seat" is like telling straight people they have no business fighting for gay rights, or white people they have no business fighting for racial equality, unless they completely bow out of the conversation and do nothing but show up at rallies and echo what they're told to say.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:53:39 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 15, 2012, 04:45:21 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:07:40 PM
This has gone from a discussion about how men are also harmed by the patriarchy, to a rather interesting examination of views on language previously taken for granted, to an explanation of the following (from 3 users):

1.  Men can't understand.
2.  Men can't be trusted.
3.  Allies are not desired.  Put on the whole uniform or GTFO.
4.  "Decent men" are needed for support, which assumes that "decent" isn't the default position.
5.  Men somehow want to join the "club of the oppressed".

This conversation is now a self-parody, and cannot - in its present form - have any possible desirable outcome.  It is no longer about eglatarianism, it is now the sort of thing that is used as ammunition by people opposed to feminism.

The upside is, before it turned into a pissing contest, I got one good thing out of it (thanks, Garbo).

It's starting to sound like that rusty old Gloria Steinem/Marlo Thomas rhetoric that ruined the first wave feminism by assuming we all wanted to HATE MENS AND BE FORKLIFT OPERATORS.

"A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle."
"A liberated woman is one who has sex before marriage and a job after."
"We are becoming the men we wanted to marry"
"A woman reading Playboy feels a little like a Jew reading a Nazi manual."
"Women have two choices: Either she's a feminist or a masochist."

Both sides of the argument present a false dichtomy.  There is only one standard:  CAN YOU LIVE THE LIFE YOU WANT TO LIVE, ON YOUR OWN MERITS AS A HUMAN BEING?

If the answer is yes, you're an equal, regardless of what YOU CHOOSE to actually do.  If a woman CHOOSES to be a housewife or to have a career is her choice, and does not indicate one way or the other if she is a "feminist".

Likewise, a Gay person can choose to be whatever they want to be, if it is something inside their individual capabilities.  So can I, so can you.  No other conditions are necessary or even desirable. 
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:55:29 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 15, 2012, 04:50:36 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:36:52 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 15, 2012, 04:35:31 PM
Yes but can men join as equals, intellectually and otherwise?

Join what?

the feminist cause, the fight for equality. saying "mens ideas must take a back seat" is like telling straight people they have no business fighting for gay rights, or white people they have no business fighting for racial equality, unless they completely bow out of the conversation and do nothing but show up at rallies and echo what they're told to say.

Eglatarianism (or feminism) isn't something you join.  It's something you ARE and something you DO.

The approval of one faction or another is irrelevant.  I don't care if someone thinks I can only be an "associate member" because of my gender or whatever, because I never joined their group, because there IS NO GROUP.  There are only your own personal beliefs and actions.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 15, 2012, 04:58:49 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:53:39 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 15, 2012, 04:45:21 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:07:40 PM
This has gone from a discussion about how men are also harmed by the patriarchy, to a rather interesting examination of views on language previously taken for granted, to an explanation of the following (from 3 users):

1.  Men can't understand.
2.  Men can't be trusted.
3.  Allies are not desired.  Put on the whole uniform or GTFO.
4.  "Decent men" are needed for support, which assumes that "decent" isn't the default position.
5.  Men somehow want to join the "club of the oppressed".

This conversation is now a self-parody, and cannot - in its present form - have any possible desirable outcome.  It is no longer about eglatarianism, it is now the sort of thing that is used as ammunition by people opposed to feminism.

The upside is, before it turned into a pissing contest, I got one good thing out of it (thanks, Garbo).

It's starting to sound like that rusty old Gloria Steinem/Marlo Thomas rhetoric that ruined the first wave feminism by assuming we all wanted to HATE MENS AND BE FORKLIFT OPERATORS.

"A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle."
"A liberated woman is one who has sex before marriage and a job after."
"We are becoming the men we wanted to marry"
"A woman reading Playboy feels a little like a Jew reading a Nazi manual."
"Women have two choices: Either she's a feminist or a masochist."

Both sides of the argument present a false dichtomy.  There is only one standard:  CAN YOU LIVE THE LIFE YOU WANT TO LIVE, ON YOUR OWN MERITS AS A HUMAN BEING?

If the answer is yes, you're an equal, regardless of what YOU CHOOSE to actually do.  If a woman CHOOSES to be a housewife or to have a career is her choice, and does not indicate one way or the other if she is a "feminist".

Likewise, a Gay person can choose to be whatever they want to be, if it is something inside their individual capabilities.  So can I, so can you.  No other conditions are necessary or even desirable.

Exactly.

Gloria Steinem was the flip side of Rush Limbaugh. Neither one is going to tell me what I want or who or what I'm supposed to like or accept.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 05:06:18 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 15, 2012, 04:58:49 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:53:39 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 15, 2012, 04:45:21 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:07:40 PM
This has gone from a discussion about how men are also harmed by the patriarchy, to a rather interesting examination of views on language previously taken for granted, to an explanation of the following (from 3 users):

1.  Men can't understand.
2.  Men can't be trusted.
3.  Allies are not desired.  Put on the whole uniform or GTFO.
4.  "Decent men" are needed for support, which assumes that "decent" isn't the default position.
5.  Men somehow want to join the "club of the oppressed".

This conversation is now a self-parody, and cannot - in its present form - have any possible desirable outcome.  It is no longer about eglatarianism, it is now the sort of thing that is used as ammunition by people opposed to feminism.

The upside is, before it turned into a pissing contest, I got one good thing out of it (thanks, Garbo).

It's starting to sound like that rusty old Gloria Steinem/Marlo Thomas rhetoric that ruined the first wave feminism by assuming we all wanted to HATE MENS AND BE FORKLIFT OPERATORS.

"A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle."
"A liberated woman is one who has sex before marriage and a job after."
"We are becoming the men we wanted to marry"
"A woman reading Playboy feels a little like a Jew reading a Nazi manual."
"Women have two choices: Either she's a feminist or a masochist."

Both sides of the argument present a false dichtomy.  There is only one standard:  CAN YOU LIVE THE LIFE YOU WANT TO LIVE, ON YOUR OWN MERITS AS A HUMAN BEING?

If the answer is yes, you're an equal, regardless of what YOU CHOOSE to actually do.  If a woman CHOOSES to be a housewife or to have a career is her choice, and does not indicate one way or the other if she is a "feminist".

Likewise, a Gay person can choose to be whatever they want to be, if it is something inside their individual capabilities.  So can I, so can you.  No other conditions are necessary or even desirable.

Exactly.

Gloria Steinem was the flip side of Rush Limbaugh. Neither one is going to tell me what I want or who or what I'm supposed to like or accept.

I cut Steinem some slack, because she HAD to be extreme at the time she was most active.  There was no other way to be heard.  And she did in fact adjust her speech and actions to accomodate changing conditions, because there is a point where extremism becomes counterproductive.

I do not cut the same slack to Susan "all sex is rape and all men are rapists" Brownmiller and her adherents. 
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 15, 2012, 05:16:43 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 05:06:18 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 15, 2012, 04:58:49 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:53:39 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 15, 2012, 04:45:21 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:07:40 PM
This has gone from a discussion about how men are also harmed by the patriarchy, to a rather interesting examination of views on language previously taken for granted, to an explanation of the following (from 3 users):

1.  Men can't understand.
2.  Men can't be trusted.
3.  Allies are not desired.  Put on the whole uniform or GTFO.
4.  "Decent men" are needed for support, which assumes that "decent" isn't the default position.
5.  Men somehow want to join the "club of the oppressed".

This conversation is now a self-parody, and cannot - in its present form - have any possible desirable outcome.  It is no longer about eglatarianism, it is now the sort of thing that is used as ammunition by people opposed to feminism.

The upside is, before it turned into a pissing contest, I got one good thing out of it (thanks, Garbo).

It's starting to sound like that rusty old Gloria Steinem/Marlo Thomas rhetoric that ruined the first wave feminism by assuming we all wanted to HATE MENS AND BE FORKLIFT OPERATORS.

"A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle."
"A liberated woman is one who has sex before marriage and a job after."
"We are becoming the men we wanted to marry"
"A woman reading Playboy feels a little like a Jew reading a Nazi manual."
"Women have two choices: Either she's a feminist or a masochist."

Both sides of the argument present a false dichtomy.  There is only one standard:  CAN YOU LIVE THE LIFE YOU WANT TO LIVE, ON YOUR OWN MERITS AS A HUMAN BEING?

If the answer is yes, you're an equal, regardless of what YOU CHOOSE to actually do.  If a woman CHOOSES to be a housewife or to have a career is her choice, and does not indicate one way or the other if she is a "feminist".

Likewise, a Gay person can choose to be whatever they want to be, if it is something inside their individual capabilities.  So can I, so can you.  No other conditions are necessary or even desirable.

Exactly.

Gloria Steinem was the flip side of Rush Limbaugh. Neither one is going to tell me what I want or who or what I'm supposed to like or accept.

I cut Steinem some slack, because she HAD to be extreme at the time she was most active.  There was no other way to be heard.  And she did in fact adjust her speech and actions to accomodate changing conditions, because there is a point where extremism becomes counterproductive.

I do not cut the same slack to Susan "all sex is rape and all men are rapists" Brownmiller and her adherents.

I missed her adjustment. The last I heard from her was a TV interview back in the 90's:

Idiot Interviewer (I think it was John Stossell): "If a woman has less upper body strength than a man, wouldn't it compromise her abilities as, say, a firefighter? Wouldn't she be dragging a large person downstairs by the feet and banging their head on every step?"

Idiot Steinem: "Well, smoke tends to be less concentrated close to the floor, so this makes women BETTER firefighters."

Neither mentioned that you could grab a person under the armpits and let their FEET bang the steps. It was one of those moments that perfectly fit your "convertible full of screaming monkeys hurtling around the sun" analogy.

But Brownmiller definitely needs psyche help.  :horrormirth:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 05:19:06 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 15, 2012, 05:16:43 PM
Neither mentioned that you could grab a person under the armpits and let their FEET bang the steps. It was one of those moments that perfectly fit your "convertible full of screaming monkeys hurtling around the sun" analogy.

But Brownmiller definitely needs psyche help.  :horrormirth:

1.  And this is exactly why I choose to define feminism not as a movement, but as a value.  I am not required to accept "entrance requirements" or anything like that, to be what I am.

2.  It's a little late.  She died a few years back.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 15, 2012, 05:22:07 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 05:19:06 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 15, 2012, 05:16:43 PM
Neither mentioned that you could grab a person under the armpits and let their FEET bang the steps. It was one of those moments that perfectly fit your "convertible full of screaming monkeys hurtling around the sun" analogy.

But Brownmiller definitely needs psyche help.  :horrormirth:

1.  And this is exactly why I choose to define feminism not as a movement, but as a value.  I am not required to accept "entrance requirements" or anything like that, to be what I am.

Yes. There's feminism, and OTOH, there's the female counterpart to the Little Rascals "He Man Woman Haters Club".

Quote2.  It's a little late.  She died a few years back.

No wonder she's been so quiet.  :lol:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 05:26:57 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 15, 2012, 05:22:07 PM
Yes. There's feminism, and OTOH, there's the female counterpart to the Little Rascals "He Man Woman Haters Club".

We're comparing apples & oranges, here.  The two have nothing in common.  If you hate, distrust, or stick labels all over one gender or group, then you are neither an eglatarian nor a feminist.  You're the opposition.

And it doesn't matter if you're in the "feminists are a bunch of ball-busting man-haters" crowd, or the "men are incapable of understanding" crowd.  The former is obvious, the latter is just as insidious because it places a false condition on the subject.  It is NOT required for me to "experience what being a woman is like", just like it is not required for me to experience what Gays put up with, for me to include them in my view of who counts as "people".

I also have no idea what kids in Mali go through, after all, and I consider them to be humans.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on August 15, 2012, 05:28:51 PM
Quote from: Pixie on August 15, 2012, 03:18:09 PM
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 15, 2012, 02:48:18 PM
I don't read ANYONE in this thread bashing Feminism, big F.  What I see are some expressing that any strain or version of feminism, little f, that is practiced to exclude men because they are men and don't have the experience of being women, is a strain that is probably too insular for it's own good.


I think ANY movement designed to better the lives of any subset of humans can be bettered by having people who aren't necessarily part of the affected group, but who have the passion and the skill sets to advance the cause.  The people from the affected group will have the unique experiential knowledge, but they may not have the advocacy or media savy that an "outsider" would have. 


It just helps to make a well-rounded and robust approach, as anyone who does any kind of grass roots work will tell you.

I agree with this. The people with the privilege and the skills still need to listen to the main core of the movement/s, and take what they say seriously.


And this is, of course, just going to magically happen, regardless of how aggressively or condescendingly the "main core of the movement/s" lay on their education?

also

QuoteOh and Roger, i think most of the last 2 pages were referring to P3nt's take on it, rather than you.  You are a decent guy and it SHOULD be the default position, but in my experience, it's not always the case.

Okay, I have to admit to being a little hurt at this, coming from you. Unlike most of the people involved in this conversation, we've actually spent time in each others company. The fact that you came away from that feeling that I wasn't a decent person? That sticks in my throat a little.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 05:30:24 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 15, 2012, 05:28:51 PM

Okay, I have to admit to being a little hurt at this, coming from you. Unlike most of the people involved in this conversation, we've actually spent time in each others company. The fact that you came away from that feeling that I wasn't a decent person? That sticks in my throat a little.

I know how that feels.  I spent a day with EOC on the East coast, had a great time, and he won't even speak to me.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on August 15, 2012, 05:33:48 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:55:29 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 15, 2012, 04:50:36 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:36:52 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 15, 2012, 04:35:31 PM
Yes but can men join as equals, intellectually and otherwise?

Join what?

the feminist cause, the fight for equality. saying "mens ideas must take a back seat" is like telling straight people they have no business fighting for gay rights, or white people they have no business fighting for racial equality, unless they completely bow out of the conversation and do nothing but show up at rallies and echo what they're told to say.

Eglatarianism (or feminism) isn't something you join.  It's something you ARE and something you DO.

The approval of one faction or another is irrelevant.  I don't care if someone thinks I can only be an "associate member" because of my gender or whatever, because I never joined their group, because there IS NO GROUP.  There are only your own personal beliefs and actions.

I like your take on "egalitarianism". It's a new word for me but it perfectly describes my feelings and approach. Probably why I have little time for feminism or gay rights or equal rights for midgets or whatever, because I lump the whole fucking shooting match together. All I can do is treat everyone on their individual merits and do my best to prevent anyone near me doing the opposite. Anything else is just some kind of bullshit niche crusade with teeshirts and entrance exams and a pecking order which is what I'm fucking opposed to in the first place.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 05:36:57 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 15, 2012, 05:33:48 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:55:29 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 15, 2012, 04:50:36 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:36:52 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 15, 2012, 04:35:31 PM
Yes but can men join as equals, intellectually and otherwise?

Join what?

the feminist cause, the fight for equality. saying "mens ideas must take a back seat" is like telling straight people they have no business fighting for gay rights, or white people they have no business fighting for racial equality, unless they completely bow out of the conversation and do nothing but show up at rallies and echo what they're told to say.

Eglatarianism (or feminism) isn't something you join.  It's something you ARE and something you DO.

The approval of one faction or another is irrelevant.  I don't care if someone thinks I can only be an "associate member" because of my gender or whatever, because I never joined their group, because there IS NO GROUP.  There are only your own personal beliefs and actions.

I like your take on "egalitarianism". It's a new word for me but it perfectly describes my feelings and approach. Probably why I have little time for feminism or gay rights or equal rights for midgets or whatever, because I lump the whole fucking shooting match together. All I can do is treat everyone on their individual merits and do my best to prevent anyone near me doing the opposite. Anything else is just some kind of bullshit niche crusade with teeshirts and entrance exams and a pecking order which is what I'm fucking opposed to in the first place.

And that's why it has to be a VALUE and not a CRUSADE.  Crusades are bigger than people, and people around them get ground up into hamburger.  Or maybe not.  Maybe they are merely judged and found wanting...Unfit for civilized company.  Not human.

Which defeats the whole fucking point.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 05:39:03 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 15, 2012, 04:42:25 PM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 15, 2012, 02:22:07 PM
"Hey there, I see that you're currently victim to the horrors of Auschwitz. I can imagine how that must feel for you. While not a resident myself,  I am going to tell you all about Auschwitz as the local authority on Auschwitz. What's that? No, I think you're wrong about that detail. Why does that upset you? How come your side of the Auschwitz yay or nay argument is the best and I have to listen to you? If you want your situation to get better, you need to be more respectful towards people who aren't in Auschwitz when they explain Auschwitz to you.What do you mean I can't be an official Auschwitz ally if I go about misrepresenting Auschwitz and insist that the interpretation from within is somehow invalid?" to expand on the already fairly dangerous comparison.

Roger, I'm not reading that into it at all. Maybe I'm more familiar with the positions being represented here and there's a miscommunication I'm reading past. Comparing quotes of statements to those of replies and interpretations is a bit beyond the capabilities of my phone, but the thread reads like "men can absolutely be helpful and involved but cannot be primary sources on the experiences of women", "hey, fuck you for excluding me."

YES! Thank you, Paes!

Except that what Paes said had jack shit to do with what I was saying.

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 15, 2012, 05:46:32 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 05:26:57 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 15, 2012, 05:22:07 PM
Yes. There's feminism, and OTOH, there's the female counterpart to the Little Rascals "He Man Woman Haters Club".

We're comparing apples & oranges, here.  The two have nothing in common.  If you hate, distrust, or stick labels all over one gender or group, then you are neither an eglatarian nor a feminist.  You're the opposition.

Yep.

In my worst days of getting keys made for the kids and going to work right about the time school was letting out, still for less money than the guys were making (while not *quite* qualifying for food stamps), I went a little crazy. I had a conspiracy theory that people like Steinem and Thomas were some kind of moles put in place to make us WORSE off.

I doubt now that it was calculated. But I don't think the CEO's particularly minded either.

QuoteAnd it doesn't matter if you're in the "feminists are a bunch of ball-busting man-haters" crowd, or the "men are incapable of understanding" crowd.  The former is obvious, the latter is just as insidious because it places a false condition on the subject.  It is NOT required for me to "experience what being a woman is like", just like it is not required for me to experience what Gays put up with, for me to include them in my view of who counts as "people".

I also have no idea what kids in Mali go through, after all, and I consider them to be humans.

Agreed. I was never hung on a fence and tortured to death. Doesn't mean anybody can tell me to STFU about Matthew Sheppard.

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Salty on August 15, 2012, 05:54:53 PM
So, if y'all don't mind backing up just a moment...

A cis man is someone who identifies as masculine, as opposed to, say, me who expresses a fair amount of neutral androgyny (I yo-yo, what can I say?). Is that right?

Question: what role in this carefully worded isolation do masculine gay men play?

I am pretty firmly set in thinking that the struggles women face, the struggles feminism fights, is based in the exact same fight that queer people of all kinds are involved in.

Now, clearly, "straight acting" gay men had an advantage in that they can actually pretend they're something they're not, due to their acceptable appearance. Take in contrast a very delicate, feminine, male. They have historically had a much harder time blending in and thus are more of a target. They have in fact been killed for little reason beyond their existence.

If we are separating people out, and I'm not so sure we shouldn't be wouldn't especially feminine men who cannot simply control their appearance or mannerisms be in a less privileged place than women? After all, if women are seen as objects and treated as such, isn't that much better than being seen as an abomination that ought to be eradicated?

This isn't a game of Who's Got It Worse, of course. I'm just spinning my wheels here.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 06:01:00 PM
Quote from: Alty on August 15, 2012, 05:54:53 PM
So, if y'all don't mind backing up just a moment...

A cis man is someone who identifies as masculine, as opposed to, say, me who expresses a fair amount of neutral androgyny (I yo-yo, what can I say?). Is that right?

Dunno.  CIS was explained to me as the shiny new label for people who are straight.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pope Pixie Pickle on August 15, 2012, 06:02:40 PM
I'm quite fond of Gloria Stienem's quote "The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off!"

Quote from: v3x on August 15, 2012, 04:10:13 PM
Being oppressed is traumatic and obviously terrible. But it also can have the effect of turning people sour and seeking revenge. This is fact, and nobody is above it. See: ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY. Being oppressed does not lend itself to giving a balanced view of the situation even if that oppression ends. Whole nations of humans have formed for the specific purpose of seeking revenge for oppression - and they do it, and they're no better than their oppressors were, but they don't see it, because their ability to be fair has been violated and destroyed by the original oppression.

I'm not saying feminism is necessarily going to go down this path, but it's possible (and you can't really say it's impossible without being self-righteous and just plain wrong). So it seems to me that feminism needs detached, outside opinions and observations in order to keep that possibility in check.

Saying things like "men don't/can't understand" or "a man's view is inherently inferior or inadequate" or that it must "take a back seat" to a woman's opinions is evidence of that counter-oppressive possibility.

Um, no, dude. We are saying that often (not all the time and not by all men) our experiences are minimised and brushed off as Not That Big A Deal, (see Street Harrassment, Mr Handsy deemed "harmless", being told that the boy in class when your six is hitting you because "he likes you".) because of this factor, and society treating angry women as something not to be taken seriously or "PERIODS LOL!" that the net effect of this is that although I DEARLY WOULD LOVE MEN TO BE MORE FEMINIST/ PRO-FEMINIST and decent dudes, there is a history of being marginalised, and that more of the same isn't what we want.  Hence the listening/taking a back seat/letting women frame the goals.  It's like planning moving house and telling someone where all the stuff needs to go, they may be doing all the heavy lifting, but if they ignore me and put the sofa in the kitchen I'm screwed if they leave and don't put it right.  Ok that analogy sucked a little.  All I would like from guys involved with feminism is that they recognise the marginalisation, and try not to let there be more of the same in their actions and those around them.

As for guys informing on feminist issues, it was Roger's comments and experience of porn stars and how the life can seriously fuck them up that started me questioning if porn was something I wanted to consume and therefore be complicit in.  I decided no "DO NOT WANT!" and have since been fapping to pictures of James Iha in a dress. :fap: I'm not for censorship, and if I was 100% without a doubt sure that "no porn stars were hurt in this production" like the RSPCA does with animals in films I could watch enthusiastic people fucking who have a connection based on mutual respect and fap my brains out, rather than worrying if the girl getting double-penetrated in the ass is coked up to cope or in danger of getting HIV. :vom:  I've been educated on these kinds of things by men, having a penis is not a bar to being ethical and decent.

Dudes in feminism (I'm hoping there will be some blokes in dresses! With Beards, because that is HAWT!) can speak to other dudes about Shit That Is Not OK when it comes to rape culture and wage gap and like Roger's examples of Shit He Will Not Tolerate, because for a long time its been a bit like David Cameron telling Nadine Dorries to "Calm down, dear!" when she got wound up in Parliament. (the fact that she's a anti-choicer advocating abstinence only sex ed for girls is infuriating as his attitude, but hey..) The wage gap would drop pretty quickly if household chores and childcare were more equitable, and the custody of kids in a divorce would change and be more in favour of joint custody, and boys who like wearing dresses and playing with dolls will get the same treatment as girls who are tomboys.

Maybe the anger and frustration at being marginalised and not taken seriously has coloured my view and the view of feminists, hence the need to be listened to and taken seriously.

I wholeheartedly want men to engage with feminism, to help us speak truth to power, because in some cases that is the only way to access the boys club mentality of some men and people in power, and the only way to affect social change.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 06:19:02 PM
Quote from: Pixie on August 15, 2012, 06:02:40 PM
As for guys informing on feminist issues, it was Roger's comments and experience of porn stars and how the life can seriously fuck them up that started me questioning if porn was something I wanted to consume and therefore be complicit in.  I decided no "DO NOT WANT!" and have since been fapping to pictures of James Iha in a dress. :fap: I'm not for censorship, and if I was 100% without a doubt sure that "no porn stars were hurt in this production" like the RSPCA does with animals in films I could watch enthusiastic people fucking who have a connection based on mutual respect and fap my brains out, rather than worrying if the girl getting double-penetrated in the ass is coked up to cope or in danger of getting HIV. :vom:  I've been educated on these kinds of things by men, having a penis is not a bar to being ethical and decent.

That's not even really about male vs female.  It is simply wrong to traffic in human misery.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on August 15, 2012, 06:29:21 PM
Quote from: Pixie on August 15, 2012, 06:02:40 PM
I'm quite fond of Gloria Stienem's quote "The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off!"

Quote from: v3x on August 15, 2012, 04:10:13 PM
Being oppressed is traumatic and obviously terrible. But it also can have the effect of turning people sour and seeking revenge. This is fact, and nobody is above it. See: ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY. Being oppressed does not lend itself to giving a balanced view of the situation even if that oppression ends. Whole nations of humans have formed for the specific purpose of seeking revenge for oppression - and they do it, and they're no better than their oppressors were, but they don't see it, because their ability to be fair has been violated and destroyed by the original oppression.

I'm not saying feminism is necessarily going to go down this path, but it's possible (and you can't really say it's impossible without being self-righteous and just plain wrong). So it seems to me that feminism needs detached, outside opinions and observations in order to keep that possibility in check.

Saying things like "men don't/can't understand" or "a man's view is inherently inferior or inadequate" or that it must "take a back seat" to a woman's opinions is evidence of that counter-oppressive possibility.

Um, no, dude. We are saying that often (not all the time and not by all men) our experiences are minimised and brushed off as Not That Big A Deal, (see Street Harrassment, Mr Handsy deemed "harmless", being told that the boy in class when your six is hitting you because "he likes you".) because of this factor, and society treating angry women as something not to be taken seriously or "PERIODS LOL!" that the net effect of this is that although I DEARLY WOULD LOVE MEN TO BE MORE FEMINIST/ PRO-FEMINIST and decent dudes, there is a history of being marginalised, and that more of the same isn't what we want.  Hence the listening/taking a back seat/letting women frame the goals.  It's like planning moving house and telling someone where all the stuff needs to go, they may be doing all the heavy lifting, but if they ignore me and put the sofa in the kitchen I'm screwed if they leave and don't put it right.  Ok that analogy sucked a little.  All I would like from guys involved with feminism is that they recognise the marginalisation, and try not to let there be more of the same in their actions and those around them.

As for guys informing on feminist issues, it was Roger's comments and experience of porn stars and how the life can seriously fuck them up that started me questioning if porn was something I wanted to consume and therefore be complicit in.  I decided no "DO NOT WANT!" and have since been fapping to pictures of James Iha in a dress. :fap: I'm not for censorship, and if I was 100% without a doubt sure that "no porn stars were hurt in this production" like the RSPCA does with animals in films I could watch enthusiastic people fucking who have a connection based on mutual respect and fap my brains out, rather than worrying if the girl getting double-penetrated in the ass is coked up to cope or in danger of getting HIV. :vom:  I've been educated on these kinds of things by men, having a penis is not a bar to being ethical and decent.

Dudes in feminism (I'm hoping there will be some blokes in dresses! With Beards, because that is HAWT!) can speak to other dudes about Shit That Is Not OK when it comes to rape culture and wage gap and like Roger's examples of Shit He Will Not Tolerate, because for a long time its been a bit like David Cameron telling Nadine Dorries to "Calm down, dear!" when she got wound up in Parliament. (the fact that she's a anti-choicer advocating abstinence only sex ed for girls is infuriating as his attitude, but hey..) The wage gap would drop pretty quickly if household chores and childcare were more equitable, and the custody of kids in a divorce would change and be more in favour of joint custody, and boys who like wearing dresses and playing with dolls will get the same treatment as girls who are tomboys.

Maybe the anger and frustration at being marginalised and not taken seriously has coloured my view and the view of feminists, hence the need to be listened to and taken seriously.

I wholeheartedly want men to engage with feminism, to help us speak truth to power, because in some cases that is the only way to access the boys club mentality of some men and people in power, and the only way to affect social change.


Maybe it's not a matter of "speaking truth to power"?

If you're going to bring power into this (which I suppose makes perfect sense) then I'm pretty much as marginalised as you are. I'm a guy, I have all the "privileges" as you put it. I'm living the life of Riley, right? I'm one of the elite. I'm a hard as fuck, asskicking testosterone machine, marching on the skeletons of women. Only I'm not. I grew up in a fucking shithole where the girls were harder than most men I associate with nowadays. Disputes were solved almost exclusively with violence and you either learned to fight or you didn't make it out of there alive.

By the time I went to secondary school my card was already marked. I was one of those Westquarter kids. We were lumped together in the same form class, along with the kids from the other local blackspots. When kids from the other classes were being given careers advice meetings and told to go to university and shit, we were being told that half of us would end up in prison. As far as I'm aware, more than half of us did.

So yeah, I'm part of the elite. I have no idea what it feels like to be discriminated against. I have nothing in common with some poor oppressed woman who's only on a paltry ten times my salary, as opposed to her husband who's nearer twenty times.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pope Pixie Pickle on August 15, 2012, 06:30:26 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 15, 2012, 05:28:51 PM
Quote from: Pixie on August 15, 2012, 03:18:09 PM
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 15, 2012, 02:48:18 PM
I don't read ANYONE in this thread bashing Feminism, big F.  What I see are some expressing that any strain or version of feminism, little f, that is practiced to exclude men because they are men and don't have the experience of being women, is a strain that is probably too insular for it's own good.


I think ANY movement designed to better the lives of any subset of humans can be bettered by having people who aren't necessarily part of the affected group, but who have the passion and the skill sets to advance the cause.  The people from the affected group will have the unique experiential knowledge, but they may not have the advocacy or media savy that an "outsider" would have. 


It just helps to make a well-rounded and robust approach, as anyone who does any kind of grass roots work will tell you.

I agree with this. The people with the privilege and the skills still need to listen to the main core of the movement/s, and take what they say seriously.


And this is, of course, just going to magically happen, regardless of how aggressively or condescendingly the "main core of the movement/s" lay on their education?

also

QuoteOh and Roger, i think most of the last 2 pages were referring to P3nt's take on it, rather than you.  You are a decent guy and it SHOULD be the default position, but in my experience, it's not always the case.

Okay, I have to admit to being a little hurt at this, coming from you. Unlike most of the people involved in this conversation, we've actually spent time in each others company. The fact that you came away from that feeling that I wasn't a decent person? That sticks in my throat a little.

Gah. I am sucking at the communication today, sorry. Either that or every fucker including me has their hackles up and it's going a bit ook.

I trust you P3nt, you were wicked supportive when I got all brain sick, and I don't think you are a bad person. Uncomprehendingly Scottish, and a little scary looking, but a good dude. :P  If I was ever in a bar with a Mr Handsy-Gropey in your vicinity I'd totally want you there if me kicking off and being all shouty wasn't enough to get someone to back off.

I mentioned why I felt that guys involved with feminism need to listen to women in feminism, because of the history of marginalisation, in the last post I made.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 06:01:00 PM
Quote from: Alty on August 15, 2012, 05:54:53 PM
So, if y'all don't mind backing up just a moment...

A cis man is someone who identifies as masculine, as opposed to, say, me who expresses a fair amount of neutral androgyny (I yo-yo, what can I say?). Is that right?

Dunno.  CIS was explained to me as the shiny new label for people who are straight.
no, Cis (cisgender) is those who identify with the gender they were assigned at birth. the opposite of Trans (transgender) and the GenderQueer peoples kind of oscillate around in the middle.

I view gender as a social construct, to be honest, and it would be nice to get to a stage where these distinctions didn't matter diddly fucking squat. But we live in a society that does enforce gender roles, and those who feel that they don't fit what they were told is male/female and identify  somewhere else on the gender identity spectrum can have a pretty shitty time of it.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 06:34:48 PM
Quote from: Pixie on August 15, 2012, 06:30:26 PM
I mentioned why I felt that guys involved with feminism need to listen to women in feminism, because of the history of marginalisation, in the last post I made.

But we don't.  At least, I don't.

I have listened to individuals (Garbo and Nigel) who have pointed out flaws in my worldview.  On occasion, I have changed my worldview.

But it wasn't because they were women.  It was because they were right and I was wrong.

And I don't need to listen to anyone about anything to be an elgatarianist.  I have a very firm view there, based on entirely different experiences than you've had...That has informed me of everything I need to know, in the simplest terms possible.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 06:36:45 PM
Quote from: Pixie on August 15, 2012, 06:30:26 PM
no, Cis (cisgender) is those who identify with the gender they were assigned at birth. the opposite of Trans (transgender) and the GenderQueer peoples kind of oscillate around in the middle.

They are still unnecessary labels.  At least they are unnecessary to me.  Telling me about someone's orientation is like telling me they're left or right handed.  It is irrelevant.  Not because I'm some tremendously advanced progressive something or other, but because I don't care.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 15, 2012, 06:43:24 PM
Quote from: Pixie on August 15, 2012, 06:02:40 PM
I'm quite fond of Gloria Stienem's quote "The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off!"

I'd like it better if it had come from someplace less batshit than Steinemville.  :lol: Coming from her, it reminds me of Fizzly Grizzly: "HURR HURR, U MAD?" She's always had a tendency to dig her heels in and come up with some kind of slogan or bullshit when she's got nothing else. See my other post with the Stossell interview. A woman can be an effective firefighter and find ways of working around the upper-body strength thing, but she's not a better firefighter than a man simply because she's a woman, in spite what Steinem was trying to argue.

Quote
Quote from: v3x on August 15, 2012, 04:10:13 PM
Being oppressed is traumatic and obviously terrible. But it also can have the effect of turning people sour and seeking revenge. This is fact, and nobody is above it. See: ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY. Being oppressed does not lend itself to giving a balanced view of the situation even if that oppression ends. Whole nations of humans have formed for the specific purpose of seeking revenge for oppression - and they do it, and they're no better than their oppressors were, but they don't see it, because their ability to be fair has been violated and destroyed by the original oppression.

I'm not saying feminism is necessarily going to go down this path, but it's possible (and you can't really say it's impossible without being self-righteous and just plain wrong). So it seems to me that feminism needs detached, outside opinions and observations in order to keep that possibility in check.

Saying things like "men don't/can't understand" or "a man's view is inherently inferior or inadequate" or that it must "take a back seat" to a woman's opinions is evidence of that counter-oppressive possibility.

Um, no, dude. We are saying that often (not all the time and not by all men) our experiences are minimised and brushed off as Not That Big A Deal, (see Street Harrassment, Mr Handsy deemed "harmless", being told that the boy in class when your six is hitting you because "he likes you".) because of this factor, and society treating angry women as something not to be taken seriously or "PERIODS LOL!" that the net effect of this is that although I DEARLY WOULD LOVE MEN TO BE MORE FEMINIST/ PRO-FEMINIST and decent dudes, there is a history of being marginalised, and that more of the same isn't what we want.  Hence the listening/taking a back seat/letting women frame the goals.  It's like planning moving house and telling someone where all the stuff needs to go, they may be doing all the heavy lifting, but if they ignore me and put the sofa in the kitchen I'm screwed if they leave and don't put it right.  Ok that analogy sucked a little.  All I would like from guys involved with feminism is that they recognise the marginalisation, and try not to let there be more of the same in their actions and those around them.

Everybody's experiences get "minimised and brushed off as Not That Big A Deal". Switch the six year olds and the boy who is being tormented by a girl is not only told that "she likes him", but possibly ridiculed for "whining" about it.

If the sofa is in the kitchen, I can push and drag it to where I want it. It's harder for me, but I'm not "screwed". I got a fucking pool table across the street a few weeks ago, FFS. The next day my daughter and another woman packed it up the steps and left it in the kitchen. This had nothing to do with me being a woman. I now have a bigass pool table in the kitchen, and when it cools off a bit here, I'll turn it sideways and shove it through a couple of doorways to the front room. Or just find some guys to move it. We don't always put stuff where guys want it, either. I can't attibute every incident of people not listening to sexism.

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pope Pixie Pickle on August 15, 2012, 06:52:42 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 15, 2012, 06:29:21 PM
Quote from: Pixie on August 15, 2012, 06:02:40 PM
I'm quite fond of Gloria Stienem's quote "The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off!"

Quote from: v3x on August 15, 2012, 04:10:13 PM
Being oppressed is traumatic and obviously terrible. But it also can have the effect of turning people sour and seeking revenge. This is fact, and nobody is above it. See: ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY. Being oppressed does not lend itself to giving a balanced view of the situation even if that oppression ends. Whole nations of humans have formed for the specific purpose of seeking revenge for oppression - and they do it, and they're no better than their oppressors were, but they don't see it, because their ability to be fair has been violated and destroyed by the original oppression.

I'm not saying feminism is necessarily going to go down this path, but it's possible (and you can't really say it's impossible without being self-righteous and just plain wrong). So it seems to me that feminism needs detached, outside opinions and observations in order to keep that possibility in check.

Saying things like "men don't/can't understand" or "a man's view is inherently inferior or inadequate" or that it must "take a back seat" to a woman's opinions is evidence of that counter-oppressive possibility.

Um, no, dude. We are saying that often (not all the time and not by all men) our experiences are minimised and brushed off as Not That Big A Deal, (see Street Harrassment, Mr Handsy deemed "harmless", being told that the boy in class when your six is hitting you because "he likes you".) because of this factor, and society treating angry women as something not to be taken seriously or "PERIODS LOL!" that the net effect of this is that although I DEARLY WOULD LOVE MEN TO BE MORE FEMINIST/ PRO-FEMINIST and decent dudes, there is a history of being marginalised, and that more of the same isn't what we want.  Hence the listening/taking a back seat/letting women frame the goals.  It's like planning moving house and telling someone where all the stuff needs to go, they may be doing all the heavy lifting, but if they ignore me and put the sofa in the kitchen I'm screwed if they leave and don't put it right.  Ok that analogy sucked a little.  All I would like from guys involved with feminism is that they recognise the marginalisation, and try not to let there be more of the same in their actions and those around them.

As for guys informing on feminist issues, it was Roger's comments and experience of porn stars and how the life can seriously fuck them up that started me questioning if porn was something I wanted to consume and therefore be complicit in.  I decided no "DO NOT WANT!" and have since been fapping to pictures of James Iha in a dress. :fap: I'm not for censorship, and if I was 100% without a doubt sure that "no porn stars were hurt in this production" like the RSPCA does with animals in films I could watch enthusiastic people fucking who have a connection based on mutual respect and fap my brains out, rather than worrying if the girl getting double-penetrated in the ass is coked up to cope or in danger of getting HIV. :vom:  I've been educated on these kinds of things by men, having a penis is not a bar to being ethical and decent.

Dudes in feminism (I'm hoping there will be some blokes in dresses! With Beards, because that is HAWT!) can speak to other dudes about Shit That Is Not OK when it comes to rape culture and wage gap and like Roger's examples of Shit He Will Not Tolerate, because for a long time its been a bit like David Cameron telling Nadine Dorries to "Calm down, dear!" when she got wound up in Parliament. (the fact that she's a anti-choicer advocating abstinence only sex ed for girls is infuriating as his attitude, but hey..) The wage gap would drop pretty quickly if household chores and childcare were more equitable, and the custody of kids in a divorce would change and be more in favour of joint custody, and boys who like wearing dresses and playing with dolls will get the same treatment as girls who are tomboys.

Maybe the anger and frustration at being marginalised and not taken seriously has coloured my view and the view of feminists, hence the need to be listened to and taken seriously.

I wholeheartedly want men to engage with feminism, to help us speak truth to power, because in some cases that is the only way to access the boys club mentality of some men and people in power, and the only way to affect social change.


Maybe it's not a matter of "speaking truth to power"?

If you're going to bring power into this (which I suppose makes perfect sense) then I'm pretty much as marginalised as you are. I'm a guy, I have all the "privileges" as you put it. I'm living the life of Riley, right? I'm one of the elite. I'm a hard as fuck, asskicking testosterone machine, marching on the skeletons of women. Only I'm not. I grew up in a fucking shithole where the girls were harder than most men I associate with nowadays. Disputes were solved almost exclusively with violence and you either learned to fight or you didn't make it out of there alive.

By the time I went to secondary school my card was already marked. I was one of those Westquarter kids. We were lumped together in the same form class, along with the kids from the other local blackspots. When kids from the other classes were being given careers advice meetings and told to go to university and shit, we were being told that half of us would end up in prison. As far as I'm aware, more than half of us did.

So yeah, I'm part of the elite. I have no idea what it feels like to be discriminated against. I have nothing in common with some poor oppressed woman who's only on a paltry ten times my salary, as opposed to her husband who's nearer twenty times.

This is where sliding scales of privilege come in, and the concept of Kyriarchy. I'm a socialist before I'm a feminist, and socio-economic conditions and access to a decent education is fucking important.  I use Kyriarchy as a concept far more often than I use patriarchy, as it's got much more room for nuance.

http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2008/04/kyriarchy_not_p

this is a good quote about patriarchy from the comments page of that blog.

QuotePatriarchy never meant 'men are the oppressors, and no other form of oppression matters'.
It means 'rule of the fathers', not rule of men. It does refer to the concept of a small group of rich, mostly white, able-bodied etc. men ruling over other men as well as women.
This allows for the fact that some women have privileges over others, too, but women as a group have in general less privilege than men as a group, I think.

What I mean about "speaking truth to power" is that some dudes with privilege (and as a dude from a rough spot in town who has had similar health problems to me, you don't really have that kind of privilege, on that level, we probably are close on the spectrum, we have more in common than a rich white girl who went to Oxford, that's for fucking sure.) who are involved with feminism are more likely to be taken seriously than I am, or you are, on certain things.

Am I explaining myself better now? 
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on August 15, 2012, 07:00:17 PM
Quote from: Pixie on August 15, 2012, 06:52:42 PM
What I mean about "speaking truth to power" is that some dudes with privilege (and as a dude from a rough spot in town who has had similar health problems to me, you don't really have that kind of privilege, on that level, we probably are close on the spectrum, we have more in common than a rich white girl who went to Oxford, that's for fucking sure.) who are involved with feminism are more likely to be taken seriously than I am, or you are, on certain things.

Am I explaining myself better now?

Totally. Now we're both on exactly the same fucking page, from what I can tell and all it took was to get rid of "feminism" and replace it with the much broader brush of "equality". Not equality for women. Equality for everybody. The acceptance that everyone, men, women, blacks, jews, gays and straight people are marginalised and discriminated against in a million different ways, every minute of every day. The fact that you have an innie, rather than an outie does not give you exclusivity over being shit on. We're all in the same fucking boat!
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bu🤠ns on August 15, 2012, 07:01:51 PM
It seems to me that it's not necessarily about male vs. female so much as it's about the way in which Patriarchy hurts both males and females.  What doesn't really work for me is how there's this term, "male tears" that seems to be assumed when someone brings up the idea that men too are hurt by Patriarchy. 

Being a male, the idea of fully egalitarian viewpoint, makes more sense than only focusing on the effects of a patriarchal society has on women.  It seems that the opposition isn't just men or even misogynistic men, but it's ourselves and our own fundamental assumptions about each of our roles in our society. 

To be perfectly clear, after reading this thread (and some other sources), I'm fully convinced that feminism raises legitimate concerns.  This fight involves everyone but the dynamic of how it affects men and how it affects women is what differs.  And, thus far, it seems women definitely get hurt to a larger extent.  To reach that egalitarian ideal, however, it's about finding ways to address both sides.

I have to admit, though, I'm not fully convinced of this notion of 'male privilege'. Please understand, I believe it exists in many forms, i.e. the pay rate and the concept of a rape culture to name a (big) few. But it looks like the way it's measured leaves out of the further reaching consequences of it's role in oppressing men (read: all of society) as well. This thread is about exposing how Patriarchy hurts men also.  This isn't 'male tears' because the following examples directly or indirectly also hurt females based on their ensuing behaviors.

-lack of male nurses
-the lack of male teachers
-how it's 'unmanly' to show emotions
-male sexual and domestic assault victims
-the lack of a balanced household of a father who is never around (anecdotal, but still)
-the fact that men are more likely to be recruited into the military to die for the country.
-expectation to 'man up'
-nice guy syndrome (or undefined expectations resulting in manipulative behavior).
-promotion of binary gender roles.
-sexual prowess as a measure of one's worth.

In all, I have to question a lot of the buzzwords associated with feminism.  If this really is the age of Third Wave feminism, a lot of the terms resonate with first and second wave.  I don't propose to get rid of any of them, but I definitely think that it would immensely help to define the terms more carefully. 

The oppressed are largely female but not exclusively. 

And the fight, isn't against another group but against our own basic assumptions.

So please to deconstruct.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bu🤠ns on August 15, 2012, 07:07:18 PM
Okay i just read about kyriarchy and, once again I'm back to the drawing board....so nevermind what I just said.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 15, 2012, 07:13:59 PM
I like this term Kyriarchy. It seems to describe the far more complex and shifting reality, as compared to the more static perception that feminism, racism, etc lend themselves to.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on August 15, 2012, 07:20:46 PM
So in response to the OP - Patriarchy is not the enemy. Patriarchy is one of the tools of oppression that the actual enemy uses to keep us down, to keep us fighting amongst ourselves. Contrary to popular belief patriarchy does not empower all men to the exclusion of all women. Some women are a fucking sight better off than some men.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Salty on August 15, 2012, 07:22:30 PM
What I like most about this thread is how I often feel like I'm barely keeping my fingertips above the waterline. And I need to read a lot more.

It's also fun to watch the horrible, congealed, toxic slug-like creature that is PD (that's how I always picture it) react to these ideas.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 07:23:06 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 15, 2012, 07:20:46 PM
So in response to the OP - Patriarchy is not the enemy. Patriarchy is one of the tools of oppression that the actual enemy uses to keep us down, to keep us fighting amongst ourselves. Contrary to popular belief patriarchy does not empower all men to the exclusion of all women. Some women are a fucking sight better off than some men.

Yes, but the overall trend is that women have it a lot worse than men.

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 07:24:54 PM
Quote from: Alty on August 15, 2012, 07:22:30 PM
What I like most about this thread is how I often feel like I'm barely keeping my fingertips above the waterline. And I need to read a lot more.

It's also fun to watch the horrible, congealed, toxic slug-like creature that is PD (that's how I always picture it) react to these ideas.

What I like most about this thread is that I presented an idea, and was told that what I REALLY meant was something else.  And then everyone came along to agree vehemently with what an ass I am for the belief I didn't have.  So I clarified my position, and it was totally ignored.

I'm fuming fucking mad, and I have been since this morning.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bu🤠ns on August 15, 2012, 07:28:37 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 07:24:54 PM
Quote from: Alty on August 15, 2012, 07:22:30 PM
What I like most about this thread is how I often feel like I'm barely keeping my fingertips above the waterline. And I need to read a lot more.

It's also fun to watch the horrible, congealed, toxic slug-like creature that is PD (that's how I always picture it) react to these ideas.

What I like most about this thread is that I presented an idea, and was told that what I REALLY meant was something else.  And then everyone came along to agree vehemently with what an ass I am for the belief I didn't have.  So I clarified my position, and it was totally ignored.

I'm fuming fucking mad, and I have been since this morning.

FTR, the idea you presented about egalitarianism and it's role in feminism created a dynamic shift in my brain toward my overall attitude toward feminism in general.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Salty on August 15, 2012, 07:29:28 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 07:24:54 PM
Quote from: Alty on August 15, 2012, 07:22:30 PM
What I like most about this thread is how I often feel like I'm barely keeping my fingertips above the waterline. And I need to read a lot more.

It's also fun to watch the horrible, congealed, toxic slug-like creature that is PD (that's how I always picture it) react to these ideas.

What I like most about this thread is that I presented an idea, and was told that what I REALLY meant was something else.  And then everyone came along to agree vehemently with what an ass I am for the belief I didn't have.  So I clarified my position, and it was totally ignored.

I'm fuming fucking mad, and I have been since this morning.

Hm, I've been on the run so I haven't read the whole thread.
I have this feeling about this word Cis, though. A though actually. And it's a bit rambly but essentially boils down to:

Yeah no. 

I generally lump humans into three categories:
Would take on exudos ship with me.
Would feel bad about definitely leaving behind.
And
Would not piss out the airlock to put out if were left trapped on burning planet.

I thought I had, on this very forum, attained the understanding that your meat is not who you are. In fact, I thought the primary objective of feminism was to live in a society where people are judged by their brains as opposed to their genitals. Within that is the nuanced idea that you can't even judge people on the genitals they EXPRESS whether they have them or not. 

Because people are more complicated than straight* dichotomy allows. cis vs trans is an important tool of discussion, to be sure. But how easily does it transfer to an idea shaped more like cabbage vs non cabbage. 

I mean, if we are going to use linguistic tools to separate people into groups of lesser than capable of certain qualities based on the external expression of their genitals...

Why don't we begin with listing all the way in which a vagina puts one at a disadvantage when performing certain tasks and functions of society and eliminate them based on practical reasons why those "disadvantages" are incorrect. 

Personally, I'd rather just give everyone an equal opportunity and then let the more capable rise to the top. That above scenario offends me because it implies a need for one whole group of people offer proof of their lack of assumed deficiencies BEFORE they have opportunity. It's not fair to ask of anyone. 

Because as far as I can tell people are either capable, or they aren't. Capable of understanding, capable of acting, capable of giving a shit, or not. 

So, when you say cis man this, trans girl that I mostly tune out. Unless they're getting beat to death. In which case, again, I'm less than concerned with the way they express their genitals. 

If: "You are what you do." then WTF?

Gender is so much more complicated than that dichotomy. 

Naturally men have to listen to women about feminism. But to not allow for EQUAL two way traffic there seems totally fucking stupid. 


*lol
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 07:31:34 PM
Quote from: Bu☆ns on August 15, 2012, 07:28:37 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 07:24:54 PM
Quote from: Alty on August 15, 2012, 07:22:30 PM
What I like most about this thread is how I often feel like I'm barely keeping my fingertips above the waterline. And I need to read a lot more.

It's also fun to watch the horrible, congealed, toxic slug-like creature that is PD (that's how I always picture it) react to these ideas.

What I like most about this thread is that I presented an idea, and was told that what I REALLY meant was something else.  And then everyone came along to agree vehemently with what an ass I am for the belief I didn't have.  So I clarified my position, and it was totally ignored.

I'm fuming fucking mad, and I have been since this morning.

FTR, the idea you presented about egalitarianism and it's role in feminism created a dynamic shift in my brain toward my overall attitude toward feminism in general.

That's not quite what I was concentrating on.  I was concentrating on the fact that it has to be a personal value, not a crusade.  Personal values lead to principled stands.  Crusades lead to exclusionary thinking at best.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pope Pixie Pickle on August 15, 2012, 07:33:55 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 06:34:48 PM
Quote from: Pixie on August 15, 2012, 06:30:26 PM
I mentioned why I felt that guys involved with feminism need to listen to women in feminism, because of the history of marginalisation, in the last post I made.

But we don't.  At least, I don't.

I have listened to individuals (Garbo and Nigel) who have pointed out flaws in my worldview.  On occasion, I have changed my worldview.

But it wasn't because they were women.  It was because they were right and I was wrong.

And I don't need to listen to anyone about anything to be an elgatarianist.  I have a very firm view there, based on entirely different experiences than you've had...That has informed me of everything I need to know, in the simplest terms possible.

PeeDee is a place that listens to others experiences, and thinks on them. It's why I've been here over 3 years.   

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 15, 2012, 06:43:24 PM
Quote from: Pixie on August 15, 2012, 06:02:40 PM
I'm quite fond of Gloria Stienem's quote "The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off!"

I'd like it better if it had come from someplace less batshit than Steinemville.  :lol: Coming from her, it reminds me of Fizzly Grizzly: "HURR HURR, U MAD?" She's always had a tendency to dig her heels in and come up with some kind of slogan or bullshit when she's got nothing else. See my other post with the Stossell interview. A woman can be an effective firefighter and find ways of working around the upper-body strength thing, but she's not a better firefighter than a man simply because she's a woman, in spite what Steinem was trying to argue.

Quote
Quote from: v3x on August 15, 2012, 04:10:13 PM
Being oppressed is traumatic and obviously terrible. But it also can have the effect of turning people sour and seeking revenge. This is fact, and nobody is above it. See: ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY. Being oppressed does not lend itself to giving a balanced view of the situation even if that oppression ends. Whole nations of humans have formed for the specific purpose of seeking revenge for oppression - and they do it, and they're no better than their oppressors were, but they don't see it, because their ability to be fair has been violated and destroyed by the original oppression.

I'm not saying feminism is necessarily going to go down this path, but it's possible (and you can't really say it's impossible without being self-righteous and just plain wrong). So it seems to me that feminism needs detached, outside opinions and observations in order to keep that possibility in check.

Saying things like "men don't/can't understand" or "a man's view is inherently inferior or inadequate" or that it must "take a back seat" to a woman's opinions is evidence of that counter-oppressive possibility.

Um, no, dude. We are saying that often (not all the time and not by all men) our experiences are minimised and brushed off as Not That Big A Deal, (see Street Harrassment, Mr Handsy deemed "harmless", being told that the boy in class when your six is hitting you because "he likes you".) because of this factor, and society treating angry women as something not to be taken seriously or "PERIODS LOL!" that the net effect of this is that although I DEARLY WOULD LOVE MEN TO BE MORE FEMINIST/ PRO-FEMINIST and decent dudes, there is a history of being marginalised, and that more of the same isn't what we want.  Hence the listening/taking a back seat/letting women frame the goals.  It's like planning moving house and telling someone where all the stuff needs to go, they may be doing all the heavy lifting, but if they ignore me and put the sofa in the kitchen I'm screwed if they leave and don't put it right.  Ok that analogy sucked a little.  All I would like from guys involved with feminism is that they recognise the marginalisation, and try not to let there be more of the same in their actions and those around them.

Everybody's experiences get "minimised and brushed off as Not That Big A Deal". Switch the six year olds and the boy who is being tormented by a girl is not only told that "she likes him", but possibly ridiculed for "whining" about it.

If the sofa is in the kitchen, I can push and drag it to where I want it. It's harder for me, but I'm not "screwed". I got a fucking pool table across the street a few weeks ago, FFS. The next day my daughter and another woman packed it up the steps and left it in the kitchen. This had nothing to do with me being a woman. I now have a bigass pool table in the kitchen, and when it cools off a bit here, I'll turn it sideways and shove it through a couple of doorways to the front room. Or just find some guys to move it. We don't always put stuff where guys want it, either. I can't attibute every incident of people not listening to sexism.

I did say it was a shitty analogy, especially since I failed to mention that my kitchen is fucking tiny.

I'm also slipping into the mode of argument I have away from PeeDee here, where some people I know are just fucking idiots. Sorry about that, I should probably not slip into "my standard argument" around people I know that know better.


Seriously, I can count the non-asshole people I interact with regularly without moving onto my toes. I'm surrounded by these frakking douches!
Quote from: Bu☆ns on August 15, 2012, 07:01:51 PM
It seems to me that it's not necessarily about male vs. female so much as it's about the way in which Patriarchy hurts both males and females.  What doesn't really work for me is how there's this term, "male tears" that seems to be assumed when someone brings up the idea that men too are hurt by Patriarchy. 

Being a male, the idea of fully egalitarian viewpoint, makes more sense than only focusing on the effects of a patriarchal society has on women.  It seems that the opposition isn't just men or even misogynistic men, but it's ourselves and our own fundamental assumptions about each of our roles in our society. 

To be perfectly clear, after reading this thread (and some other sources), I'm fully convinced that feminism raises legitimate concerns.  This fight involves everyone but the dynamic of how it affects men and how it affects women is what differs.  And, thus far, it seems women definitely get hurt to a larger extent.  To reach that egalitarian ideal, however, it's about finding ways to address both sides.

I have to admit, though, I'm not fully convinced of this notion of 'male privilege'. Please understand, I believe it exists in many forms, i.e. the pay rate and the concept of a rape culture to name a (big) few. But it looks like the way it's measured leaves out of the further reaching consequences of it's role in oppressing men (read: all of society) as well. This thread is about exposing how Patriarchy hurts men also.  This isn't 'male tears' because the following examples directly or indirectly also hurt females based on their ensuing behaviors.

-lack of male nurses
-the lack of male teachers
-how it's 'unmanly' to show emotions
-male sexual and domestic assault victims
-the lack of a balanced household of a father who is never around (anecdotal, but still)
-the fact that men are more likely to be recruited into the military to die for the country.
-expectation to 'man up'
-nice guy syndrome (or undefined expectations resulting in manipulative behavior).
-promotion of binary gender roles.
-sexual prowess as a measure of one's worth.

In all, I have to question a lot of the buzzwords associated with feminism.  If this really is the age of Third Wave feminism, a lot of the terms resonate with first and second wave.  I don't propose to get rid of any of them, but I definitely think that it would immensely help to define the terms more carefully. 

The oppressed are largely female but not exclusively. 

And the fight, isn't against another group but against our own basic assumptions.

So please to deconstruct.


Burns has it pretty spot on here, if he'd posted further upthread the discussion might have been over by now.  To me Male Privilege is the ability to do the whole life thing without being hyper vigilant about rape and sexual assault, the pay gap thing, the ability to not have your entire career take a massive leap back because you've had a kid. 
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 15, 2012, 07:13:59 PM
I like this term Kyriarchy. It seems to describe the far more complex and shifting reality, as compared to the more static perception that feminism, racism, etc lend themselves to.

I definitely prefer it over patriarchy as a term... 





Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 07:45:01 PM
Quote from: Alty on August 15, 2012, 07:29:28 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 07:24:54 PM
Quote from: Alty on August 15, 2012, 07:22:30 PM
What I like most about this thread is how I often feel like I'm barely keeping my fingertips above the waterline. And I need to read a lot more.

It's also fun to watch the horrible, congealed, toxic slug-like creature that is PD (that's how I always picture it) react to these ideas.

What I like most about this thread is that I presented an idea, and was told that what I REALLY meant was something else.  And then everyone came along to agree vehemently with what an ass I am for the belief I didn't have.  So I clarified my position, and it was totally ignored.

I'm fuming fucking mad, and I have been since this morning.

Hm, I've been on the run so I haven't read the whole thread.
I have this feeling about this word Cis, though. A though actually. And it's a bit rambly but essentially boils down to:

Yeah no.

Labels are inherently devisive.  I don't refer to Robert Jackson at work as "my Black coworker."  I don't refer to Anthony as "My Gay friend."  I don't refer to my doctor as "my male doctor/my female doctor".  The only time labels are important is when the label itself is relevant to the conversation, and FUCK ANYONE who says I don't get an opinion on elgatarianism unless I'm female or Gay, or that my opinion is of less value for that reason.

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bu🤠ns on August 15, 2012, 07:47:28 PM
Quote from: Pixie on August 15, 2012, 07:33:55 PM
To me Male Privilege is the ability to do the whole life thing without being hyper vigilant about rape and sexual assault, the pay gap thing, the ability to not have your entire career take a massive leap back because you've had a kid. 

I appreciate your being specific because I fully support that 100%



Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 07:31:34 PM
Quote from: Bu☆ns on August 15, 2012, 07:28:37 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 07:24:54 PM
Quote from: Alty on August 15, 2012, 07:22:30 PM
What I like most about this thread is how I often feel like I'm barely keeping my fingertips above the waterline. And I need to read a lot more.

It's also fun to watch the horrible, congealed, toxic slug-like creature that is PD (that's how I always picture it) react to these ideas.

What I like most about this thread is that I presented an idea, and was told that what I REALLY meant was something else.  And then everyone came along to agree vehemently with what an ass I am for the belief I didn't have.  So I clarified my position, and it was totally ignored.

I'm fuming fucking mad, and I have been since this morning.

FTR, the idea you presented about egalitarianism and it's role in feminism created a dynamic shift in my brain toward my overall attitude toward feminism in general.

That's not quite what I was concentrating on.  I was concentrating on the fact that it has to be a personal value, not a crusade.  Personal values lead to principled stands.  Crusades lead to exclusionary thinking at best.

That is one of the examples which lead to my shift.

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on August 15, 2012, 07:53:48 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 07:45:01 PM
Quote from: Alty on August 15, 2012, 07:29:28 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 07:24:54 PM
Quote from: Alty on August 15, 2012, 07:22:30 PM
What I like most about this thread is how I often feel like I'm barely keeping my fingertips above the waterline. And I need to read a lot more.

It's also fun to watch the horrible, congealed, toxic slug-like creature that is PD (that's how I always picture it) react to these ideas.

What I like most about this thread is that I presented an idea, and was told that what I REALLY meant was something else.  And then everyone came along to agree vehemently with what an ass I am for the belief I didn't have.  So I clarified my position, and it was totally ignored.

I'm fuming fucking mad, and I have been since this morning.

Hm, I've been on the run so I haven't read the whole thread.
I have this feeling about this word Cis, though. A though actually. And it's a bit rambly but essentially boils down to:

Yeah no.

Labels are inherently devisive.  I don't refer to Robert Jackson at work as "my Black coworker."  I don't refer to Anthony as "My Gay friend."  I don't refer to my doctor as "my male doctor/my female doctor".  The only time labels are important is when the label itself is relevant to the conversation, and FUCK ANYONE who says I don't get an opinion on elgatarianism unless I'm female or Gay, or that my opinion is of less value for that reason.

This! Also Labels tend to imply quality that isn't necessarily there. Most people are idiots, therefore, it would be logical to assume that most feminists or most gay-rights advocates or most - insert cause here - are idiots. Hence the fact that any movement which marches under one of those banners will be doomed to failure on the strength that it's run, almost exclusively, by idiots.

I say "the feminist movement is mostly a bunch of pissed off idiots", however and it's likely to be taken the wrong way.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bu🤠ns on August 15, 2012, 07:55:07 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 07:45:01 PM
Quote from: Alty on August 15, 2012, 07:29:28 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 07:24:54 PM
Quote from: Alty on August 15, 2012, 07:22:30 PM
What I like most about this thread is how I often feel like I'm barely keeping my fingertips above the waterline. And I need to read a lot more.

It's also fun to watch the horrible, congealed, toxic slug-like creature that is PD (that's how I always picture it) react to these ideas.

What I like most about this thread is that I presented an idea, and was told that what I REALLY meant was something else.  And then everyone came along to agree vehemently with what an ass I am for the belief I didn't have.  So I clarified my position, and it was totally ignored.

I'm fuming fucking mad, and I have been since this morning.

Hm, I've been on the run so I haven't read the whole thread.
I have this feeling about this word Cis, though. A though actually. And it's a bit rambly but essentially boils down to:

Yeah no.

Labels are inherently devisive.  I don't refer to Robert Jackson at work as "my Black coworker."  I don't refer to Anthony as "My Gay friend."  I don't refer to my doctor as "my male doctor/my female doctor".  The only time labels are important is when the label itself is relevant to the conversation, and FUCK ANYONE who says I don't get an opinion on elgatarianism unless I'm female or Gay, or that my opinion is of less value for that reason.



How do you view using race or sex as a way to differentiate among others in a group?

As in:

Person 1: Oh that's my friend best friend over there
Person 2: Which one?
Person 1: The black one
or
Person 1: The woman

I ask because to discern based on those characteristics is rather convenient but also divisive and to NOT do so is, also, in a sense, using the characteristic as a basis to NOT do so. Does that make sense?

Also, for whatever reason,  for Person 1 to say "The gay one" seems more wrong that the previous two...maybe.

Okay I think my brain just exploded....
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Salty on August 15, 2012, 07:57:30 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 15, 2012, 07:53:48 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 07:45:01 PM
Quote from: Alty on August 15, 2012, 07:29:28 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 07:24:54 PM
Quote from: Alty on August 15, 2012, 07:22:30 PM
What I like most about this thread is how I often feel like I'm barely keeping my fingertips above the waterline. And I need to read a lot more.

It's also fun to watch the horrible, congealed, toxic slug-like creature that is PD (that's how I always picture it) react to these ideas.

What I like most about this thread is that I presented an idea, and was told that what I REALLY meant was something else.  And then everyone came along to agree vehemently with what an ass I am for the belief I didn't have.  So I clarified my position, and it was totally ignored.

I'm fuming fucking mad, and I have been since this morning.

Hm, I've been on the run so I haven't read the whole thread.
I have this feeling about this word Cis, though. A though actually. And it's a bit rambly but essentially boils down to:

Yeah no.

Labels are inherently devisive.  I don't refer to Robert Jackson at work as "my Black coworker."  I don't refer to Anthony as "My Gay friend."  I don't refer to my doctor as "my male doctor/my female doctor".  The only time labels are important is when the label itself is relevant to the conversation, and FUCK ANYONE who says I don't get an opinion on elgatarianism unless I'm female or Gay, or that my opinion is of less value for that reason.

This! Also Labels tend to imply quality that isn't necessarily there. Most people are idiots, therefore, it would be logical to assume that most feminists or most gay-rights advocates or most - insert cause here - are idiots. Hence the fact that any movement which marches under one of those banners will be doomed to failure on the strength that it's run, almost exclusively, by idiots.

I say "the feminist movement is mostly a bunch of pissed off idiots", however and it's likely to be taken the wrong way.

lol. I agree with this.

As a boy I quickly learned I hated queer people too. Because they're people.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on August 15, 2012, 07:59:54 PM
Quote from: Bu☆ns on August 15, 2012, 07:55:07 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 07:45:01 PM
Quote from: Alty on August 15, 2012, 07:29:28 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 07:24:54 PM
Quote from: Alty on August 15, 2012, 07:22:30 PM
What I like most about this thread is how I often feel like I'm barely keeping my fingertips above the waterline. And I need to read a lot more.

It's also fun to watch the horrible, congealed, toxic slug-like creature that is PD (that's how I always picture it) react to these ideas.

What I like most about this thread is that I presented an idea, and was told that what I REALLY meant was something else.  And then everyone came along to agree vehemently with what an ass I am for the belief I didn't have.  So I clarified my position, and it was totally ignored.

I'm fuming fucking mad, and I have been since this morning.

Hm, I've been on the run so I haven't read the whole thread.
I have this feeling about this word Cis, though. A though actually. And it's a bit rambly but essentially boils down to:

Yeah no.

Labels are inherently devisive.  I don't refer to Robert Jackson at work as "my Black coworker."  I don't refer to Anthony as "My Gay friend."  I don't refer to my doctor as "my male doctor/my female doctor".  The only time labels are important is when the label itself is relevant to the conversation, and FUCK ANYONE who says I don't get an opinion on elgatarianism unless I'm female or Gay, or that my opinion is of less value for that reason.



How do you view using race or sex as a way to differentiate among others in a group?

As in:

Person 1: Oh that's my friend best friend over there
Person 2: Which one?
Person 1: The black one
or
Person 1: The woman

I ask because to discern based on those characteristics is rather convenient but also divisive and to NOT do so is, also, in a sense, using the characteristic as a basis to NOT do so. Does that make sense?

Also, for whatever reason,  for Person 1 to say "The gay one" seems more wrong that the previous two...maybe.

Okay I think my brain just exploded....

Context is how a biped would do it. Describing your friend as the one with the slightly wider pinstipe in his blue tie when he's as black as the ace of spades is downright fucking retarded. It's exactly the kind of thing I'd expect from exactly the kind of dumb fuck I strive to avoid.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 15, 2012, 08:06:55 PM
Quote from: Bu☆ns on August 15, 2012, 07:55:07 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 07:45:01 PM
Quote from: Alty on August 15, 2012, 07:29:28 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 07:24:54 PM
Quote from: Alty on August 15, 2012, 07:22:30 PM
What I like most about this thread is how I often feel like I'm barely keeping my fingertips above the waterline. And I need to read a lot more.

It's also fun to watch the horrible, congealed, toxic slug-like creature that is PD (that's how I always picture it) react to these ideas.

What I like most about this thread is that I presented an idea, and was told that what I REALLY meant was something else.  And then everyone came along to agree vehemently with what an ass I am for the belief I didn't have.  So I clarified my position, and it was totally ignored.

I'm fuming fucking mad, and I have been since this morning.

Hm, I've been on the run so I haven't read the whole thread.
I have this feeling about this word Cis, though. A though actually. And it's a bit rambly but essentially boils down to:

Yeah no.

Labels are inherently devisive.  I don't refer to Robert Jackson at work as "my Black coworker."  I don't refer to Anthony as "My Gay friend."  I don't refer to my doctor as "my male doctor/my female doctor".  The only time labels are important is when the label itself is relevant to the conversation, and FUCK ANYONE who says I don't get an opinion on elgatarianism unless I'm female or Gay, or that my opinion is of less value for that reason.



How do you view using race or sex as a way to differentiate among others in a group?

As in:

Person 1: Oh that's my friend best friend over there
Person 2: Which one?
Person 1: The black one
or
Person 1: The woman

I ask because to discern based on those characteristics is rather convenient but also divisive and to NOT do so is, also, in a sense, using the characteristic as a basis to NOT do so. Does that make sense?

Also, for whatever reason,  for Person 1 to say "The gay one" seems more wrong that the previous two...maybe.

Okay I think my brain just exploded....

What P3nt said. The problem lies in the psycholgoy and semantics. To quote from Hagbard Celine:

QuoteIt is easy to see that label "Jew" was a Damnation in Nazi
Germany, but actually the label "Jew" is a Damnation anywhere, even where
anti-Semitism does not exist. "He is a Jew," "He is a doctor," and "He is a
poet" mean, to the card indexing centre of the cortex, that my experience
with him will be like my experience with other Jews, other doctors, and
other poets. Thus, individuality is ignored when identity is asserted. At a
party or any place where strangers meet, watch this mechanism in action.
Behind the friendly overtures there is wariness as each person fishes for
the label that will identify and Damn the other. Finally, it is revealed:
"Oh, he's an advertising copywriter," "Oh, he's an engine-lathe operator."
Both parties relax, for now they know how to behave, what roles to play in
the game. Ninety-nine percent of each has been Damned; the other is
reacting to the 1 percent that has been labeled by the card-index machine.

QuoteWe must remember that thought is abstraction. In Einstein's metaphor, the
relationship between a physical fact and our mental reception of that fact
is not like the relationship between beef and beef-broth, a simpler
extraction and condensation; rather, as Einstein goes on, it is like the
relationship between our overcoat and the ticket given us when we check our
overcoat. In other words, human perception involves coding even more than
crude sensing. The mesh of language, or of mathematics, or of a school of
art, or of any system of human abstracting, gives to our mental constructs
the structure, not of the original fact, but of the symbol system into
which it is coded, just as a map-maker colors a nation purple not because
it is purple but because his code demands it. But every code excludes
certain things, blurs other things, and overemphasizes still other things.

http://surge.ods.org/idle_other/whistle.htm (http://surge.ods.org/idle_other/whistle.htm)
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 08:08:29 PM
Quote from: Bu☆ns on August 15, 2012, 07:55:07 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 07:45:01 PM
Quote from: Alty on August 15, 2012, 07:29:28 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 07:24:54 PM
Quote from: Alty on August 15, 2012, 07:22:30 PM
What I like most about this thread is how I often feel like I'm barely keeping my fingertips above the waterline. And I need to read a lot more.

It's also fun to watch the horrible, congealed, toxic slug-like creature that is PD (that's how I always picture it) react to these ideas.

What I like most about this thread is that I presented an idea, and was told that what I REALLY meant was something else.  And then everyone came along to agree vehemently with what an ass I am for the belief I didn't have.  So I clarified my position, and it was totally ignored.

I'm fuming fucking mad, and I have been since this morning.

Hm, I've been on the run so I haven't read the whole thread.
I have this feeling about this word Cis, though. A though actually. And it's a bit rambly but essentially boils down to:

Yeah no.

Labels are inherently devisive.  I don't refer to Robert Jackson at work as "my Black coworker."  I don't refer to Anthony as "My Gay friend."  I don't refer to my doctor as "my male doctor/my female doctor".  The only time labels are important is when the label itself is relevant to the conversation, and FUCK ANYONE who says I don't get an opinion on elgatarianism unless I'm female or Gay, or that my opinion is of less value for that reason.



How do you view using race or sex as a way to differentiate among others in a group?

As in:

Person 1: Oh that's my friend best friend over there
Person 2: Which one?
Person 1: The black one
or
Person 1: The woman

I ask because to discern based on those characteristics is rather convenient but also divisive and to NOT do so is, also, in a sense, using the characteristic as a basis to NOT do so. Does that make sense?

Also, for whatever reason,  for Person 1 to say "The gay one" seems more wrong that the previous two...maybe.

Okay I think my brain just exploded....

If skin color or gender is being pointed out as a means of physical description, then I don't see a problem.  In fact, if that is in fact the best way to accomplish the description, then it is IMO just another form of discrimination to NOT use the appropriate term.

And another thing:  It's not just that I say FUCK YOU if my opinion is lessened by the fact that I am a male and "CIS", it's that EVERYONE, regardless of labels, should say FUCK YOU if their opinion is lessened by an entirely irrelevant issue, such as gender, race, or orientation, because if someone DOES that, then they are buying into exactly the same mindset that they think they're fighting.

In other words, I don't accept Signora Paesor's authority on the subject, and nobody should accept mine.

THINK FOR YOUR FUCKING SELF.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pope Pixie Pickle on August 15, 2012, 08:16:15 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 15, 2012, 07:59:54 PM
Quote from: Bu☆ns on August 15, 2012, 07:55:07 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 07:45:01 PM
Quote from: Alty on August 15, 2012, 07:29:28 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 07:24:54 PM
Quote from: Alty on August 15, 2012, 07:22:30 PM
What I like most about this thread is how I often feel like I'm barely keeping my fingertips above the waterline. And I need to read a lot more.

It's also fun to watch the horrible, congealed, toxic slug-like creature that is PD (that's how I always picture it) react to these ideas.

What I like most about this thread is that I presented an idea, and was told that what I REALLY meant was something else.  And then everyone came along to agree vehemently with what an ass I am for the belief I didn't have.  So I clarified my position, and it was totally ignored.

I'm fuming fucking mad, and I have been since this morning.

Hm, I've been on the run so I haven't read the whole thread.
I have this feeling about this word Cis, though. A though actually. And it's a bit rambly but essentially boils down to:

Yeah no.

Labels are inherently devisive.  I don't refer to Robert Jackson at work as "my Black coworker."  I don't refer to Anthony as "My Gay friend."  I don't refer to my doctor as "my male doctor/my female doctor".  The only time labels are important is when the label itself is relevant to the conversation, and FUCK ANYONE who says I don't get an opinion on elgatarianism unless I'm female or Gay, or that my opinion is of less value for that reason.



How do you view using race or sex as a way to differentiate among others in a group?

As in:

Person 1: Oh that's my friend best friend over there
Person 2: Which one?
Person 1: The black one
or
Person 1: The woman

I ask because to discern based on those characteristics is rather convenient but also divisive and to NOT do so is, also, in a sense, using the characteristic as a basis to NOT do so. Does that make sense?

Also, for whatever reason,  for Person 1 to say "The gay one" seems more wrong that the previous two...maybe.

Okay I think my brain just exploded....

Context is how a biped would do it. Describing your friend as the one with the slightly wider pinstipe in his blue tie when he's as black as the ace of spades is downright fucking retarded. It's exactly the kind of thing I'd expect from exactly the kind of dumb fuck I strive to avoid.

haha this.

But if I have 2 Dave's ,one black and one white, with the same name in the room I'm totally going to refer to them as Dave and White Dave.   It may seem silly but it bucks the usual trend for these things, and I find that funny.

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Dark Monk on August 15, 2012, 08:22:20 PM
My descriptions are as follows:

That Crazy Lady
The Big One
The One With The Cats
Mums
Mah Nigguh
The Gentlemen Who Smells of Limburger
That Guy Who Drinks Too Much
The Wannabe Irishman Who Was Actually Born In Pomona
and my baby is:
The One That Look Like Roger

Speaking of which, did you infiltrate Alabama recently?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Salty on August 15, 2012, 08:34:53 PM
So, it can be said that identifying someone as a cis male is as accurate as saying, "that guy, no the black one."

That black guy who...what? Depends. Depends on what that guy is doing.

Is oppressed
Kills his own citizens
Works with homeless people
Lives a life much like any other
Doubles the number of predator drones

Theres only so much use you get from those kind of descriptions. Only when you have preconceived notions of that description does that differ.

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 08:37:36 PM
Quote from: Alty on August 15, 2012, 08:34:53 PM
So, it can be said that identifying someone as a cis male is as accurate as saying, "that guy, no the black one."

But how would you then say "no, the straight one"?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Salty on August 15, 2012, 08:44:35 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 08:37:36 PM
Quote from: Alty on August 15, 2012, 08:34:53 PM
So, it can be said that identifying someone as a cis male is as accurate as saying, "that guy, no the black one."

But how would you then say "no, the straight one"?

Hah! Yes. I had that thought somewhere in my head. No, I did post it. Minds all a jumble. I asked about Beefy Gay Guys. How do you KNOW that a Cis male is straight.Cause he a giant sack of muscle working a drill? Hah! HAH! No one addressed it. :sad:

Because it he's gay he's more closely related to the struggle? Doesn't mean he's not ignorant. Or a mysoginist. Lots of gay men are mysoginists. So it's even less useful that I thought.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 08:49:45 PM
Quote from: Alty on August 15, 2012, 08:44:35 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 08:37:36 PM
Quote from: Alty on August 15, 2012, 08:34:53 PM
So, it can be said that identifying someone as a cis male is as accurate as saying, "that guy, no the black one."

But how would you then say "no, the straight one"?

Hah! Yes. I had that thought somewhere in my head. No, I did post it. Minds all a jumble. I asked about Beefy Gay Guys. How do you KNOW that a Cis male is straight.Cause he a giant sack of muscle working a drill? Hah! HAH! No one addressed it. :sad:

Because it he's gay he's more closely related to the struggle? Doesn't mean he's not ignorant. Or a mysoginist. Lots of gay men are mysoginists. So it's even less useful that I thought.

It's everyone's fucking struggle.  Either everyone has equal rights, or nobody has any rights at all.  And when you label any group as less than equal, it's a really short hop to committing or allowing atrocities of one level or another to be committed on that group.  Matthew Shepard.  Tutsis vs Hutus.  Bosnians vs Serbs.  EVERYONE vs the Jews.  Rape being explained as "boys will be boys", or "it's not like she was a White woman, is it?" 

The politics of exclusion are often fatal for someone.  Hell, it's how we make teenagers into soldiers.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 15, 2012, 08:52:36 PM
Jesus. Like a million pages since I went to sleep last night. IMMA RESPOND.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 15, 2012, 01:03:31 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 15, 2012, 11:15:07 AM
If they're refusing to understand why the term "feminism" is important, I don't know if I want them as an ally. I don't know that they can be an ally, because they're denying that we experience discrimination and say "what about me?"instead. *cue cis man tears*

If you're willing to turn away allies and swing-votes cos you're not sure if they're good enough to stand beside you then, tactically, I'm pretty sure your cause is as good as fucked. It's not about everybody getting it. Statistically, most people are idiots, they'll never get anything. They're either part of the solution or part of the problem. If you're perfectly happy to leave them as part of the problem or (even worse) make them part of the problem that they weren't to begin with by alienating them because they don't live up to some unrealistic ideal then what the fuck are you doing to solve the problem? Strikes me you're actually making it worse.

Amusing as I find that whole concept, it is kinda a shame.

Here's a suggestion - drop the whole condescending notion of "if you've never been a woman you can't possibly understand..."

1 - it alienates guys who otherwise might support your cause

2 - it's actually complete bullshit. You have to go through something to experience it, yes but to understand? To empathise? Fuck no. I wasn't in Auschwitz but do I understand what happened and why it was wrong? Duh! The whole "you can't possibly understand, you're a man" thing is, quite frankly, offensive. When I, like a lot of men (and probably women too) feel offended by a particularly condescending bullshit statement, the person making it ceases to be a person and becomes a target. Not arguing the rights or wrongs of this, merely stating pragmatic fact with regards the overall mission objective. The way I see it, the end result is what's important, not that we get there by a virtuous and righteous crusade. Fight dirty, compromise some of your unrealistic principles. Accept help wherever you find it. Never look a gift horse in the mouth. You want equal rights or do you want an ideal world?

Fight smart and we'll win.
It's not condescending. Straight up, you can't. The closest you can get is parallel experiences (I don't know what it's like to be the Spicy Latina or the Dragon Lady or the Jezebel, but I do know about the extremely uncomfortable hypersexualization of bisexual women/females. It's dehumanizing and that's frightening) or little tastes of what we live every day (ECH's neighborhood rapist).

Empathy is not the same, exactly. It's got some distance to it. I empathize with the situation PoC have to live with. I have similar experiences (put me in a group of hostile men and I immediately and intensely fear for my safety). But I don't understand what it's like to be scared of being killed because of my skin color. It's not a sharp worry I have to live with everyday. You don't know what it's like to have to account for "what if?" in what you look like when you go out every night and being categorically scared of half the world's population because not doing so can be taking your life in your own hands. But you can and should empathize with it.

Here's the deal: feminism asks that men listen and change their behavior when it's insulting or condescending or degrading. It's really, really hard for men who are offended by the term feminism to be our allies because it turns into "what about meeeee?". It's like me telling a Black dude, "Hey, listen, I'm gonna let you finish telling me about how my automatic purse clutching when you walk by is offensive because it implies that you're a criminal, and I really want to help end your oppression, but first let me tell you that your feelings hurt my feelings and maybe we should stop using the term 'racist behavior' to explain the purse clutching."


You're really set on seeing my behavior when I ask that you think about your behavior and your words as a "righteous crusade". It's kind of ridiculous. Maybe you should think about that.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 15, 2012, 08:54:57 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 15, 2012, 01:14:24 PM
Quote from: Pixie on August 15, 2012, 12:33:53 PM
All we ask is that instead of kneejerking that you all just listen. Also feminists I know don't see gender difference as an essentialist/biological difference in the brain, rather as a social construct, so saying you "cannot change because penis" is usually fucking infuriating.  If people see gender differences as being hardwired, this totally causes a kneejerk in some people. If you add up unreliable books like Women are from Venus, Men are from Mars ect which have entered the Pop Science sphere in the last few decades, and into the popular conciousness and these essentialist ideas give the lie that men and women are almost a different fucking species as the justification for "and this is why there are inequalities".  Seeing the gender binary as a social construct, however usually means people have to think about societal memes and tropes as not being self evident truths.

Maybe people are refusing to listen because of the kneejerk? Maybe the kneejerk is caused by the way that they're being asked to listen? Maybe a more diplomatic tack might make them more inclined to lend an ear?

But you shouldn't have to be diplomatic, right? And this is more important than getting the message across?
Other than me telling you to stop with the cis man tears (which was the result of ten pages of frustration), we have been nothing but polite. Stop trying to police our tone and listen.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 08:55:11 PM
Quote*cue CIS man tears*

Wow.  Didn't notice that.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 08:56:15 PM
That's pretty fucked up.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 08:59:38 PM
I CAN NAME THAT TUNE IN TWO NOTES!

It sounds sort of like "SHUT YOUR FAGGOT MOUTH".

Or "WHAT, ARE YOU ON THE RAG OR SOMETHING?"

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Salty on August 15, 2012, 09:00:11 PM
Garbo, this whole cis man tears thing is retarded. That's got nothing to do with communication and everyuing to do with catagorizing people that is, in the end, always harmful. I am certainly not trying to police anyones tone. But that doesn't make it not stupid.

What Roger said.

I'm actually kind of shocked.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 09:00:31 PM
Quote from: Alty on August 15, 2012, 09:00:11 PM
Garbo, this whole cis man tears thing is retarded. That's got nothing to do with communication and everyuing to do with catagorizing people that is, in the end, always harmful. I am certainly not trying to police anyones tone. But that doesn't make it not stupid.

What Roger said.

I'm actually kind of shocked.

STOP TRYING TO POLICE THEIR TONE!

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 09:01:57 PM
I feel like I just watched Martin Luther King tell a Jewish joke.

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 09:06:32 PM
I thought this was all about principle.  I listened, because I was wrong and Garbo and Nigel were right.

Then this.  This hypocrisy.

I can't fucking stand it.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 15, 2012, 09:07:27 PM
When I say "cis man tears", I'm specifically referring to a certain mind set some men have where their response to "hey, let's work to end sex and gender based discrimination, a lot of which is aimed at women" with "what about meee?" or "feminism makes me feel attacked!". It's frustrating and disheartening. I know not all cis men are like this. I think most men, if they were willing to listen and stop the immediate butthurt, wouldn't be prone to it.

Tone policing is "you're not being polite enough!" when no one has been rude. It's frustrating and a way to shut the discussion down.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 01:44:41 PM
Well, if I can't understand, then I'm not gonna try.

Game point, SP wins.
Empathy is not the same as understand, precisely. You get it intellectually, but you literally do not live it. You don't deal with the same reality we do, every day of our lives. If a man can't empathize with that (and I do know most of the guys here do, Roger, we've talked about this enough and I'm talking men in general), then I don't know what to do with him.


Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 09:06:32 PM
I thought this was all about principle.  I listened, because I was wrong and Garbo and Nigel were right.

Then this.  This hypocrisy.

I can't fucking stand it.
How is it hypocrisy?

edited to for clarity.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 09:08:53 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 15, 2012, 09:07:27 PM
When I say "cis man tears", I'm specifically referring to a certain mind set some men have

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 15, 2012, 09:07:27 PM
When I say "feminazi", I'm specifically referring to a certain mind set some women have

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 15, 2012, 09:07:27 PM
When I say "cunt", I'm specifically referring to a certain mind set some women have

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 15, 2012, 09:07:27 PM
When I say "fag", I'm specifically referring to a certain mind set some gay people have


I never, ever expected this.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 15, 2012, 09:12:24 PM
Quote from: Bu☆ns on August 15, 2012, 07:55:07 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 07:45:01 PM
Quote from: Alty on August 15, 2012, 07:29:28 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 07:24:54 PM
Quote from: Alty on August 15, 2012, 07:22:30 PM
What I like most about this thread is how I often feel like I'm barely keeping my fingertips above the waterline. And I need to read a lot more.

It's also fun to watch the horrible, congealed, toxic slug-like creature that is PD (that's how I always picture it) react to these ideas.

What I like most about this thread is that I presented an idea, and was told that what I REALLY meant was something else.  And then everyone came along to agree vehemently with what an ass I am for the belief I didn't have.  So I clarified my position, and it was totally ignored.

I'm fuming fucking mad, and I have been since this morning.

Hm, I've been on the run so I haven't read the whole thread.
I have this feeling about this word Cis, though. A though actually. And it's a bit rambly but essentially boils down to:

Yeah no.

Labels are inherently devisive.  I don't refer to Robert Jackson at work as "my Black coworker."  I don't refer to Anthony as "My Gay friend."  I don't refer to my doctor as "my male doctor/my female doctor".  The only time labels are important is when the label itself is relevant to the conversation, and FUCK ANYONE who says I don't get an opinion on elgatarianism unless I'm female or Gay, or that my opinion is of less value for that reason.



How do you view using race or sex as a way to differentiate among others in a group?

As in:

Person 1: Oh that's my friend best friend over there
Person 2: Which one?
Person 1: The black one
or
Person 1: The woman

I ask because to discern based on those characteristics is rather convenient but also divisive and to NOT do so is, also, in a sense, using the characteristic as a basis to NOT do so. Does that make sense?

Also, for whatever reason,  for Person 1 to say "The gay one" seems more wrong that the previous two...maybe.

Okay I think my brain just exploded....

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 08:08:29 PM
If skin color or gender is being pointed out as a means of physical description, then I don't see a problem.  In fact, if that is in fact the best way to accomplish the description, then it is IMO just another form of discrimination to NOT use the appropriate term.

Yep. It works like this: Is a physical description necessary?

"There's somebody in the restroom" = OK
"There's a black guy in the restroom" = NOT OK

"A guy left this here. He'll probably be back looking for it."
"OK, what does he look like?"
"Tall, light-skinned black guy with glasses. Had a red shirt on earler."
"Alright"                                                                                         = OK

"Some BLACK GUY left this here" = NOT OK

Etc.

QuoteAnd another thing:  It's not just that I say FUCK YOU if my opinion is lessened by the fact that I am a male and "CIS", it's that EVERYONE, regardless of labels, should say FUCK YOU if their opinion is lessened by an entirely irrelevant issue, such as gender, race, or orientation, because if someone DOES that, then they are buying into exactly the same mindset that they think they're fighting.

In other words, I don't accept Signora Paesor's authority on the subject, and nobody should accept mine.

THINK FOR YOUR FUCKING SELF.

But we're supposed to HAET YUO because we is TEH SHE WOMAN MAN HATERZ CLUB. Fishes and bicycles and all that shit. :vom:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 09:13:59 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 15, 2012, 09:07:27 PM
Empathy is not the same as understand, precisely. You get it intellectually, but you literally do not live it. You don't deal with the same reality we do, every day of our lives. If a man can't empathize with that (and I do know most of the guys here do, Roger, we've talked about this enough and I'm talking men in general), then I don't know what to do with him.

Oh, sure.  Like when I was 17, I was told that certain catagories of people were "the enemy" and thus were not actually human, so it was okay to shoot them.  As for the civilians in the area, we had a running cadence that started "napalm sticks to kids".  So I knocked around the world for a decade or so, operating under that information loop.  Once I was old enough to know better, I had a better grip on what I did to whom, and why. 

So let me tell you, I have NO IDEA what the consequences of non-eglatarian thinking are.  None at all.  I am a fucking babe in the woods, crying out my little "CIS man tears" over some little, unimportant things that resulted from bad signal concerning equality among humans.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Don Coyote on August 15, 2012, 09:16:21 PM
Anyone else here think "cis" is a fucking retarded term?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Salty on August 15, 2012, 09:16:53 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 15, 2012, 09:07:27 PM
When I say "cis man tears", I'm specifically referring to a certain mind set some men have where their response to "hey, let's work to end sex and gender based discrimination, a lot of which is aimed at women" with "what about meee?" or "feminism makes me feel attacked!". It's frustrating and disheartening. I know not all cis men are like this. I think most men, if they were willing to listen and stop the immediate butthurt, wouldn't be prone to it.

Tone policing is "you're not being polite enough!" when no one has been rude. It's frustrating and a way to shut the discussion down.


Are you suggesting there is an element here on PD.com that is suggesting you're not being polite?
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:

Does referring to men who make these assumptions as one group somehow prevent what causes that behavior? Does it make your frustration any less?

I think the term has some validity. But I think you're using it as an offensive tool because you're upset that you have to explain why "feminism" is the only applicable word.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 15, 2012, 09:21:50 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:07:40 PM
This has gone from a discussion about how men are also harmed by the patriarchy, to a rather interesting examination of views on language previously taken for granted, to an explanation of the following (from 3 users):

1.  Men can't understand.
2.  Men can't be trusted.
3.  Allies are not desired.  Put on the whole uniform or GTFO.
4.  "Decent men" are needed for support, which assumes that "decent" isn't the default position.
5.  Men somehow want to join the "club of the oppressed".

This conversation is now a self-parody, and cannot - in its present form - have any possible desirable outcome.  It is no longer about eglatarianism, it is now the sort of thing that is used as ammunition by people opposed to feminism.

The upside is, before it turned into a pissing contest, I got one good thing out of it (thanks, Garbo).
1. Empathy is not the same as understanding. I'm sorry, but I'm not backing off this point. You don't spend every day of your life being scared that you'll be raped or attacked or blamed for it if it happens. But you can empathize with it. I know you do.

2. I never said that and I'm not sure where you might be reading that into things.

3. Totally not what I said. The opposite, in fact. We need allies. We need allies who are willing to listen. That's not a uniform. I don't even know what kind of uniform you'd think I'm asking a guy to don.

4. My default is that most men are generally decent people. I don't know where you got this.

5. Not what I said.



Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 09:08:53 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 15, 2012, 09:07:27 PM
When I say "cis man tears", I'm specifically referring to a certain mind set some men have

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 15, 2012, 09:07:27 PM
When I say "feminazi", I'm specifically referring to a certain mind set some women have

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 15, 2012, 09:07:27 PM
When I say "cunt", I'm specifically referring to a certain mind set some women have

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 15, 2012, 09:07:27 PM
When I say "fag", I'm specifically referring to a certain mind set some gay people have


I never, ever expected this.
Perhaps it was harsh and it wasn't intended to be a personal attack aimed at anyone but Pent (who is perfectly right if he wants to take it up with me). I repeated myself for ten pages yesterday, got no actual counter arguments, and then there was "feminism makes me feel attacked!". I'm really, really frustrated with this. I don't think its unreasonable to be tired of being told I'm wrong endlessly and never given a valid why.

Also, how is the "fag" example even remotely related?

Quote from: Alty on August 15, 2012, 09:16:53 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 15, 2012, 09:07:27 PM
When I say "cis man tears", I'm specifically referring to a certain mind set some men have where their response to "hey, let's work to end sex and gender based discrimination, a lot of which is aimed at women" with "what about meee?" or "feminism makes me feel attacked!". It's frustrating and disheartening. I know not all cis men are like this. I think most men, if they were willing to listen and stop the immediate butthurt, wouldn't be prone to it.

Tone policing is "you're not being polite enough!" when no one has been rude. It's frustrating and a way to shut the discussion down.


Are you suggesting there is an element here on PD.com that is suggesting you're not being polite?
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:

Does referring to men who make these assumptions as one group somehow prevent what causes that behavior? Does it make your frustration any less?

I think the term has some validity. But I think you're using it as an offensive tool because you're upset that you have to explain why "feminism" is the only applicable word.
Uh, Pent did, actually.

Not really. But logically explaining it without the term hasn't done a damn thing.

It's been discussed into the ground.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 09:23:44 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 15, 2012, 09:21:50 PM

Also, how is the "fag" example even remotely related?

The underlying principle is identical.  You stuck a segment of the population into a little box.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 15, 2012, 09:24:38 PM
Quote from: Guru Quixote on August 15, 2012, 09:16:21 PM
Anyone else here think "cis" is a fucking retarded term?

Since the first night I googled it to see WTF people meant by it.

It also sounds like "Sis". Kind of emasculating. Might even be intentional.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 09:25:13 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 15, 2012, 09:24:38 PM
Quote from: Guru Quixote on August 15, 2012, 09:16:21 PM
Anyone else here think "cis" is a fucking retarded term?

Since the first night I googled it to see WTF people meant by it.

It also sounds like "Sis". Kind of emasculating. Might even be intentional.

It's just the next "You People".
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 15, 2012, 09:29:16 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 09:25:13 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 15, 2012, 09:24:38 PM
Quote from: Guru Quixote on August 15, 2012, 09:16:21 PM
Anyone else here think "cis" is a fucking retarded term?

Since the first night I googled it to see WTF people meant by it.

It also sounds like "Sis". Kind of emasculating. Might even be intentional.

It's just the next "You People".

Yep.

I think everything defaulted to MAIN again.  :x
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 15, 2012, 09:30:54 PM
Quote from: Pixie on August 15, 2012, 02:24:44 PM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 15, 2012, 02:22:07 PM
"Hey there, I see that you're currently victim to the horrors of Auschwitz. I can imagine how that must feel for you. While not a resident myself,  I am going to tell you all about Auschwitz as the local authority on Auschwitz. What's that? No, I think you're wrong about that detail. Why does that upset you? How come your side of the Auschwitz yay or nay argument is the best and I have to listen to you? If you want your situation to get better, you need to be more respectful towards people who aren't in Auschwitz when they explain Auschwitz to you.What do you mean I can't be an official Auschwitz ally if I go about misrepresenting Auschwitz and insist that the interpretation from within is somehow invalid?" to expand on the already fairly dangerous comparison.

Roger, I'm not reading that into it at all. Maybe I'm more familiar with the positions being represented here and there's a miscommunication I'm reading past. Comparing quotes of statements to those of replies and interpretations is a bit beyond the capabilities of my phone, but the thread reads like "men can absolutely be helpful and involved but cannot be primary sources on the experiences of women", "hey, fuck you for excluding me."
This!
The bolded bit is what "cis man tears" was about. That's what "feminism makes me feel attacked!" and "let's stop calling it feminism because I feel left out!" is about.
(if you don't want the word to be used against you, then don't freak out. Listen. Stop jumping to conclusions. Accept that you might need to change your behavior and that maybe even though you ARE generally feminist, there's maybe some areas you need to work on).

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 09:25:13 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 15, 2012, 09:24:38 PM
Quote from: Guru Quixote on August 15, 2012, 09:16:21 PM
Anyone else here think "cis" is a fucking retarded term?

Since the first night I googled it to see WTF people meant by it.

It also sounds like "Sis". Kind of emasculating. Might even be intentional.

It's just the next "You People".
I don't think it is. I have no idea why that term was chosen to represent that idea, but it was. *shrug* I have some issues with the term, but they go in a different direction than is relevant to this discussion.

I don't think it was deliberately emasculating. Also, the term applies to women, too. Not just men.

No, it doesn't. It's a term to differentiate between trans* people from people whose gender identity matches their bodies. Most people are cis, it's true. But it's not pejorative. It's just a word.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pope Pixie Pickle on August 15, 2012, 09:36:07 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 15, 2012, 09:30:54 PM
Quote from: Pixie on August 15, 2012, 02:24:44 PM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 15, 2012, 02:22:07 PM
"Hey there, I see that you're currently victim to the horrors of Auschwitz. I can imagine how that must feel for you. While not a resident myself,  I am going to tell you all about Auschwitz as the local authority on Auschwitz. What's that? No, I think you're wrong about that detail. Why does that upset you? How come your side of the Auschwitz yay or nay argument is the best and I have to listen to you? If you want your situation to get better, you need to be more respectful towards people who aren't in Auschwitz when they explain Auschwitz to you.What do you mean I can't be an official Auschwitz ally if I go about misrepresenting Auschwitz and insist that the interpretation from within is somehow invalid?" to expand on the already fairly dangerous comparison.

Roger, I'm not reading that into it at all. Maybe I'm more familiar with the positions being represented here and there's a miscommunication I'm reading past. Comparing quotes of statements to those of replies and interpretations is a bit beyond the capabilities of my phone, but the thread reads like "men can absolutely be helpful and involved but cannot be primary sources on the experiences of women", "hey, fuck you for excluding me."
This!
The bolded bit is what "cis man tears" was about. That's what "feminism makes me feel attacked!" and "let's stop calling it feminism because I feel left out!" is about.
(if you don't want the word to be used against you, then don't freak out. Listen. Stop jumping to conclusions. Accept that you might need to change your behavior and that maybe even though you ARE generally feminist, there's maybe some areas you need to work on).

gah, the point I was trying to make but failed.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 15, 2012, 09:38:04 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:27:25 PM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 15, 2012, 02:22:07 PM
"Hey there, I see that you're currently victim to the horrors of Auschwitz. I can imagine how that must feel for you. While not a resident myself,  I am going to tell you all about Auschwitz as the local authority on Auschwitz. What's that? No, I think you're wrong about that detail. Why does that upset you? How come your side of the Auschwitz yay or nay argument is the best and I have to listen to you? If you want your situation to get better, you need to be more respectful towards people who aren't in Auschwitz when they explain Auschwitz to you.What do you mean I can't be an official Auschwitz ally if I go about misrepresenting Auschwitz and insist that the interpretation from within is somehow invalid?" to expand on the already fairly dangerous comparison.

Roger, I'm not reading that into it at all. Maybe I'm more familiar with the positions being represented here and there's a miscommunication I'm reading past. Comparing quotes of statements to those of replies and interpretations is a bit beyond the capabilities of my phone, but the thread reads like "men can absolutely be helpful and involved but cannot be primary sources on the experiences of women", "hey, fuck you for excluding me."

That, of course, has nothing to do with anything I said.

It does, however, bring up an interesting question:  Why are men supposed to be incapable of being primary sources on eglatarianism?  Or is the current definition (in this thread) of feminism gone from "eglatarianism" to "Women's historical and current problems"?

I've heard both definitions of feminism.  One is inclusive, and one is exclusive.  I prefer the inclusive version that states a goal of "all people of all genders, races, and orientations are and should be considered equal members in society".
We don't live in an egalitarian society, so no, you can't because it doesn't exist yet. To be a primary source, you have to experience it.
I prefer the inclusive definition, too, but I really want to point out that the current/historical problems thing is valid and hasn't been solved yet.


Argh. This thread is tangled in knots now. Which is partially my fault. I probably should have held my temper better. I'll probably try to untangle them after I catch up.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 15, 2012, 09:39:10 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:15:24 PM
I am a "CIS male".  This is utterly irrelevant as to whether or not I am an elgatarian.  And I don't see any "feminist space".  I see people who want to be recognized as people and/or who recognize other people as people.  There is no "space" here to enter.  There is no territory upon which to infringe.  You are, or you aren't.  Nothing else matters.

That's fine. But Roger, there are feminist spaces. Whether there should be or not is a different argument, but they exist. There are feminist collectives and feminist blogs and feminist communities and feminist events, and they are spearheaded as such. They're a thing. And when men come along and want to turn the whole things into a discussion about "what about meeeeee", that's when we get frustrated.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 15, 2012, 09:40:02 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 15, 2012, 09:30:54 PM
Quote from: Pixie on August 15, 2012, 02:24:44 PM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 15, 2012, 02:22:07 PM
"Hey there, I see that you're currently victim to the horrors of Auschwitz. I can imagine how that must feel for you. While not a resident myself,  I am going to tell you all about Auschwitz as the local authority on Auschwitz. What's that? No, I think you're wrong about that detail. Why does that upset you? How come your side of the Auschwitz yay or nay argument is the best and I have to listen to you? If you want your situation to get better, you need to be more respectful towards people who aren't in Auschwitz when they explain Auschwitz to you.What do you mean I can't be an official Auschwitz ally if I go about misrepresenting Auschwitz and insist that the interpretation from within is somehow invalid?" to expand on the already fairly dangerous comparison.

Roger, I'm not reading that into it at all. Maybe I'm more familiar with the positions being represented here and there's a miscommunication I'm reading past. Comparing quotes of statements to those of replies and interpretations is a bit beyond the capabilities of my phone, but the thread reads like "men can absolutely be helpful and involved but cannot be primary sources on the experiences of women", "hey, fuck you for excluding me."
This!
The bolded bit is what "cis man tears" was about. That's what "feminism makes me feel attacked!" and "let's stop calling it feminism because I feel left out!" is about.
(if you don't want the word to be used against you, then don't freak out. Listen. Stop jumping to conclusions. Accept that you might need to change your behavior and that maybe even though you ARE generally feminist, there's maybe some areas you need to work on).

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 09:25:13 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 15, 2012, 09:24:38 PM
Quote from: Guru Quixote on August 15, 2012, 09:16:21 PM
Anyone else here think "cis" is a fucking retarded term?

Since the first night I googled it to see WTF people meant by it.

It also sounds like "Sis". Kind of emasculating. Might even be intentional.

It's just the next "You People".
I don't think it is. I have no idea why that term was chosen to represent that idea, but it was. *shrug* I have some issues with the term, but they go in a different direction than is relevant to this discussion.

I don't think it was deliberately emasculating. Also, the term applies to women, too. Not just men.

No, it doesn't. It's a term to differentiate between trans* people from people whose gender identity matches their bodies. Most people are cis, it's true. But it's not pejorative. It's just a word.

I'm not particularly fond of "cis" as a adjective for women, either. Sounds like a minor character from a 50's sitcom: "Mom and Dad and Bud and Sis."

And it becomes perjorative when you use phrases like "cis man tears".
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 15, 2012, 09:42:48 PM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 15, 2012, 09:39:10 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:15:24 PM
I am a "CIS male".  This is utterly irrelevant as to whether or not I am an elgatarian.  And I don't see any "feminist space".  I see people who want to be recognized as people and/or who recognize other people as people.  There is no "space" here to enter.  There is no territory upon which to infringe.  You are, or you aren't.  Nothing else matters.

That's fine. But Roger, there are feminist spaces. Whether there should be or not is a different argument, but they exist. There are feminist collectives and feminist blogs and feminist communities and feminist events, and they are spearheaded as such. They're a thing. And when men come along and want to turn the whole things into a discussion about "what about meeeeee", that's when we get frustrated.

That's what you got from page after page of posting about how things have to be egalitarian and crusades end up fucking it all up? You think he wants to put on a uniform?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pæs on August 15, 2012, 09:43:48 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 05:39:03 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 15, 2012, 04:42:25 PM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 15, 2012, 02:22:07 PM
"Hey there, I see that you're currently victim to the horrors of Auschwitz. I can imagine how that must feel for you. While not a resident myself,  I am going to tell you all about Auschwitz as the local authority on Auschwitz. What's that? No, I think you're wrong about that detail. Why does that upset you? How come your side of the Auschwitz yay or nay argument is the best and I have to listen to you? If you want your situation to get better, you need to be more respectful towards people who aren't in Auschwitz when they explain Auschwitz to you.What do you mean I can't be an official Auschwitz ally if I go about misrepresenting Auschwitz and insist that the interpretation from within is somehow invalid?" to expand on the already fairly dangerous comparison.

Roger, I'm not reading that into it at all. Maybe I'm more familiar with the positions being represented here and there's a miscommunication I'm reading past. Comparing quotes of statements to those of replies and interpretations is a bit beyond the capabilities of my phone, but the thread reads like "men can absolutely be helpful and involved but cannot be primary sources on the experiences of women", "hey, fuck you for excluding me."

YES! Thank you, Paes!

Except that what Paes said had jack shit to do with what I was saying.

Oh, hi. I see you're back on this again after my repeated offers that we examine why you felt that this post was an attack on you or something, that I might clarify if you share the part which felt like a negative response to you which were responded to with further implications of the same.So I just clarified the parts that seemed like potentials vecctors for offending, like explaining that hardly any of the post was pointed at you and that nowhere did I I assume to represent your position.

Ook ook. If you're determined to take offence, fuck you Roger. You miserable fuck. I'm done giving you the benefit of the doubt and can only read your reactions here as attempts at shutting the conversation down with strawmen. Continue to be a snarky asshole about these perceived slights well after they are addressed, though. Just donMt go blaming anyone else when that attitude doesn't help the conversation.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 15, 2012, 09:45:14 PM
Just like "white" becomes pejorative when someone says "white tears", Stellz? I explain my word choice below, btw.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:29:04 PM
Quote from: Pixie on August 15, 2012, 02:24:44 PM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 15, 2012, 02:22:07 PM
"Hey there, I see that you're currently victim to the horrors of Auschwitz. I can imagine how that must feel for you. While not a resident myself,  I am going to tell you all about Auschwitz as the local authority on Auschwitz. What's that? No, I think you're wrong about that detail. Why does that upset you? How come your side of the Auschwitz yay or nay argument is the best and I have to listen to you? If you want your situation to get better, you need to be more respectful towards people who aren't in Auschwitz when they explain Auschwitz to you.What do you mean I can't be an official Auschwitz ally if I go about misrepresenting Auschwitz and insist that the interpretation from within is somehow invalid?" to expand on the already fairly dangerous comparison.

Roger, I'm not reading that into it at all. Maybe I'm more familiar with the positions being represented here and there's a miscommunication I'm reading past. Comparing quotes of statements to those of replies and interpretations is a bit beyond the capabilities of my phone, but the thread reads like "men can absolutely be helpful and involved but cannot be primary sources on the experiences of women", "hey, fuck you for excluding me."
This!

Right, then, if that's how I'm coming off, then I am neither suitable for this conversation or the general struggle it describes.  Signor Paisor can keep explaining my position for me, I guess, since he feels he is capable of stating what I really think.
Roger, please chill out. No one is attacking you. While I an frustrated with you (you keep putting words in my mouth and I'd like it if you'd stop, please), I have not observed you doing the crying. I never saw you bitch about how feminism makes you feel sad or whatever.

Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 15, 2012, 09:39:10 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:15:24 PM
I am a "CIS male".  This is utterly irrelevant as to whether or not I am an elgatarian.  And I don't see any "feminist space".  I see people who want to be recognized as people and/or who recognize other people as people.  There is no "space" here to enter.  There is no territory upon which to infringe.  You are, or you aren't.  Nothing else matters.

That's fine. But Roger, there are feminist spaces. Whether there should be or not is a different argument, but they exist. There are feminist collectives and feminist blogs and feminist communities and feminist events, and they are spearheaded as such. They're a thing. And when men come along and want to turn the whole things into a discussion about "what about meeeeee", that's when we get frustrated.
This. You being cis is irrelevant until you, or any other dude, make it relevant. I added "cis" to the "man tears" because transmen don't exactly have the same privileges you do (and again, privilege is nothing to be ashamed of, just something to be aware of) or experience things the same way. I was trying to be more specific.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 15, 2012, 09:48:52 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 15, 2012, 09:42:48 PM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 15, 2012, 09:39:10 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:15:24 PM
I am a "CIS male".  This is utterly irrelevant as to whether or not I am an elgatarian.  And I don't see any "feminist space".  I see people who want to be recognized as people and/or who recognize other people as people.  There is no "space" here to enter.  There is no territory upon which to infringe.  You are, or you aren't.  Nothing else matters.

That's fine. But Roger, there are feminist spaces. Whether there should be or not is a different argument, but they exist. There are feminist collectives and feminist blogs and feminist communities and feminist events, and they are spearheaded as such. They're a thing. And when men come along and want to turn the whole things into a discussion about "what about meeeeee", that's when we get frustrated.

That's what you got from page after page of posting about how things have to be egalitarian and crusades end up fucking it all up? You think he wants to put on a uniform?

No. I didn't. What?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 15, 2012, 09:50:30 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:27:25 PM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 15, 2012, 02:22:07 PM
"Hey there, I see that you're currently victim to the horrors of Auschwitz. I can imagine how that must feel for you. While not a resident myself,  I am going to tell you all about Auschwitz as the local authority on Auschwitz. What's that? No, I think you're wrong about that detail. Why does that upset you? How come your side of the Auschwitz yay or nay argument is the best and I have to listen to you? If you want your situation to get better, you need to be more respectful towards people who aren't in Auschwitz when they explain Auschwitz to you.What do you mean I can't be an official Auschwitz ally if I go about misrepresenting Auschwitz and insist that the interpretation from within is somehow invalid?" to expand on the already fairly dangerous comparison.

Roger, I'm not reading that into it at all. Maybe I'm more familiar with the positions being represented here and there's a miscommunication I'm reading past. Comparing quotes of statements to those of replies and interpretations is a bit beyond the capabilities of my phone, but the thread reads like "men can absolutely be helpful and involved but cannot be primary sources on the experiences of women", "hey, fuck you for excluding me."

That, of course, has nothing to do with anything I said.

It does, however, bring up an interesting question:  Why are men supposed to be incapable of being primary sources on eglatarianism?  Or is the current definition (in this thread) of feminism gone from "eglatarianism" to "Women's historical and current problems"?

I've heard both definitions of feminism.  One is inclusive, and one is exclusive.  I prefer the inclusive version that states a goal of "all people of all genders, races, and orientations are and should be considered equal members in society".

If feminism is going to go back to being doublespeak for the exclusive one, I hope it crashes and burns. The first wave never spoke for me and I still resent those lunatics presuming to represent me, or anybody else.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 15, 2012, 09:51:14 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 03:16:36 PM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 15, 2012, 03:08:04 PM
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 15, 2012, 02:48:18 PM
I don't read ANYONE in this thread bashing Feminism, big F.  What I see are some expressing that any strain or version of feminism, little f, that is practiced to exclude men because they are men and don't have the experience of being women, is a strain that is probably too insular for it's own good.

Who is advocating the exclusion of men and will anyone with that point of contention quote the offending suggestion so it can be clarified or defended?

Well, here's one:

Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 15, 2012, 12:22:11 PM

The only thing I would add is that in my experience, the best male allies are the ones who come in knowing that they're going to have to earn trust from some feminists and just, you know, quietly do that instead of whining about how Really Really Nice They Are, Why Are You Oppressing Me With Your Mistrust.

To everyone who agrees with the above statement:

I am not fucking required to gain anyone's trust.  I am required as a biped to be an eglatarian, defined as "all human beings are equal and to be judged - when judgement is necessary - according to their individual merits".  I do not require that anyone trust me for me to do that.  I am not joining a club, or even an organization.  Your or anyone else's "trust" is meaningless in this context.  I am an elgatarian because it is the right thing to do.

So, you know, fuck this "alliance" business.  I am going to do what works, which is to set an example, and not tolerate inequality in my workplace, the crew I run, my family, my home, or my social circle.  Alliances lead to dominance games, and it's become fairly self-evident, at least in this group, that this becomes counterproductive and requires a uniform. 

So you can take your trust requirement and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.  I'm not doing this for you, and I do not require the approval of other feminists to be a feminist.

And if that's not good enough, then too fucking bad.

There are other examples upthread.  I can get into them, if you like.
We use the word "allies" because (I dread bring this up again) you can't be a woman or a female. It acknowledges that, that's all.

That is, btw, what a good ally does.


Can I ask you what sort of uniform you think we're trying to get you to wear? Because I'm not seeing it.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 15, 2012, 09:52:28 PM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 15, 2012, 09:48:52 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 15, 2012, 09:42:48 PM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 15, 2012, 09:39:10 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:15:24 PM
I am a "CIS male".  This is utterly irrelevant as to whether or not I am an elgatarian.  And I don't see any "feminist space".  I see people who want to be recognized as people and/or who recognize other people as people.  There is no "space" here to enter.  There is no territory upon which to infringe.  You are, or you aren't.  Nothing else matters.

That's fine. But Roger, there are feminist spaces. Whether there should be or not is a different argument, but they exist. There are feminist collectives and feminist blogs and feminist communities and feminist events, and they are spearheaded as such. They're a thing. And when men come along and want to turn the whole things into a discussion about "what about meeeeee", that's when we get frustrated.

That's what you got from page after page of posting about how things have to be egalitarian and crusades end up fucking it all up? You think he wants to put on a uniform?

No. I didn't. What?

Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 15, 2012, 09:48:52 PMThat's fine. But Roger, there are feminist spaces. Whether there should be or not is a different argument, but they exist. There are feminist collectives and feminist blogs and feminist communities and feminist events, and they are spearheaded as such. They're a thing. And when men come along and want to turn the whole things into a discussion about "what about meeeeee", that's when we get frustrated.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 15, 2012, 09:54:44 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 15, 2012, 03:25:33 PM
Oh come on Spags, this was a really good conversation... let's not ruin it before 50 pages!!! :D

I keep seeing layers in the conversation of people talking past each other. The women are making some excellent points, the guys are making some excellent points... but both sides seem to be misinterpreting the intent behind those points (in my opinion).

First off, I have to say that if I had lived my whole life being treated differently because of my race, sex etc that would feel pretty shitty and I would be pissed off about it. So full points to the girls as to why this is an intense issue.

Secondly, if I go through my day thinking people are equal and treating people as equal and then some person says "Well, you say curse word X and therefore are a misogynist and are coming from 'privilege'" then I'm gonna get defensive.

In my opinion, its probably better for the health of this debate to recognize both of these points. The women might yell a bit louder or make some insulting remarks, because they've been abused by society. Anyone coming out of an abusive situation tends to yell pretty loudly about it, even if its not the best tactic for convincing other people. The guys might be a little defensive, especially if they are told subjective opinions as fact "If you say cunt/pussy etc you ARE a misogynist", "If you aren't a woman you CAN'T understand...", simply because they feel like they're being attacked and lumped in with the knuckle dragging, male monkeys that embarrass the hell out of the rest of us guys.

Cain said e-Prime would be useful in this and I think he's right. (though I didn't want to say it since me and e-Prime comments turn threads into hours of drift.)

But, lets compare:

"If you say cunt/pussy etc you ARE a misogynist"

"If you use cunt/pussy as a slur, you appear misogynistic to many women."

The first is an opinion, being presented as fact. The second is fact being presented as fact.

That being said, I think especially here in this debate that getting defensive and digging in your heels as a guy isn't really useful. I may get shit on for this (and I hope not because I'm not trying to be misogynistic here) but if you're dealing with people that have been abused, you gotta make some allowances for behavior. Women have been abused, they're pissed, they might say shit that sounds like angry accusations and might even hurt, but FFS, let it go. Read through the anger and see what they're trying to say. I for one have been enjoying the hell out of this thread and the earlier one. It's really made me focus on a topic I hadn't paid much attention to previously.
This.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 09:57:13 PM
So, what I'm hearing here is that perjorative use of terminology is a one-way street.  If it's ME doing it, it's bad.  If it's YOU doing it, it's okay.

And I'm hearing that objecting to being told that I cannot make value decisions about elgatarianism is the same as saying "look at meeeeeeeeeeee", because I cannot possibly have any experience at all in the consequences of dehumanizing people.

I don't much care for this "new equality".  It sounds too much like the old kind.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 09:57:35 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 15, 2012, 03:54:19 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 15, 2012, 05:18:57 AM
Quote from: Net on August 15, 2012, 05:08:53 AM
The following is a rationalization that my brain came up with. I know it's not right in spite of there being a little truth to it, but I thought I'd offer it up as an example of a way that patriarchal ideas can manifest. I'm also depositing it here for the sake of dissection.

Women tend to be physically smaller and have less upper body strength than men, so why is it such a no-no to link femininity to weakness? On one hand I hear women saying that men don't understand how inequality in strength and size fuels feelings of vulnerability around men, yet women seem to not want womanhood or femininity otherwise linked with weakness.

Unfortunately, it's entirely appropriate for women to be concerned about being physically overpowered as it's basic fact that most men are stronger than most women. For the average man, such a concern is less warranted as he's likely to have a more even match when push comes to shove. So when guys disparage one another using words conceptually linked to women it seems less about putting women down and more an inference that what is an appropriate concern for a woman is often not an appropriate concern for man.

OK, I'm going to do one of those comparisons that people hate so much. Before I do, I want to make clear that I am doing this purely because I find it incredibly effective in highlighting the issue in terms that most of us are already familiar with, and not because I in any way think you endorse these views.

QuoteBlacks tend to be lower income and have less material wealth than whites, so why is it such a no-no to link blackness to poverty? On one hand I hear blacks saying that whites don't understand how inequality in income and assets fuels feelings of oppression and disparity around whites, yet blacks seem to not want African origins or dark skin otherwise linked with poverty.

Unfortunately, it's entirely appropriate for blacks to be concerned about being economically discriminated against as it's basic fact that most whites are paid more than most blacks. For the average white person, such a concern is less warranted as they're likely to have a more even match when applying for work. So when whites disparage one another using words conceptually linked to blacks it seems less about putting blacks down and more an inference that what is an appropriate concern for a black person is often not an appropriate concern for a white person.

Question (not gauntlet): Aren't there more poor Blacks because of a rigged social/economic system? If everybody had the same advantages here, the numbers would be different, obviously. Men don't have more upper-body strength because of better nutrition or because gyms keep women out, so I'm not sure about this analogy.

I don't have a problem with being seen as inherently physically weaker, it doesn't mean "inferior" anyway. We have other things we tend to do better, we're just as good, but not identical. I like being able to ask guys to to heavy lifting because they know it's easier for them. It would be another story if I'd grown up watching boys get better food and play outdoors while I was locked in a room mending socks or something.

Yes, but the specific issue being addressed here is not whether blacks are statistically more likely to be poor, but what using a word that denotes blackness as an insult tells us about our society.

Just as the specific issue with calling men "pussies" or "little girls" is not whether women are weaker overall than men are, but what using femininity as an insult tells us about our society.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 09:58:51 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 15, 2012, 09:45:14 PM
This. You being cis is irrelevant until you, or any other dude, make it relevant.

Until the man-tears start, of course.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 10:00:31 PM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 15, 2012, 09:43:48 PM
Ook ook. If you're determined to take offence, fuck you Roger. You miserable fuck. I'm done giving you the benefit of the doubt and can only read your reactions here as attempts at shutting the conversation down with strawmen.

What the gibbering fuck are you talking about?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 10:02:35 PM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 15, 2012, 09:39:10 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:15:24 PM
I am a "CIS male".  This is utterly irrelevant as to whether or not I am an elgatarian.  And I don't see any "feminist space".  I see people who want to be recognized as people and/or who recognize other people as people.  There is no "space" here to enter.  There is no territory upon which to infringe.  You are, or you aren't.  Nothing else matters.

That's fine. But Roger, there are feminist spaces. Whether there should be or not is a different argument, but they exist. There are feminist collectives and feminist blogs and feminist communities and feminist events, and they are spearheaded as such. They're a thing. And when men come along and want to turn the whole things into a discussion about "what about meeeeee", that's when we get frustrated.

May I respectfully suggest you look at the title of this thread?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 10:05:30 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 15, 2012, 04:06:23 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 15, 2012, 07:00:19 AM
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.

This probably explains the "cunt is derived from the same root as cunning or ken" thing that I saw some years ago, and can't find now. Thanks.  :)

Yes, and I've always wondered about the logic behind that kind of "reclaiming", because the logic seems to be "See, it doesn't really mean "vagina", so it's not really anything bad" rather than ACTUAL reclaiming, which would be "It means "vagina" and vaginas are good".
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 15, 2012, 10:06:23 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 15, 2012, 09:45:14 PM
Just like "white" becomes pejorative when someone says "white tears", Stellz? I explain my word choice below, btw.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:29:04 PM
Quote from: Pixie on August 15, 2012, 02:24:44 PM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 15, 2012, 02:22:07 PM
"Hey there, I see that you're currently victim to the horrors of Auschwitz. I can imagine how that must feel for you. While not a resident myself,  I am going to tell you all about Auschwitz as the local authority on Auschwitz. What's that? No, I think you're wrong about that detail. Why does that upset you? How come your side of the Auschwitz yay or nay argument is the best and I have to listen to you? If you want your situation to get better, you need to be more respectful towards people who aren't in Auschwitz when they explain Auschwitz to you.What do you mean I can't be an official Auschwitz ally if I go about misrepresenting Auschwitz and insist that the interpretation from within is somehow invalid?" to expand on the already fairly dangerous comparison.

Roger, I'm not reading that into it at all. Maybe I'm more familiar with the positions being represented here and there's a miscommunication I'm reading past. Comparing quotes of statements to those of replies and interpretations is a bit beyond the capabilities of my phone, but the thread reads like "men can absolutely be helpful and involved but cannot be primary sources on the experiences of women", "hey, fuck you for excluding me."
This!

Right, then, if that's how I'm coming off, then I am neither suitable for this conversation or the general struggle it describes.  Signor Paisor can keep explaining my position for me, I guess, since he feels he is capable of stating what I really think.
Roger, please chill out. No one is attacking you. While I an frustrated with you (you keep putting words in my mouth and I'd like it if you'd stop, please), I have not observed you doing the crying. I never saw you bitch about how feminism makes you feel sad or whatever.

Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 15, 2012, 09:39:10 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:15:24 PM
I am a "CIS male".  This is utterly irrelevant as to whether or not I am an elgatarian.  And I don't see any "feminist space".  I see people who want to be recognized as people and/or who recognize other people as people.  There is no "space" here to enter.  There is no territory upon which to infringe.  You are, or you aren't.  Nothing else matters.

That's fine. But Roger, there are feminist spaces. Whether there should be or not is a different argument, but they exist. There are feminist collectives and feminist blogs and feminist communities and feminist events, and they are spearheaded as such. They're a thing. And when men come along and want to turn the whole things into a discussion about "what about meeeeee", that's when we get frustrated.
This. You being cis is irrelevant until you, or any other dude, make it relevant. I added "cis" to the "man tears" because transmen don't exactly have the same privileges you do (and again, privilege is nothing to be ashamed of, just something to be aware of) or experience things the same way. I was trying to be more specific.

Garbo, a person is a human being first, having a human experience. Male, female, straight, gay, trans, bi, cis  :x, etc. are waaaaay secondary to that.

Everybody goes through shit. Some people go through shit that's not identical to your shit, but it involved being mindfucked, pushed around, or whatever, and sometimes a it's lot more intense. There's enough there that they can relate. I wouldn't dismiss them with "cis tears" OR "white tears".
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 10:09:52 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 15, 2012, 04:35:31 PM
Yes but can men join as equals, intellectually and otherwise? Or are men expected to join as foot soldiers and solidarity trophies, expected to place their own beliefs and experiences and ideas on a lower level than women's? If that's the kind of joining I would have to do, then no thanks. I understand that the experience of being a woman can only be had by women (though there's some wiggle-room there), but a heartfelt understanding and empathy with women can be had by anyone, and anyone can have valid observations and ideas about how to improve things. It turns a lot of men off even trying, and turns a few of them against feminism, to just say, "lol you're a man what do you know."

How can they? They just do. Part of that joining involves listening to women's experience and feelings in their lower-status situation in this society, as well as women listening to men's experience and feelings in their higher-status situation. Most importantly, it means both men and women being aware of that status disparity as they listen to, and tell, their stories.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 15, 2012, 10:12:43 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 15, 2012, 09:57:35 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 15, 2012, 03:54:19 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 15, 2012, 05:18:57 AM
Quote from: Net on August 15, 2012, 05:08:53 AM
The following is a rationalization that my brain came up with. I know it's not right in spite of there being a little truth to it, but I thought I'd offer it up as an example of a way that patriarchal ideas can manifest. I'm also depositing it here for the sake of dissection.

Women tend to be physically smaller and have less upper body strength than men, so why is it such a no-no to link femininity to weakness? On one hand I hear women saying that men don't understand how inequality in strength and size fuels feelings of vulnerability around men, yet women seem to not want womanhood or femininity otherwise linked with weakness.

Unfortunately, it's entirely appropriate for women to be concerned about being physically overpowered as it's basic fact that most men are stronger than most women. For the average man, such a concern is less warranted as he's likely to have a more even match when push comes to shove. So when guys disparage one another using words conceptually linked to women it seems less about putting women down and more an inference that what is an appropriate concern for a woman is often not an appropriate concern for man.

OK, I'm going to do one of those comparisons that people hate so much. Before I do, I want to make clear that I am doing this purely because I find it incredibly effective in highlighting the issue in terms that most of us are already familiar with, and not because I in any way think you endorse these views.

QuoteBlacks tend to be lower income and have less material wealth than whites, so why is it such a no-no to link blackness to poverty? On one hand I hear blacks saying that whites don't understand how inequality in income and assets fuels feelings of oppression and disparity around whites, yet blacks seem to not want African origins or dark skin otherwise linked with poverty.

Unfortunately, it's entirely appropriate for blacks to be concerned about being economically discriminated against as it's basic fact that most whites are paid more than most blacks. For the average white person, such a concern is less warranted as they're likely to have a more even match when applying for work. So when whites disparage one another using words conceptually linked to blacks it seems less about putting blacks down and more an inference that what is an appropriate concern for a black person is often not an appropriate concern for a white person.

Question (not gauntlet): Aren't there more poor Blacks because of a rigged social/economic system? If everybody had the same advantages here, the numbers would be different, obviously. Men don't have more upper-body strength because of better nutrition or because gyms keep women out, so I'm not sure about this analogy.

I don't have a problem with being seen as inherently physically weaker, it doesn't mean "inferior" anyway. We have other things we tend to do better, we're just as good, but not identical. I like being able to ask guys to to heavy lifting because they know it's easier for them. It would be another story if I'd grown up watching boys get better food and play outdoors while I was locked in a room mending socks or something.

Yes, but the specific issue being addressed here is not whether blacks are statistically more likely to be poor, but what using a word that denotes blackness as an insult tells us about our society.

Just as the specific issue with calling men "pussies" or "little girls" is not whether women are weaker overall than men are, but what using femininity as an insult tells us about our society.

Ah, thanks.  :)
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 15, 2012, 10:17:36 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 15, 2012, 10:09:52 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 15, 2012, 04:35:31 PM
Yes but can men join as equals, intellectually and otherwise? Or are men expected to join as foot soldiers and solidarity trophies, expected to place their own beliefs and experiences and ideas on a lower level than women's? If that's the kind of joining I would have to do, then no thanks. I understand that the experience of being a woman can only be had by women (though there's some wiggle-room there), but a heartfelt understanding and empathy with women can be had by anyone, and anyone can have valid observations and ideas about how to improve things. It turns a lot of men off even trying, and turns a few of them against feminism, to just say, "lol you're a man what do you know."

How can they? They just do. Part of that joining involves listening to women's experience and feelings in their lower-status situation in this society, as well as women listening to men's experience and feelings in their higher-status situation. Most importantly, it means both men and women being aware of that status disparity as they listen to, and tell, their stories.
This.

Vex, a man's experience IS as valid as a woman's. But you do have to realize, if you want to work with women and females on issues specifically related to them, that you are going to have to put your experiences in the back seat when dealing explicitly with those issues. And be aware of your higher status the rest of the time.


Stellz, Human experience, yes. I agree. But those experiences are very heavily colored by those filters.

Quote from: v3x on August 15, 2012, 04:10:13 PM
Being oppressed is traumatic and obviously terrible. But it also can have the effect of turning people sour and seeking revenge. This is fact, and nobody is above it. See: ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY. Being oppressed does not lend itself to giving a balanced view of the situation even if that oppression ends. Whole nations of humans have formed for the specific purpose of seeking revenge for oppression - and they do it, and they're no better than their oppressors were, but they don't see it, because their ability to be fair has been violated and destroyed by the original oppression.

I'm not saying feminism is necessarily going to go down this path, but it's possible (and you can't really say it's impossible without being self-righteous and just plain wrong). So it seems to me that feminism needs detached, outside opinions and observations in order to keep that possibility in check.

Saying things like "men don't/can't understand" or "a man's view is inherently inferior or inadequate" or that it must "take a back seat" to a woman's opinions is evidence of that counter-oppressive possibility.
Those outside opinions are often flavors of "you're overreacting!"* so you'll have to excuse me if I have trouble with that idea.


*This is not to say that a guy can't have valid input, but that I'm going to analyze what he has to say very, very harshly. And THIS IS NOT A PERSONAL ATTACK ON ANYONE HERE. I don't think any of the guys on PD would tell me, if a guy started to verge on rapeiness, that I was overreacting. I know you wouldn't.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 09:58:51 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 15, 2012, 09:45:14 PM
This. You being cis is irrelevant until you, or any other dude, make it relevant.

Until the man-tears start, of course.
Uh, pretty much, although I'm going to point out, since I possibly wasn't clear enough before, that other dudes crying doesn't delegitimize your input. We try not to paint with a broad brush (yes, I know that's not how you're seeing it at present; Imma try to untangle the knots soon - maybe that would be useful?).
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 10:18:44 PM
I'd have to see.  It looks pretty knotted up.

In fact, it looks like everything that's been explained to me in the last 2 days has been bullshit.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 10:18:59 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 15, 2012, 04:50:36 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:36:52 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 15, 2012, 04:35:31 PM
Yes but can men join as equals, intellectually and otherwise?

Join what?

the feminist cause, the fight for equality. saying "mens ideas must take a back seat" is like telling straight people they have no business fighting for gay rights, or white people they have no business fighting for racial equality, unless they completely bow out of the conversation and do nothing but show up at rallies and echo what they're told to say.

I think that "men's ideas must take a back seat" is wrong. However, I think that when people say "men need to listen to women's feelings and experiences without trying to invalidate them just because they don't match their own feelings and experiences", some people often perceive it as saying that men's ideas must take a back seat.

It's not that men's experiences don't count or aren't valid. It's that it's a problem when men try to use their experiences to tell women what women feel and experience, or what men think women ought to feel and experience.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 10:19:31 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:55:29 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 15, 2012, 04:50:36 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:36:52 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 15, 2012, 04:35:31 PM
Yes but can men join as equals, intellectually and otherwise?

Join what?

the feminist cause, the fight for equality. saying "mens ideas must take a back seat" is like telling straight people they have no business fighting for gay rights, or white people they have no business fighting for racial equality, unless they completely bow out of the conversation and do nothing but show up at rallies and echo what they're told to say.

Eglatarianism (or feminism) isn't something you join.  It's something you ARE and something you DO.

The approval of one faction or another is irrelevant.  I don't care if someone thinks I can only be an "associate member" because of my gender or whatever, because I never joined their group, because there IS NO GROUP.  There are only your own personal beliefs and actions.

And, this.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 10:20:00 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 15, 2012, 10:18:59 PM
I think that "men's ideas must take a back seat" is wrong. However, I think that when people say "men need to listen to women's feelings and experiences without trying to invalidate them just because they don't match their own feelings and experiences", some people often perceive it as saying that men's ideas must take a back seat.

It's not that men's experiences don't count or aren't valid. It's that it's a problem when men try to use their experiences to tell women what women feel and experience, or what men think women ought to feel and experience.

I can't disagree with anything in this post.

But I don't read what was said earlier as being the same as this.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 15, 2012, 10:20:14 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 10:00:31 PM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 15, 2012, 09:43:48 PM
Ook ook. If you're determined to take offence, fuck you Roger. You miserable fuck. I'm done giving you the benefit of the doubt and can only read your reactions here as attempts at shutting the conversation down with strawmen.

What the gibbering fuck are you talking about?

"OOK OOK" - wasn't that Khara's line?  :lulz:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 10:20:59 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 15, 2012, 10:20:14 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 10:00:31 PM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 15, 2012, 09:43:48 PM
Ook ook. If you're determined to take offence, fuck you Roger. You miserable fuck. I'm done giving you the benefit of the doubt and can only read your reactions here as attempts at shutting the conversation down with strawmen.

What the gibbering fuck are you talking about?

"OOK OOK" - wasn't that Khara's line?  :lulz:

No, that was my line.   :lulz:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pæs on August 15, 2012, 10:22:23 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 10:00:31 PM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 15, 2012, 09:43:48 PM
Ook ook. If you're determined to take offence, fuck you Roger. You miserable fuck. I'm done giving you the benefit of the doubt and can only read your reactions here as attempts at shutting the conversation down with strawmen.

What the gibbering fuck are you talking about?

I'm talking about repeated attempts to address your "they are putting words in my mouth and that post didn't have anything to do with me" with "prove it" and "then it probably wasn't aimed at you" being responded to with "YOU JUST KEEP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH".

Get fucked. "This minority isn't giving me enough of a say" makes you look like a parody of every privileged motherfucker ever. "BAWWW They aren't trusting me even though I am on their side" you poor son of a bitch, that must be really upsetting. You know who else that distrust is uncomfortable for? The women whose experience has led them to develop it for self defence.

Here, for the first time, there is room for complaining about how I'm portraying you.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 10:23:02 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 05:39:03 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 15, 2012, 04:42:25 PM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 15, 2012, 02:22:07 PM
"Hey there, I see that you're currently victim to the horrors of Auschwitz. I can imagine how that must feel for you. While not a resident myself,  I am going to tell you all about Auschwitz as the local authority on Auschwitz. What's that? No, I think you're wrong about that detail. Why does that upset you? How come your side of the Auschwitz yay or nay argument is the best and I have to listen to you? If you want your situation to get better, you need to be more respectful towards people who aren't in Auschwitz when they explain Auschwitz to you.What do you mean I can't be an official Auschwitz ally if I go about misrepresenting Auschwitz and insist that the interpretation from within is somehow invalid?" to expand on the already fairly dangerous comparison.

Roger, I'm not reading that into it at all. Maybe I'm more familiar with the positions being represented here and there's a miscommunication I'm reading past. Comparing quotes of statements to those of replies and interpretations is a bit beyond the capabilities of my phone, but the thread reads like "men can absolutely be helpful and involved but cannot be primary sources on the experiences of women", "hey, fuck you for excluding me."

YES! Thank you, Paes!

Except that what Paes said had jack shit to do with what I was saying.

So the fuck what? He made some good points. It's not about "winning" some personal debate IMO, it's about getting to the truth.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 10:23:44 PM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 15, 2012, 10:22:23 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 10:00:31 PM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 15, 2012, 09:43:48 PM
Ook ook. If you're determined to take offence, fuck you Roger. You miserable fuck. I'm done giving you the benefit of the doubt and can only read your reactions here as attempts at shutting the conversation down with strawmen.

What the gibbering fuck are you talking about?

I'm talking about repeated attempts to address your "they are putting words in my mouth and that post didn't have anything to do with me" with "prove it" and "then it probably wasn't aimed at you" being responded to with "YOU JUST KEEP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH".

Get fucked. "This minority isn't giving me enough of a say" makes you look like a parody of every privileged motherfucker ever. "BAWWW They aren't trusting me even though I am on their side" you poor son of a bitch, that must be really upsetting. You know who else that distrust is uncomfortable for? The women whose experience has led them to develop it for self defence.

Here, for the first time, there is room for complaining about how I'm portraying you.

Paesor, you simply don't have the chops to tell me that I don't understand the consequences of non-eglatarian behavior.

That's really all there is to it.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 15, 2012, 10:25:08 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:53:39 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 15, 2012, 04:45:21 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:07:40 PM
This has gone from a discussion about how men are also harmed by the patriarchy, to a rather interesting examination of views on language previously taken for granted, to an explanation of the following (from 3 users):

1.  Men can't understand.
2.  Men can't be trusted.
3.  Allies are not desired.  Put on the whole uniform or GTFO.
4.  "Decent men" are needed for support, which assumes that "decent" isn't the default position.
5.  Men somehow want to join the "club of the oppressed".

This conversation is now a self-parody, and cannot - in its present form - have any possible desirable outcome.  It is no longer about eglatarianism, it is now the sort of thing that is used as ammunition by people opposed to feminism.

The upside is, before it turned into a pissing contest, I got one good thing out of it (thanks, Garbo).

It's starting to sound like that rusty old Gloria Steinem/Marlo Thomas rhetoric that ruined the first wave feminism by assuming we all wanted to HATE MENS AND BE FORKLIFT OPERATORS.

"A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle."
"A liberated woman is one who has sex before marriage and a job after."
"We are becoming the men we wanted to marry"
"A woman reading Playboy feels a little like a Jew reading a Nazi manual."
"Women have two choices: Either she's a feminist or a masochist."

Both sides of the argument present a false dichtomy.  There is only one standard:  CAN YOU LIVE THE LIFE YOU WANT TO LIVE, ON YOUR OWN MERITS AS A HUMAN BEING?

If the answer is yes, you're an equal, regardless of what YOU CHOOSE to actually do.  If a woman CHOOSES to be a housewife or to have a career is her choice, and does not indicate one way or the other if she is a "feminist".

Likewise, a Gay person can choose to be whatever they want to be, if it is something inside their individual capabilities.  So can I, so can you.  No other conditions are necessary or even desirable.
There's no argument to be had here from me.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pæs on August 15, 2012, 10:28:54 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 10:23:44 PM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 15, 2012, 10:22:23 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 10:00:31 PM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 15, 2012, 09:43:48 PM
Ook ook. If you're determined to take offence, fuck you Roger. You miserable fuck. I'm done giving you the benefit of the doubt and can only read your reactions here as attempts at shutting the conversation down with strawmen.

What the gibbering fuck are you talking about?

I'm talking about repeated attempts to address your "they are putting words in my mouth and that post didn't have anything to do with me" with "prove it" and "then it probably wasn't aimed at you" being responded to with "YOU JUST KEEP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH".

Get fucked. "This minority isn't giving me enough of a say" makes you look like a parody of every privileged motherfucker ever. "BAWWW They aren't trusting me even though I am on their side" you poor son of a bitch, that must be really upsetting. You know who else that distrust is uncomfortable for? The women whose experience has led them to develop it for self defence.

Here, for the first time, there is room for complaining about how I'm portraying you.

Paesor, you simply don't have the chops to tell me that I don't understand the consequences of non-eglatarian behavior.

That's really all there is to it.
For someone so unjustly misrepresented in this thread, you sure do a good job of "this is what you really think".
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 15, 2012, 10:31:08 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 15, 2012, 10:18:59 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 15, 2012, 04:50:36 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:36:52 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 15, 2012, 04:35:31 PM
Yes but can men join as equals, intellectually and otherwise?

Join what?

the feminist cause, the fight for equality. saying "mens ideas must take a back seat" is like telling straight people they have no business fighting for gay rights, or white people they have no business fighting for racial equality, unless they completely bow out of the conversation and do nothing but show up at rallies and echo what they're told to say.

I think that "men's ideas must take a back seat" is wrong. However, I think that when people say "men need to listen to women's feelings and experiences without trying to invalidate them just because they don't match their own feelings and experiences", some people often perceive it as saying that men's ideas must take a back seat.

It's not that men's experiences don't count or aren't valid. It's that it's a problem when men try to use their experiences to tell women what women feel and experience, or what men think women ought to feel and experience.

THIS.

Also, all this fingerpointing about how priviliged men are is a bullshit tactic. Not being slut-shamed or whatever doesn't make anybody king of the world or make their input irrelevant.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 15, 2012, 10:32:37 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 10:20:59 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 15, 2012, 10:20:14 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 10:00:31 PM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 15, 2012, 09:43:48 PM
Ook ook. If you're determined to take offence, fuck you Roger. You miserable fuck. I'm done giving you the benefit of the doubt and can only read your reactions here as attempts at shutting the conversation down with strawmen.

What the gibbering fuck are you talking about?

"OOK OOK" - wasn't that Khara's line?  :lulz:

No, that was my line.   :lulz:

:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 10:33:31 PM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 15, 2012, 10:28:54 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 10:23:44 PM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 15, 2012, 10:22:23 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 10:00:31 PM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 15, 2012, 09:43:48 PM
Ook ook. If you're determined to take offence, fuck you Roger. You miserable fuck. I'm done giving you the benefit of the doubt and can only read your reactions here as attempts at shutting the conversation down with strawmen.

What the gibbering fuck are you talking about?

I'm talking about repeated attempts to address your "they are putting words in my mouth and that post didn't have anything to do with me" with "prove it" and "then it probably wasn't aimed at you" being responded to with "YOU JUST KEEP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH".

Get fucked. "This minority isn't giving me enough of a say" makes you look like a parody of every privileged motherfucker ever. "BAWWW They aren't trusting me even though I am on their side" you poor son of a bitch, that must be really upsetting. You know who else that distrust is uncomfortable for? The women whose experience has led them to develop it for self defence.

Here, for the first time, there is room for complaining about how I'm portraying you.

Paesor, you simply don't have the chops to tell me that I don't understand the consequences of non-eglatarian behavior.

That's really all there is to it.
For someone so unjustly misrepresented in this thread, you sure do a good job of "this is what you really think".

I've already explained my position on privilege, Paesior, a couple of pages back.  The fact that you blew past it is not my problem.  The fact that there can be very different reasons why privilege is bad - even potentially fatal for people who didn't do shit to deserve it - doesn't seem to concern you in the slightest. 

So spare me your outrage, and don't ever presume to preach to me about privilege or inequality again.  I mean, you CAN, but I won't be listening, for reasons that I'm not going to type out again.

ETA:  Reply 544, if you're interested.  You're not, of course.  That much at least is obvious.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 15, 2012, 10:34:20 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 05:26:57 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 15, 2012, 05:22:07 PM
Yes. There's feminism, and OTOH, there's the female counterpart to the Little Rascals "He Man Woman Haters Club".

We're comparing apples & oranges, here.  The two have nothing in common.  If you hate, distrust, or stick labels all over one gender or group, then you are neither an eglatarian nor a feminist.  You're the opposition.

And it doesn't matter if you're in the "feminists are a bunch of ball-busting man-haters" crowd, or the "men are incapable of understanding" crowd.  The former is obvious, the latter is just as insidious because it places a false condition on the subject.  It is NOT required for me to "experience what being a woman is like", just like it is not required for me to experience what Gays put up with, for me to include them in my view of who counts as "people".

I also have no idea what kids in Mali go through, after all, and I consider them to be humans.
I think what you, and the others who are on the same page re: understanding, are missing is that understanding (aka empathy) and Understanding (visceral experiences) are different. They're similar, but as I've said, but not quite the same. I want your empathy and for you to say that you get why, let's say, we're wary of men we don't know. I don't want you to say you Understand because you don't live with the fear of being raped or murdered every day because of your sex or perceived gender. It's a fine, but very valid difference in my opinion.
(I also really want to emphasize that not being able to Understand doesn't make your empathy invalid or make you evil or whatever. It's just a difference I think is important to acknowledge).


Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 15, 2012, 10:31:08 PM
Also, all this fingerpointing about how priviliged men are is a bullshit tactic. Not being slut-shamed or whatever doesn't make anybody king of the world or make their input irrelevant.
It's not finger pointing (because it's not something to be ashamed of nor is it something they created) and they are privileged. End of story. Although you'll get no argument from me that their input is still valid.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 10:37:12 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 15, 2012, 10:34:20 PM
I think what you, and the others who are on the same page re: understanding, are missing is that understanding (aka empathy) and Understanding (visceral experiences) are different.

I think I have the visceral parts down pat, thanks.  Maybe not in the same way you've learned them, but believe you me, they were drilled right into my fucking head.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 10:39:10 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 09:08:53 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 15, 2012, 09:07:27 PM
When I say "cis man tears", I'm specifically referring to a certain mind set some men have

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 15, 2012, 09:07:27 PM
When I say "feminazi", I'm specifically referring to a certain mind set some women have

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 15, 2012, 09:07:27 PM
When I say "cunt", I'm specifically referring to a certain mind set some women have

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 15, 2012, 09:07:27 PM
When I say "fag", I'm specifically referring to a certain mind set some gay people have


I never, ever expected this.

I appreciate what you're pointing out, but I also see what Garbo is trying to convey, which is that oftentimes when someone who is in a socially privileged position is are asked to review and perhaps revise their behavior in order to foster higher levels of equality, they often fall back on the "tragedy of the oppressor", much like the mega-wealthy complain of being robbed by a 0.5% tax hike to help provide health care to the poor.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 10:42:41 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 15, 2012, 10:39:10 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 09:08:53 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 15, 2012, 09:07:27 PM
When I say "cis man tears", I'm specifically referring to a certain mind set some men have

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 15, 2012, 09:07:27 PM
When I say "feminazi", I'm specifically referring to a certain mind set some women have

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 15, 2012, 09:07:27 PM
When I say "cunt", I'm specifically referring to a certain mind set some women have

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 15, 2012, 09:07:27 PM
When I say "fag", I'm specifically referring to a certain mind set some gay people have


I never, ever expected this.

I appreciate what you're pointing out, but I also see what Garbo is trying to convey, which is that oftentimes when someone who is in a socially privileged position is are asked to review and perhaps revise their behavior in order to foster higher levels of equality, they often fall back on the "tragedy of the oppressor", much like the mega-wealthy complain of being robbed by a 0.5% tax hike to help provide health care to the poor.

Oh, I know.  It's just that I had just built this mountain of respect for her, while you and she were explaining to me why calling an inanimate object a "cunt" was still wrong.  I listened, because I'm trying to become a better person (it's been my goal for 15 years or more), but then it turns out that it's okay to use the exact same thing on PEOPLE, if it's aimed in one particular direction.

There were plenty of ways to say what she meant to say.  She chose that one.

My sense of letdown is mine and mine alone, of course.  She isn't required to be consistent for my sake.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 15, 2012, 10:44:52 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 15, 2012, 10:18:59 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 15, 2012, 04:50:36 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:36:52 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 15, 2012, 04:35:31 PM
Yes but can men join as equals, intellectually and otherwise?

Join what?

the feminist cause, the fight for equality. saying "mens ideas must take a back seat" is like telling straight people they have no business fighting for gay rights, or white people they have no business fighting for racial equality, unless they completely bow out of the conversation and do nothing but show up at rallies and echo what they're told to say.

I think that "men's ideas must take a back seat" is wrong. However, I think that when people say "men need to listen to women's feelings and experiences without trying to invalidate them just because they don't match their own feelings and experiences", some people often perceive it as saying that men's ideas must take a back seat.

It's not that men's experiences don't count or aren't valid. It's that it's a problem when men try to use their experiences to tell women what women feel and experience, or what men think women ought to feel and experience.

What Nigel has said is actually what I was trying to say by "men's ideas need to take a back seat" but I cannot articulate at ass o'clock in the morning. So for clarity, this is far closer to what I was trying to convey than how it came across. Apologies.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 10:46:19 PM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 15, 2012, 09:39:10 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:15:24 PM
I am a "CIS male".  This is utterly irrelevant as to whether or not I am an elgatarian.  And I don't see any "feminist space".  I see people who want to be recognized as people and/or who recognize other people as people.  There is no "space" here to enter.  There is no territory upon which to infringe.  You are, or you aren't.  Nothing else matters.

That's fine. But Roger, there are feminist spaces. Whether there should be or not is a different argument, but they exist. There are feminist collectives and feminist blogs and feminist communities and feminist events, and they are spearheaded as such. They're a thing. And when men come along and want to turn the whole things into a discussion about "what about meeeeee", that's when we get frustrated.

One thing that is especially frustrating about it is that there is no reason men can't have those spaces, but it's up to them to make them. It's a bit silly for men to ask women to make them a space for feminist men. The world is wide open for spaces like that, if people want them.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 10:47:48 PM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 15, 2012, 10:44:52 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 15, 2012, 10:18:59 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 15, 2012, 04:50:36 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:36:52 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 15, 2012, 04:35:31 PM
Yes but can men join as equals, intellectually and otherwise?

Join what?

the feminist cause, the fight for equality. saying "mens ideas must take a back seat" is like telling straight people they have no business fighting for gay rights, or white people they have no business fighting for racial equality, unless they completely bow out of the conversation and do nothing but show up at rallies and echo what they're told to say.

I think that "men's ideas must take a back seat" is wrong. However, I think that when people say "men need to listen to women's feelings and experiences without trying to invalidate them just because they don't match their own feelings and experiences", some people often perceive it as saying that men's ideas must take a back seat.

It's not that men's experiences don't count or aren't valid. It's that it's a problem when men try to use their experiences to tell women what women feel and experience, or what men think women ought to feel and experience.

What Nigel has said is actually what I was trying to say by "men's ideas need to take a back seat" but I cannot articulate at ass o'clock in the morning. So for clarity, this is far closer to what I was trying to convey than how it came across. Apologies.

No problem.  If that's what you were trying to say, then I have no argument.  My apologies in return.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 10:49:16 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 15, 2012, 10:46:19 PM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 15, 2012, 09:39:10 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:15:24 PM
I am a "CIS male".  This is utterly irrelevant as to whether or not I am an elgatarian.  And I don't see any "feminist space".  I see people who want to be recognized as people and/or who recognize other people as people.  There is no "space" here to enter.  There is no territory upon which to infringe.  You are, or you aren't.  Nothing else matters.

That's fine. But Roger, there are feminist spaces. Whether there should be or not is a different argument, but they exist. There are feminist collectives and feminist blogs and feminist communities and feminist events, and they are spearheaded as such. They're a thing. And when men come along and want to turn the whole things into a discussion about "what about meeeeee", that's when we get frustrated.

One thing that is especially frustrating about it is that there is no reason men can't have those spaces, but it's up to them to make them. It's a bit silly for men to ask women to make them a space for feminist men. The world is wide open for spaces like that, if people want them.

My problem is that I still don't recognize these spaces.

There's humanity, in it's entirety.  Other than that, there is a cold, empty universe that wants us all dead.  There's nothing else, discounting religion, which isn't the topic here.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 10:53:10 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 15, 2012, 10:12:43 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 15, 2012, 09:57:35 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 15, 2012, 03:54:19 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 15, 2012, 05:18:57 AM
Quote from: Net on August 15, 2012, 05:08:53 AM
The following is a rationalization that my brain came up with. I know it's not right in spite of there being a little truth to it, but I thought I'd offer it up as an example of a way that patriarchal ideas can manifest. I'm also depositing it here for the sake of dissection.

Women tend to be physically smaller and have less upper body strength than men, so why is it such a no-no to link femininity to weakness? On one hand I hear women saying that men don't understand how inequality in strength and size fuels feelings of vulnerability around men, yet women seem to not want womanhood or femininity otherwise linked with weakness.

Unfortunately, it's entirely appropriate for women to be concerned about being physically overpowered as it's basic fact that most men are stronger than most women. For the average man, such a concern is less warranted as he's likely to have a more even match when push comes to shove. So when guys disparage one another using words conceptually linked to women it seems less about putting women down and more an inference that what is an appropriate concern for a woman is often not an appropriate concern for man.

OK, I'm going to do one of those comparisons that people hate so much. Before I do, I want to make clear that I am doing this purely because I find it incredibly effective in highlighting the issue in terms that most of us are already familiar with, and not because I in any way think you endorse these views.

QuoteBlacks tend to be lower income and have less material wealth than whites, so why is it such a no-no to link blackness to poverty? On one hand I hear blacks saying that whites don't understand how inequality in income and assets fuels feelings of oppression and disparity around whites, yet blacks seem to not want African origins or dark skin otherwise linked with poverty.

Unfortunately, it's entirely appropriate for blacks to be concerned about being economically discriminated against as it's basic fact that most whites are paid more than most blacks. For the average white person, such a concern is less warranted as they're likely to have a more even match when applying for work. So when whites disparage one another using words conceptually linked to blacks it seems less about putting blacks down and more an inference that what is an appropriate concern for a black person is often not an appropriate concern for a white person.

Question (not gauntlet): Aren't there more poor Blacks because of a rigged social/economic system? If everybody had the same advantages here, the numbers would be different, obviously. Men don't have more upper-body strength because of better nutrition or because gyms keep women out, so I'm not sure about this analogy.

I don't have a problem with being seen as inherently physically weaker, it doesn't mean "inferior" anyway. We have other things we tend to do better, we're just as good, but not identical. I like being able to ask guys to to heavy lifting because they know it's easier for them. It would be another story if I'd grown up watching boys get better food and play outdoors while I was locked in a room mending socks or something.

Yes, but the specific issue being addressed here is not whether blacks are statistically more likely to be poor, but what using a word that denotes blackness as an insult tells us about our society.

Just as the specific issue with calling men "pussies" or "little girls" is not whether women are weaker overall than men are, but what using femininity as an insult tells us about our society.

Ah, thanks.  :)

Sure. :)

There's a part b to that, as well, which is the message our society sends to a boy who cries over a dead pet or because his feelings were hurt or because he fell down. "Don't be a pussy, crying is for girls, man up" etc.

That kind of language not only tells the boy that girls are lesser/weaker and that expressing his emotions is beneath him, but also informs him that his masculinity and identity are invalidated by expressing his emotions. That creates a really negative internal conflict, because he can't express himself without, in a social conditioning sense, betraying himself.



Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 10:54:31 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 10:18:44 PM
I'd have to see.  It looks pretty knotted up.

In fact, it looks like everything that's been explained to me in the last 2 days has been bullshit.

That's more than a little extreme, and comes across as a cop-out.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 10:55:00 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 15, 2012, 10:53:10 PM
There's a part b to that, as well, which is the message our society sends to a boy who cries over a dead pet or because his feelings were hurt or because he fell down. "Don't be a pussy, crying is for girls, man up" etc.

That kind of language not only tells the boy that girls are lesser/weaker and that expressing his emotions is beneath him, but also informs him that his masculinity and identity are invalidated by expressing his emotions. That creates a really negative internal conflict, because he can't express himself without, in a social conditioning sense, betraying himself.

It's also the root of the po'bucker dilemma:  If you don't like women, you're a faggot.  If you do like women, you're a faggot.

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 10:55:26 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 15, 2012, 10:54:31 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 10:18:44 PM
I'd have to see.  It looks pretty knotted up.

In fact, it looks like everything that's been explained to me in the last 2 days has been bullshit.

That's more than a little extreme, and comes across as a cop-out.

I rephrased in a later post.  On this page.

ETA:  reply 592, last page.

What I learned is still correct.  That's not the issue.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 15, 2012, 10:57:27 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 15, 2012, 06:29:21 PM
Quote from: Pixie on August 15, 2012, 06:02:40 PM
I'm quite fond of Gloria Stienem's quote "The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off!"

Quote from: v3x on August 15, 2012, 04:10:13 PM
Being oppressed is traumatic and obviously terrible. But it also can have the effect of turning people sour and seeking revenge. This is fact, and nobody is above it. See: ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY. Being oppressed does not lend itself to giving a balanced view of the situation even if that oppression ends. Whole nations of humans have formed for the specific purpose of seeking revenge for oppression - and they do it, and they're no better than their oppressors were, but they don't see it, because their ability to be fair has been violated and destroyed by the original oppression.

I'm not saying feminism is necessarily going to go down this path, but it's possible (and you can't really say it's impossible without being self-righteous and just plain wrong). So it seems to me that feminism needs detached, outside opinions and observations in order to keep that possibility in check.

Saying things like "men don't/can't understand" or "a man's view is inherently inferior or inadequate" or that it must "take a back seat" to a woman's opinions is evidence of that counter-oppressive possibility.

Um, no, dude. We are saying that often (not all the time and not by all men) our experiences are minimised and brushed off as Not That Big A Deal, (see Street Harrassment, Mr Handsy deemed "harmless", being told that the boy in class when your six is hitting you because "he likes you".) because of this factor, and society treating angry women as something not to be taken seriously or "PERIODS LOL!" that the net effect of this is that although I DEARLY WOULD LOVE MEN TO BE MORE FEMINIST/ PRO-FEMINIST and decent dudes, there is a history of being marginalised, and that more of the same isn't what we want.  Hence the listening/taking a back seat/letting women frame the goals.  It's like planning moving house and telling someone where all the stuff needs to go, they may be doing all the heavy lifting, but if they ignore me and put the sofa in the kitchen I'm screwed if they leave and don't put it right.  Ok that analogy sucked a little.  All I would like from guys involved with feminism is that they recognise the marginalisation, and try not to let there be more of the same in their actions and those around them.

As for guys informing on feminist issues, it was Roger's comments and experience of porn stars and how the life can seriously fuck them up that started me questioning if porn was something I wanted to consume and therefore be complicit in.  I decided no "DO NOT WANT!" and have since been fapping to pictures of James Iha in a dress. :fap: I'm not for censorship, and if I was 100% without a doubt sure that "no porn stars were hurt in this production" like the RSPCA does with animals in films I could watch enthusiastic people fucking who have a connection based on mutual respect and fap my brains out, rather than worrying if the girl getting double-penetrated in the ass is coked up to cope or in danger of getting HIV. :vom:  I've been educated on these kinds of things by men, having a penis is not a bar to being ethical and decent.

Dudes in feminism (I'm hoping there will be some blokes in dresses! With Beards, because that is HAWT!) can speak to other dudes about Shit That Is Not OK when it comes to rape culture and wage gap and like Roger's examples of Shit He Will Not Tolerate, because for a long time its been a bit like David Cameron telling Nadine Dorries to "Calm down, dear!" when she got wound up in Parliament. (the fact that she's a anti-choicer advocating abstinence only sex ed for girls is infuriating as his attitude, but hey..) The wage gap would drop pretty quickly if household chores and childcare were more equitable, and the custody of kids in a divorce would change and be more in favour of joint custody, and boys who like wearing dresses and playing with dolls will get the same treatment as girls who are tomboys.

Maybe the anger and frustration at being marginalised and not taken seriously has coloured my view and the view of feminists, hence the need to be listened to and taken seriously.

I wholeheartedly want men to engage with feminism, to help us speak truth to power, because in some cases that is the only way to access the boys club mentality of some men and people in power, and the only way to affect social change.


Maybe it's not a matter of "speaking truth to power"?

If you're going to bring power into this (which I suppose makes perfect sense) then I'm pretty much as marginalised as you are. I'm a guy, I have all the "privileges" as you put it. I'm living the life of Riley, right? I'm one of the elite. I'm a hard as fuck, asskicking testosterone machine, marching on the skeletons of women. Only I'm not. I grew up in a fucking shithole where the girls were harder than most men I associate with nowadays. Disputes were solved almost exclusively with violence and you either learned to fight or you didn't make it out of there alive.

By the time I went to secondary school my card was already marked. I was one of those Westquarter kids. We were lumped together in the same form class, along with the kids from the other local blackspots. When kids from the other classes were being given careers advice meetings and told to go to university and shit, we were being told that half of us would end up in prison. As far as I'm aware, more than half of us did.

So yeah, I'm part of the elite. I have no idea what it feels like to be discriminated against. I have nothing in common with some poor oppressed woman who's only on a paltry ten times my salary, as opposed to her husband who's nearer twenty times.
That's class, from the sounds of it. IMO, the three biggest, most important things that determine where you end up are, in order: class, race, and sex. The rich white gal is better off than you by a mile, but you're still better off than a female who otherwise fits your social demographics (why do you think the gals you knew were tougher than the boys? They had to be; it was an issue of survival).



Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 10:42:41 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 15, 2012, 10:39:10 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 09:08:53 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 15, 2012, 09:07:27 PM
When I say "cis man tears", I'm specifically referring to a certain mind set some men have

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 15, 2012, 09:07:27 PM
When I say "feminazi", I'm specifically referring to a certain mind set some women have

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 15, 2012, 09:07:27 PM
When I say "cunt", I'm specifically referring to a certain mind set some women have

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 15, 2012, 09:07:27 PM
When I say "fag", I'm specifically referring to a certain mind set some gay people have


I never, ever expected this.

I appreciate what you're pointing out, but I also see what Garbo is trying to convey, which is that oftentimes when someone who is in a socially privileged position is are asked to review and perhaps revise their behavior in order to foster higher levels of equality, they often fall back on the "tragedy of the oppressor", much like the mega-wealthy complain of being robbed by a 0.5% tax hike to help provide health care to the poor.

Oh, I know.  It's just that I had just built this mountain of respect for her, while you and she were explaining to me why calling an inanimate object a "cunt" was still wrong.  I listened, because I'm trying to become a better person (it's been my goal for 15 years or more), but then it turns out that it's okay to use the exact same thing on PEOPLE, if it's aimed in one particular direction.

There were plenty of ways to say what she meant to say.  She chose that one.

My sense of letdown is mine and mine alone, of course.  She isn't required to be consistent for my sake.
Roger, this is part of where the thread got all knotty. I never said it was okay to aim it in the other direction based on someone's sex or gender whatsoever (because it isn't and I thought I had made that clear when I indicated I was okay with taking "dick" as an insult out of my vocabulary). "Cis man tears" was EXPLICITLY about men who think a certain way - thoughts and ideas are being criticized here, not sex or gender. If you don't think that way, then it's not something that applies to you. Assuming that it does is like assuming that me mocking Republican men who oppose birthcontrol is mocking you because you happen to be a white guy and most Republicans who oppose birthcontrol are white men.
Okay? Am I making sense?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 10:58:25 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 15, 2012, 10:57:27 PM
Roger, this is part of where the thread got all knotty. I never said it was okay to aim it in the other direction based on someone's sex or gender whatsoever (because it isn't and I thought I had made that clear when I indicated I was okay with taking "dick" as an insult out of my vocabulary). "Cis man tears" was EXPLICITLY about men who think a certain way - thoughts and ideas are being criticized here, not sex or gender. If you don't think that way, then it's not something that applies to you. Assuming that it does is like assuming that me mocking Republican men who oppose birthcontrol is mocking you because you happen to be a white guy and most Republicans who oppose birthcontrol are white men.
Okay? Am I making sense?

Not sure.  This requires thought.

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 11:00:39 PM
BRB.  Offline for a couple of hours, to think about this shit.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 15, 2012, 11:00:39 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 10:58:25 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 15, 2012, 10:57:27 PM
Roger, this is part of where the thread got all knotty. I never said it was okay to aim it in the other direction based on someone's sex or gender whatsoever (because it isn't and I thought I had made that clear when I indicated I was okay with taking "dick" as an insult out of my vocabulary). "Cis man tears" was EXPLICITLY about men who think a certain way - thoughts and ideas are being criticized here, not sex or gender. If you don't think that way, then it's not something that applies to you. Assuming that it does is like assuming that me mocking Republican men who oppose birthcontrol is mocking you because you happen to be a white guy and most Republicans who oppose birthcontrol are white men.
Okay? Am I making sense?

Not sure.  This requires thought.


Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 10:58:25 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 15, 2012, 10:57:27 PM
Roger, this is part of where the thread got all knotty. I never said it was okay to aim it in the other direction based on someone's sex or gender whatsoever (because it isn't and I thought I had made that clear when I indicated I was okay with taking "dick" as an insult out of my vocabulary). "Cis man tears" was EXPLICITLY about men who think a certain way - thoughts and ideas are being criticized here, not sex or gender. If you don't think that way, then it's not something that applies to you. Assuming that it does is like assuming that me mocking Republican men who oppose birthcontrol is mocking you because you happen to be a white guy and most Republicans who oppose birthcontrol are white men.
Okay? Am I making sense?

Not sure.  This requires thought.
That's all I can ask.


Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 15, 2012, 07:20:46 PM
So in response to the OP - Patriarchy is not the enemy. Patriarchy is one of the tools of oppression that the actual enemy uses to keep us down, to keep us fighting amongst ourselves. Contrary to popular belief patriarchy does not empower all men to the exclusion of all women. Some women are a fucking sight better off than some men.
Yes, this.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 15, 2012, 11:01:44 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 07:24:54 PM
Quote from: Alty on August 15, 2012, 07:22:30 PM
What I like most about this thread is how I often feel like I'm barely keeping my fingertips above the waterline. And I need to read a lot more.

It's also fun to watch the horrible, congealed, toxic slug-like creature that is PD (that's how I always picture it) react to these ideas.

What I like most about this thread is that I presented an idea, and was told that what I REALLY meant was something else.  And then everyone came along to agree vehemently with what an ass I am for the belief I didn't have.  So I clarified my position, and it was totally ignored.

I'm fuming fucking mad, and I have been since this morning.
Which idea?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pæs on August 15, 2012, 11:03:00 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 10:33:31 PM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 15, 2012, 10:28:54 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 10:23:44 PM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 15, 2012, 10:22:23 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 10:00:31 PM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 15, 2012, 09:43:48 PM
Ook ook. If you're determined to take offence, fuck you Roger. You miserable fuck. I'm done giving you the benefit of the doubt and can only read your reactions here as attempts at shutting the conversation down with strawmen.

What the gibbering fuck are you talking about?

I'm talking about repeated attempts to address your "they are putting words in my mouth and that post didn't have anything to do with me" with "prove it" and "then it probably wasn't aimed at you" being responded to with "YOU JUST KEEP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH".

Get fucked. "This minority isn't giving me enough of a say" makes you look like a parody of every privileged motherfucker ever. "BAWWW They aren't trusting me even though I am on their side" you poor son of a bitch, that must be really upsetting. You know who else that distrust is uncomfortable for? The women whose experience has led them to develop it for self defence.

Here, for the first time, there is room for complaining about how I'm portraying you.

Paesor, you simply don't have the chops to tell me that I don't understand the consequences of non-eglatarian behavior.

That's really all there is to it.
For someone so unjustly misrepresented in this thread, you sure do a good job of "this is what you really think".

I've already explained my position on privilege, Paesior, a couple of pages back.  The fact that you blew past it is not my problem.  The fact that there can be very different reasons why privilege is bad - even potentially fatal for people who didn't do shit to deserve it - doesn't seem to concern you in the slightest. 

So spare me your outrage, and don't ever presume to preach to me about privilege or inequality again.  I mean, you CAN, but I won't be listening, for reasons that I'm not going to type out again.

ETA:  Reply 544, if you're interested.  You're not, of course.  That much at least is obvious.
No, I read that. After pages of intentionally misreading EVERYTHING it's a stretch to try and paint me as uninterested in actually having this conversation, considering the numerous "hey, there might be a misunderstanding here, shall we backtrack and address it" comments that you raged past.

I don't disagre with any of that post. Bad information with regards to equality fucks everybody up. I'm not going to disrespect your experience but comparing it to this one to illustrate my point about that distrust, though.

Most of the point of my post was "stop claiming that people are misrepresenting you unless you're willing to address that interpretation like a biped."

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on August 15, 2012, 11:05:52 PM
Okay so I think we're getting into hair-splitting semantics here but can someone explain to me how in the name of fuck I can't "understand" what it's like to be an oppressed woman, without actually being an oppressed woman?

Look at it this way - I've never killed anyone before but I understand that murder is wrong

I've never been female, granted but I've had shit piled on me from an early age, day in day out. That's not similar enough to the plight of the oppressed woman, though? No amount of intellect will make up the deficit? So where do you draw the line? I'll stick my neck on the line and estimate that no two women on the face of the planet have had the exact same, identical life experience with their patriarchal oppressors so does that mean even women can't possibly understand it? Or maybe that only one woman can truly understand?

No, that's patently ridiculous but where are you drawing the line? The shape of your genitals? Get a fucking grip. I can't understand a pretty simple concept cos I have a cock? I'm not meant to take that as condescension? LOL! I'm glad I'm not one of those spineless fucks who does everything they're meant to do then.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 11:08:11 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 10:49:16 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 15, 2012, 10:46:19 PM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 15, 2012, 09:39:10 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:15:24 PM
I am a "CIS male".  This is utterly irrelevant as to whether or not I am an elgatarian.  And I don't see any "feminist space".  I see people who want to be recognized as people and/or who recognize other people as people.  There is no "space" here to enter.  There is no territory upon which to infringe.  You are, or you aren't.  Nothing else matters.

That's fine. But Roger, there are feminist spaces. Whether there should be or not is a different argument, but they exist. There are feminist collectives and feminist blogs and feminist communities and feminist events, and they are spearheaded as such. They're a thing. And when men come along and want to turn the whole things into a discussion about "what about meeeeee", that's when we get frustrated.

One thing that is especially frustrating about it is that there is no reason men can't have those spaces, but it's up to them to make them. It's a bit silly for men to ask women to make them a space for feminist men. The world is wide open for spaces like that, if people want them.

My problem is that I still don't recognize these spaces.

There's humanity, in it's entirety.  Other than that, there is a cold, empty universe that wants us all dead.  There's nothing else, discounting religion, which isn't the topic here.

Well, yes, and no. There is humanity, and there are subgroups within humanity that all have an interplay with one another, and there are virtual (and literal) "spaces" that are all-female or all-male. There are some groups, for example the molestation and rape recovery groups I attended as a young woman, which are female-only, because their members do not yet feel safe expressing themselves freely or being vulnerable in the presence of men, and similar groups for men who don't yet feel safe expressing themselves or being vulnerable in the presence of women. In my work with foster kids, often we have requests for only a female team or only a male team, because some of these kids have been abused, some very badly, and are scared of one sex.

So, sometimes certain types of groups are needed in order to create a "safe space" for people who are still too scared to open up and discuss ideas that make them feel vulnerable, whether they're men or women. Men are particularly conditioned to fear vulnerability, and most intensely to fear vulnerability in front of women. I see "safe space" groups like that as intermediate steps that are sometimes necessary on the road to fully interacting as equal human beings.

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 11:11:11 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 10:55:26 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 15, 2012, 10:54:31 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 10:18:44 PM
I'd have to see.  It looks pretty knotted up.

In fact, it looks like everything that's been explained to me in the last 2 days has been bullshit.

That's more than a little extreme, and comes across as a cop-out.

I rephrased in a later post.  On this page.

ETA:  reply 592, last page.

What I learned is still correct.  That's not the issue.

OK, I'm catching up now.

I think one thing to remember is that everybody makes mistakes. One of the worst mundane tragedies that happens to almost everyone is the fundamental attribution error; when someone words something badly or does something that is generally out of character for them, and the other person revises their entire concept of them negatively based on that one mistake or interaction.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pæs on August 15, 2012, 11:13:22 PM
I retract my "fuck you, Roger" sentiment. It read to me like you could be intentionally misunderstanding because you seemed unwilling to address where that misunderstanding came from, but I don't actually think you're aiming to derail the thread with that.

I got pissed off because when I try and offer clarification where we stop effectively communicating and those offers get lost in a sea of responses to the what I feel is a misinterpreted point, it feels like that interpretation of the point can only be being operated on to continue the outrage. My feeling is that backtracking and carefully examining the points of disagreement is more useful than repeating the angry response to bad data.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: AFK on August 15, 2012, 11:15:17 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 15, 2012, 11:05:52 PM
Okay so I think we're getting into hair-splitting semantics here but can someone explain to me how in the name of fuck I can't "understand" what it's like to be an oppressed woman, without actually being an oppressed woman?

Look at it this way - I've never killed anyone before but I understand that murder is wrong

I've never been female, granted but I've had shit piled on me from an early age, day in day out. That's not similar enough to the plight of the oppressed woman, though? No amount of intellect will make up the deficit? So where do you draw the line? I'll stick my neck on the line and estimate that no two women on the face of the planet have had the exact same, identical life experience with their patriarchal oppressors so does that mean even women can't possibly understand it? Or maybe that only one woman can truly understand?

No, that's patently ridiculous but where are you drawing the line? The shape of your genitals? Get a fucking grip. I can't understand a pretty simple concept cos I have a cock? I'm not meant to take that as condescension? LOL! I'm glad I'm not one of those spineless fucks who does everything they're meant to do then.


I think you hit on animportant point here, and this is where that argument breaks down.  It is true that I will never have a true 100% precise understanding of the exact nature of being attacked, or tortured, or killed, because none of those have happened to me.  They haven't happened to a lot of people, yet, that doesn't remotely impact those people from being able to understand and empathize at a productive level that allows them to be powerful agents for change to reduce those things.


As humans, whether or not horror is visited upon us, we do tend to have innate understandings of death and harm.  We are fight or flight creatures. 


I don't need to be in the shoes of a person who was raped to understand that it would really, really suck to be in those shoes and that it is important to take up the cause of preventing other people having to wear those shoes.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on August 15, 2012, 11:16:18 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 15, 2012, 11:11:11 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 10:55:26 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 15, 2012, 10:54:31 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 10:18:44 PM
I'd have to see.  It looks pretty knotted up.

In fact, it looks like everything that's been explained to me in the last 2 days has been bullshit.

That's more than a little extreme, and comes across as a cop-out.

I rephrased in a later post.  On this page.

ETA:  reply 592, last page.

What I learned is still correct.  That's not the issue.

OK, I'm catching up now.

I think one thing to remember is that everybody makes mistakes. One of the worst mundane tragedies that happens to almost everyone is the fundamental attribution error; when someone words something badly or does something that is generally out of character for them, and the other person revises their entire concept of them negatively based on that one mistake or interaction.

Speaking as a self confessed master of putting things the wrong way, I'd like to second this motion. Sincerely! Sometimes smart people say dumb shit and sometimes dumb people say smart shit. Most of the time I'm completely unaware of which one I am.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 11:17:30 PM
Garbo; I am pretty sure I understand what you meant by "cis man tears". I think you were trying to express the tragedy of the oppressor, when the oppressor expresses that it will cause them pain to alter their behavior so that it ceases to oppress others. However, it's as counterproductive a term as "white man's burden". Yes, it describes something really specific, but it also falls into the trap of negatively generalizing and dismissing a group of people. It would probably be best to just say it was a poor choice of phrasing, and abandon it forever as a derogatory term.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 11:18:19 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 15, 2012, 11:16:18 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 15, 2012, 11:11:11 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 10:55:26 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 15, 2012, 10:54:31 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 10:18:44 PM
I'd have to see.  It looks pretty knotted up.

In fact, it looks like everything that's been explained to me in the last 2 days has been bullshit.

That's more than a little extreme, and comes across as a cop-out.

I rephrased in a later post.  On this page.

ETA:  reply 592, last page.

What I learned is still correct.  That's not the issue.

OK, I'm catching up now.

I think one thing to remember is that everybody makes mistakes. One of the worst mundane tragedies that happens to almost everyone is the fundamental attribution error; when someone words something badly or does something that is generally out of character for them, and the other person revises their entire concept of them negatively based on that one mistake or interaction.

Speaking as a self confessed master of putting things the wrong way, I'd like to second this motion. Sincerely! Sometimes smart people say dumb shit and sometimes dumb people say smart shit. Most of the time I'm completely unaware of which one I am.

Amen! We're all guilty of it.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Salty on August 15, 2012, 11:19:10 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 15, 2012, 11:17:30 PM
Garbo; I am pretty sure I understand what you meant by "cis man tears". I think you were trying to express the tragedy of the oppressor, when the oppressor expresses that it will cause them pain to alter their behavior so that it ceases to oppress others. However, it's as counterproductive a term as "white man's burden". Yes, it describes something really specific, but it also falls into the trap of negatively generalizing and dismissing a group of people. It would probably be best to just say it was a poor choice of phrasing, and abandon it forever as a derogatory term.

This was what I was trying to say, more or less.

Albeit, with a little *cough* more subtly.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 15, 2012, 11:23:05 PM
:lulz: I am not a subtle person.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 11:23:18 PM
I think that we're also struggling with the word "understand", because there is sympathetic understanding, and empathetic understanding. Sympathetic understanding is a cognitive process, whereas empathetic understanding is an emotional process; in sympathetic understanding, you are tapping into what they are expressing and giving them support, whereas in empathetic understanding you actually feel what they feel because you have had that, or a very similar, experience.

Most men can't have empathetic understanding for what women experience in our culture, nor can most women have empathetic understanding of what men experience in our culture. They can, however, have sympathetic understanding, which is why listening to each other is so important.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Faust on August 15, 2012, 11:25:16 PM
I've never heard the term before.

https://www.google.com/search?q=icis&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb#hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=aFn&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&channel=fflb&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22cis+man+tears%22&oq=%22cis+man+tears%22&gs_l=serp.3...5331.6603.1.6926.2.2.0.0.0.0.52.96.2.2.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.wWIRX1yKYqI&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=c16687c3ba6c6c80&biw=1440&bih=717

This leads to a lot of worthless bigoted people though.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 11:26:09 PM
Quote from: Alty on August 15, 2012, 11:19:10 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 15, 2012, 11:17:30 PM
Garbo; I am pretty sure I understand what you meant by "cis man tears". I think you were trying to express the tragedy of the oppressor, when the oppressor expresses that it will cause them pain to alter their behavior so that it ceases to oppress others. However, it's as counterproductive a term as "white man's burden". Yes, it describes something really specific, but it also falls into the trap of negatively generalizing and dismissing a group of people. It would probably be best to just say it was a poor choice of phrasing, and abandon it forever as a derogatory term.

This was what I was trying to say, more or less.

Albeit, with a little *cough* more subtly.

:lulz:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 11:28:54 PM
Quote from: Faust on August 15, 2012, 11:25:16 PM
I've never heard the term before.

https://www.google.com/search?q=icis&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb#hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=aFn&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&channel=fflb&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22cis+man+tears%22&oq=%22cis+man+tears%22&gs_l=serp.3...5331.6603.1.6926.2.2.0.0.0.0.52.96.2.2.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.wWIRX1yKYqI&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=c16687c3ba6c6c80&biw=1440&bih=717

This leads to a lot of worthless bigoted people though.

Yeah, wow... that's definitely company I'd rather not keep.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 15, 2012, 11:29:49 PM
Me either.

Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 15, 2012, 11:23:18 PM
I think that we're also struggling with the word "understand", because there is sympathetic understanding, and empathetic understanding. Sympathetic understanding is a cognitive process, whereas empathetic understanding is an emotional process; in sympathetic understanding, you are tapping into what they are expressing and giving them support, whereas in empathetic understanding you actually feel what they feel because you have had that, or a very similar, experience.

Most men can't have empathetic understanding for what women experience in our culture, nor can most women have empathetic understanding of what men experience in our culture. They can, however, have sympathetic understanding, which is why listening to each other is so important.
This. Said much, much better than I did.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 11:30:07 PM
And on that note, I'm off to write a term paper and make a shitty short movie about prejudice. :lol: See you later, spags!
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 15, 2012, 11:31:14 PM
Quote from: Alty on August 15, 2012, 08:34:53 PM
So, it can be said that identifying someone as a cis male is as accurate as saying, "that guy, no the black one."

That black guy who...what? Depends. Depends on what that guy is doing.

Is oppressed
Kills his own citizens
Works with homeless people
Lives a life much like any other
Doubles the number of predator drones

Theres only so much use you get from those kind of descriptions. Only when you have preconceived notions of that description does that differ.
Again, no disagreement.

Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 15, 2012, 11:17:30 PM
Garbo; I am pretty sure I understand what you meant by "cis man tears". I think you were trying to express the tragedy of the oppressor, when the oppressor expresses that it will cause them pain to alter their behavior so that it ceases to oppress others. However, it's as counterproductive a term as "white man's burden". Yes, it describes something really specific, but it also falls into the trap of negatively generalizing and dismissing a group of people. It would probably be best to just say it was a poor choice of phrasing, and abandon it forever as a derogatory term.
Probably. All it did was drag the discussion into the mud, anyway.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on August 15, 2012, 11:36:33 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 15, 2012, 11:23:18 PM
I think that we're also struggling with the word "understand", because there is sympathetic understanding, and empathetic understanding. Sympathetic understanding is a cognitive process, whereas empathetic understanding is an emotional process; in sympathetic understanding, you are tapping into what they are expressing and giving them support, whereas in empathetic understanding you actually feel what they feel because you have had that, or a very similar, experience.

Most men can't have empathetic understanding for what women experience in our culture, nor can most women have empathetic understanding of what men experience in our culture. They can, however, have sympathetic understanding, which is why listening to each other is so important.

Yes! Now this is where I think I'm of a different opinion. What's similar? Analogous? I have spent the best part of 24 hours, locked up in a room with the windows boarded up, battered and bruised, wondering if I was going to make it out of there alive. Did I get raped? No. Do I understand how a woman can be beaten up, powerless and fearful for her life? Do I understand how you get a bit agoraphobic for a while after an experience like that? Do I understand how your self preservation manifests itself as ultra-paranoia and you are suspicious, not just of strangers you meet but of long time acquaintances and even family members, just because they say something that reminds you of some stupid little detail that happened during that time? Do I understand enough about being abducted and raped that the fact I wasn't subjected to uninvited sex becomes virtually irrelevant?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 15, 2012, 11:38:27 PM
Though I think this discussion actually highlights one of the ways "Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER". If you are a dude, living in a society where the stereotype for dudes is "potential rapist, doesn't understand women, is intentionally or unintentionally misogynistic" then no matter what your personal behavior is, you're getting dumped in with the worst members of your sex's example in your society.

Aside from that, on the drive home I was thinking of LMNO's Common Walls essay. I think what feels missing here is that some of the comments from the feminist side appear to ignore the common walls. Debate can be handled in many ways. You can take your position and fight for the win. Alternatively, you can find common ground to use as a basis for convincing the other side of  the value of your position. The first one works with some people, the second works with more people (usually). "I'm right, but you can't possibly understand" seems like the worst option to win someone over. I think some of the feminist comments here come across as the third... I think some of the guy comments are trying to aim for the second.

I was never a woman, so I can't understand what its like to be raped by your boyfriend. Yet, I was once raped by someone I trusted. I don't know what its like to be abused because I'm a girl. Yet, I do know what its like to be abused growing up as a poor, skinny, nerdy member of a weird cult. I know what its like to be held down on the playground while a girl kicked me repeatedly in the balls. I know what its like to get jumped by a group of guys and have my head beaten with a chunk of concrete. I know what its like to have my face torn open by a Doberman at age 7 because some homeowner decided that I deserved it when I walked up the stairs to their house in my little suit and tie to offer them a Watchtower.

It's not the same wall... but I think there are some commonalities that might help with understanding... and Understanding.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 15, 2012, 11:42:27 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 15, 2012, 11:08:11 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 10:49:16 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 15, 2012, 10:46:19 PM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 15, 2012, 09:39:10 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:15:24 PM
I am a "CIS male".  This is utterly irrelevant as to whether or not I am an elgatarian.  And I don't see any "feminist space".  I see people who want to be recognized as people and/or who recognize other people as people.  There is no "space" here to enter.  There is no territory upon which to infringe.  You are, or you aren't.  Nothing else matters.

That's fine. But Roger, there are feminist spaces. Whether there should be or not is a different argument, but they exist. There are feminist collectives and feminist blogs and feminist communities and feminist events, and they are spearheaded as such. They're a thing. And when men come along and want to turn the whole things into a discussion about "what about meeeeee", that's when we get frustrated.

One thing that is especially frustrating about it is that there is no reason men can't have those spaces, but it's up to them to make them. It's a bit silly for men to ask women to make them a space for feminist men. The world is wide open for spaces like that, if people want them.

My problem is that I still don't recognize these spaces.

There's humanity, in it's entirety.  Other than that, there is a cold, empty universe that wants us all dead.  There's nothing else, discounting religion, which isn't the topic here.

Well, yes, and no. There is humanity, and there are subgroups within humanity that all have an interplay with one another, and there are virtual (and literal) "spaces" that are all-female or all-male. There are some groups, for example the molestation and rape recovery groups I attended as a young woman, which are female-only, because their members do not yet feel safe expressing themselves freely or being vulnerable in the presence of men, and similar groups for men who don't yet feel safe expressing themselves or being vulnerable in the presence of women. In my work with foster kids, often we have requests for only a female team or only a male team, because some of these kids have been abused, some very badly, and are scared of one sex.

So, sometimes certain types of groups are needed in order to create a "safe space" for people who are still too scared to open up and discuss ideas that make them feel vulnerable, whether they're men or women. Men are particularly conditioned to fear vulnerability, and most intensely to fear vulnerability in front of women. I see "safe space" groups like that as intermediate steps that are sometimes necessary on the road to fully interacting as equal human beings.

"Safe spaces" are necessary. But what I've been seeing with a lot of "feminist collectives and feminist blogs and feminist communities and feminist events" for a good chunk of my life is just plain old man-bashing. Back to the fish and bicycles.

When people are oppressed or whatever, they have different ways of dealing with it. One way seeks to elevate everybodyand create an even playing field. I've never been denied entrance or treated badly at a black enclave, whether it was a church or a club or a neighborhood. I'd have understood if I had been, because that's EXACTLY what white people did for hundreds of years, and some still do. It just never happened.

Or you have the other way, where people seek to BECOME the oppressor. "My turn", so to speak. A lot of these "feminist spaces" come off as "white only".
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 15, 2012, 11:49:26 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 15, 2012, 11:36:33 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 15, 2012, 11:23:18 PM
I think that we're also struggling with the word "understand", because there is sympathetic understanding, and empathetic understanding. Sympathetic understanding is a cognitive process, whereas empathetic understanding is an emotional process; in sympathetic understanding, you are tapping into what they are expressing and giving them support, whereas in empathetic understanding you actually feel what they feel because you have had that, or a very similar, experience.

Most men can't have empathetic understanding for what women experience in our culture, nor can most women have empathetic understanding of what men experience in our culture. They can, however, have sympathetic understanding, which is why listening to each other is so important.

Yes! Now this is where I think I'm of a different opinion. What's similar? Analogous? I have spent the best part of 24 hours, locked up in a room with the windows boarded up, battered and bruised, wondering if I was going to make it out of there alive. Did I get raped? No. Do I understand how a woman can be beaten up, powerless and fearful for her life? Do I understand how you get a bit agoraphobic for a while after an experience like that? Do I understand how your self preservation manifests itself as ultra-paranoia and you are suspicious, not just of strangers you meet but of long time acquaintances and even family members, just because they say something that reminds you of some stupid little detail that happened during that time? Do I understand enough about being abducted and raped that the fact I wasn't subjected to uninvited sex becomes virtually irrelevant?
Analogous, yes. As far as the last sentence, no, I don't think so. Women in that situation have another hundred pounds of fear to that, since it's far more likely that she'll be raped than you. Rape is an intense violation of personal autonomy in ways I don't think the rest of it quite adds up to (this is not at all an attempt to deligitimize what you went through. I probably would be useless for a good hour before being able to deal with anything).
But, as I have never experience either of those situations, I am not going to say for certain.

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 07:45:01 PM
Quote from: Alty on August 15, 2012, 07:29:28 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 07:24:54 PM
Quote from: Alty on August 15, 2012, 07:22:30 PM
What I like most about this thread is how I often feel like I'm barely keeping my fingertips above the waterline. And I need to read a lot more.

It's also fun to watch the horrible, congealed, toxic slug-like creature that is PD (that's how I always picture it) react to these ideas.

What I like most about this thread is that I presented an idea, and was told that what I REALLY meant was something else.  And then everyone came along to agree vehemently with what an ass I am for the belief I didn't have.  So I clarified my position, and it was totally ignored.

I'm fuming fucking mad, and I have been since this morning.

Hm, I've been on the run so I haven't read the whole thread.
I have this feeling about this word Cis, though. A though actually. And it's a bit rambly but essentially boils down to:

Yeah no.

Labels are inherently devisive.  I don't refer to Robert Jackson at work as "my Black coworker."  I don't refer to Anthony as "My Gay friend."  I don't refer to my doctor as "my male doctor/my female doctor".  The only time labels are important is when the label itself is relevant to the conversation, and FUCK ANYONE who says I don't get an opinion on elgatarianism unless I'm female or Gay, or that my opinion is of less value for that reason.


Your opinion is not worth less than mine when it comes to issues women/females deal with. We both have memes we need to pick out of our teeth to deal with them. The only time my opinion is superior is when I'm telling you what women directly experience. A man's observations are valid and important and you might see something I'm missing, but you can't tell me what it's like. That is, let me emphasize, the one and only time my opinion trumps yours.
I like labels, to some extent, because they are words I can use to describe things more concisely than, "here, here's an idea I have about myself or other things, which entails x, y, g, and v."
Although yes, they can be divisive if you're not careful.

Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 15, 2012, 11:38:27 PM
Though I think this discussion actually highlights one of the ways "Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER". If you are a dude, living in a society where the stereotype for dudes is "potential rapist, doesn't understand women, is intentionally or unintentionally misogynistic" then no matter what your personal behavior is, you're getting dumped in with the worst members of your sex's example in your society.

Aside from that, on the drive home I was thinking of LMNO's Common Walls essay. I think what feels missing here is that some of the comments from the feminist side appear to ignore the common walls. Debate can be handled in many ways. You can take your position and fight for the win. Alternatively, you can find common ground to use as a basis for convincing the other side of  the value of your position. The first one works with some people, the second works with more people (usually). "I'm right, but you can't possibly understand" seems like the worst option to win someone over. I think some of the feminist comments here come across as the third... I think some of the guy comments are trying to aim for the second.

I was never a woman, so I can't understand what its like to be raped by your boyfriend. Yet, I was once raped by someone I trusted. I don't know what its like to be abused because I'm a girl. Yet, I do know what its like to be abused growing up as a poor, skinny, nerdy member of a weird cult. I know what its like to be held down on the playground while a girl kicked me repeatedly in the balls. I know what its like to get jumped by a group of guys and have my head beaten with a chunk of concrete. I know what its like to have my face torn open by a Doberman at age 7 because some homeowner decided that I deserved it when I walked up the stairs to their house in my little suit and tie to offer them a Watchtower.

It's not the same wall... but I think there are some commonalities that might help with understanding... and Understanding.
I admit to falling into the "debate to win" trap a little bit here (frustration => I will steam roll you and use you as a crepe).
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 15, 2012, 11:52:35 PM
After wading through the thread, I think it's mostly unknotted? My dumbass choice of words (yeah, not a phrase I would normally have used, but 10+ pages of frustration + ass o'clock posting = poor phrasing) dragged what was otherwise an interesting thread into a mire of assumptions and confusion and generally fucking up a good thread.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Salty on August 15, 2012, 11:57:53 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 15, 2012, 11:52:35 PM
After wading through the thread, I think it's mostly unknotted? My dumbass choice of words (yeah, not a phrase I would normally have used, but 10+ pages of frustration + ass o'clock posting = poor phrasing) dragged what was otherwise an interesting thread into a mire of assumptions and confusion and generally fucking up a good thread.

I don't think so. For the desired equality to happen we have to wade through these issues. I feel the primary goal is to raise awareness, to educate. And that OUGHT to be hard or it's just a circlejerk. It should require smacking your brain into a brick wall until understanding happens.

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Faust on August 16, 2012, 12:00:59 AM
To further kick the tangent can down the road in regards to CIS.

I think it's the second most lame pejorative term I've come across in the last few years. The worst is still breeder.

Take cunt for example. It's a word I've never used outside this thread. As a curse word it is concise, conjuring up guttural imagery with an onomatopoeic (is this the right word?) oomf in the unt and the harsh inflection of the C/K sound, (probably explaining its wide use in England) and the popularity of "Fuck".
It has all manner of awful connotations. As a 'Bad' word it serves its purpose.

Now lets look at Breeder.
Straight off the bat we have a whiny ringing E sound, and awkward R inflections. What images does it create? A horse rancher?
Even taken in the literal sense it's a grim and depressing look at homosexuality, in fact its almost shooting oneself in the foot to use it: while having children is an option for most heterosexual couples, in a lot of countries for homosexual couples it is not, Its antonym would be something like "barren".

Thats why I think the word breeder is the shittiest swear word to use.

So lets come Back to CIS, CIS men and the like
Even in genuine use CIS is inflexible, has no musical ring to it and for the mundane ignorant masses such as myself meaningless. As a gender descriptor its ugly, Homo has the lovely repetition of the O's, hetro snaps back on the tongue, lesbian and so on are sexy sounding words, they literally evoke images of sexuality.

As a pejorative it was even less accessible, it was obscure. Googling it led me to the feminist equivalent of bible beaters who assume everyone other then them is going to hell.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 16, 2012, 12:09:33 AM
Which part are you disagreeing with, Alts?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: AFK on August 16, 2012, 12:13:11 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 15, 2012, 11:23:18 PM
I think that we're also struggling with the word "understand", because there is sympathetic understanding, and empathetic understanding. Sympathetic understanding is a cognitive process, whereas empathetic understanding is an emotional process; in sympathetic understanding, you are tapping into what they are expressing and giving them support, whereas in empathetic understanding you actually feel what they feel because you have had that, or a very similar, experience.

Most men can't have empathetic understanding for what women experience in our culture, nor can most women have empathetic understanding of what men experience in our culture. They can, however, have sympathetic understanding, which is why listening to each other is so important.


This is where it becomes semantic and meaningless bullshit.


Because given these ideas, a male that has suffered physical or emotional trauma is going to have far more "empathetic understanding" of what it's like to suffer physical or emotional trauma than a female who was boen with a silver spoon in her mouth and has suffered nothing. 


But as far as practical advancing the cause, I don't need this "empathetic understanding" to know I should work to advance the cause of women in our society.


Not to mention that it is a benefit to EVERYONE in our society, male and female, to advance the cause of women inour society.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 16, 2012, 12:14:53 AM
Quote from: Faust on August 16, 2012, 12:00:59 AM
To further kick the tangent can down the road in regards to CIS.

I think it's the second most lame pejorative term I've come across in the last few years. The worst is still breeder.

Take cunt for example. It's a word I've never used outside this thread. As a curse word it is concise, conjuring up guttural imagery with an onomatopoeic (is this the right word?) oomf in the unt and the harsh inflection of the C/K sound, (probably explaining its wide use in England) and the popularity of "Fuck".
It has all manner of awful connotations. As a 'Bad' word it serves its purpose.

Now lets look at Breeder.
Straight off the bat we have a whiny ringing E sound, and awkward R inflections. What images does it create? A horse rancher?
Even taken in the literal sense it's a grim and depressing look at homosexuality, in fact its almost shooting oneself in the foot to use it: while having children is an option for most heterosexual couples, in a lot of countries for homosexual couples it is not, Its antonym would be something like "barren".

Thats why I think the word breeder is the shittiest swear word to use.

So lets come Back to CIS, CIS men and the like
Even in genuine use CIS is inflexible, has no musical ring to it and for the mundane ignorant masses such as myself meaningless. As a gender descriptor its ugly, Homo has the lovely repetition of the O's, hetro snaps back on the tongue, lesbian and so on are sexy sounding words, they literally evoke images of sexuality.

As a pejorative it was even less accessible, it was obscure. Googling it led me to the feminist equivalent of bible beaters who assume everyone other then them is going to hell.

I get a mental image of a sign outside some dirt bar: "NO CIS MEN OR DOGS ALLOWED".  :x
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: AFK on August 16, 2012, 12:18:44 AM
Tantamount to nothing but every time I see that phrase "CIS MEN" my brain goes all dyslexic and conjures up images of Horatio Cane and Grissom.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Faust on August 16, 2012, 12:19:13 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 16, 2012, 12:14:53 AM
Quote from: Faust on August 16, 2012, 12:00:59 AM
To further kick the tangent can down the road in regards to CIS.

I think it's the second most lame pejorative term I've come across in the last few years. The worst is still breeder.

Take cunt for example. It's a word I've never used outside this thread. As a curse word it is concise, conjuring up guttural imagery with an onomatopoeic (is this the right word?) oomf in the unt and the harsh inflection of the C/K sound, (probably explaining its wide use in England) and the popularity of "Fuck".
It has all manner of awful connotations. As a 'Bad' word it serves its purpose.

Now lets look at Breeder.
Straight off the bat we have a whiny ringing E sound, and awkward R inflections. What images does it create? A horse rancher?
Even taken in the literal sense it's a grim and depressing look at homosexuality, in fact its almost shooting oneself in the foot to use it: while having children is an option for most heterosexual couples, in a lot of countries for homosexual couples it is not, Its antonym would be something like "barren".

Thats why I think the word breeder is the shittiest swear word to use.

So lets come Back to CIS, CIS men and the like
Even in genuine use CIS is inflexible, has no musical ring to it and for the mundane ignorant masses such as myself meaningless. As a gender descriptor its ugly, Homo has the lovely repetition of the O's, hetro snaps back on the tongue, lesbian and so on are sexy sounding words, they literally evoke images of sexuality.

As a pejorative it was even less accessible, it was obscure. Googling it led me to the feminist equivalent of bible beaters who assume everyone other then them is going to hell.

I get a mental image of a sign outside some dirt bar: "NO CIS MEN OR DOGS ALLOWED".  :x

Not feeling it, CIS is really too PC despite being a bigoted term, ugh even being discriminated against in this century has to be bland.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 16, 2012, 12:20:52 AM
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 16, 2012, 12:18:44 AM
Tantamount to nothing but every time I see that phrase "CIS MEN" my brain goes all dyslexic and conjures up images of Horatio Cane and Grissom.

I had that same problem :D
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Faust on August 16, 2012, 12:21:49 AM
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 16, 2012, 12:18:44 AM
Tantamount to nothing but every time I see that phrase "CIS MEN" my brain goes all dyslexic and conjures up images of Horatio Cane and Grissom.

"What do you think Horatio?"

"I think you need to..." *Puts on Avaitors * "Forget everything you know about gender" *Cue intro music*
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: AFK on August 16, 2012, 12:23:58 AM
 :putin:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 16, 2012, 12:25:43 AM
Jesus christ, it's not a bigoted term any more than trans* is. It's a specialized word, that's all. Did I use it in a way that can be construed as bigoted? I suppose so, if you're not willing to see that it's about criticizing IDEAS rather than sex or gender (I really do not want to have to start this over again; I've explained it like twice already). Are there people who do use it like that and paint a broad brush over all cis men? Absolutely. I used it poorly to describe what Nigel called the 'tragedy of the oppressor', that's all.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: AFK on August 16, 2012, 12:26:32 AM
Oh, and because I never get to be on this side of these things...


C'mon 50 pages!!!
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 16, 2012, 12:28:52 AM
It's not you, Garbo, I just don't like the word.
BUT DON'T MIND ME, I'M A CISSY GRRRRRL! GEE, MATH IS HARD! *giggles* *crosses eyes like Jayne Mansfield*
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 16, 2012, 12:31:25 AM
I'm gonna add that the word "cis" doesn't try to define what "woman" or "man" means to you. Or how you express it. Or what it means in other cultures.

And who the fuck is Jayne Mansfield?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 16, 2012, 12:32:03 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 12:25:43 AM
Jesus christ, it's not a bigoted term any more than trans* is. It's a specialized word, that's all. Did I use it in a way that can be construed as bigoted? I suppose so, if you're not willing to see that it's about criticizing IDEAS rather than sex or gender (I really do not want to have to start this over again; I've explained it like twice already). Are there people who do use it like that and paint a broad brush over all cis men? Absolutely. I used it poorly to describe what Nigel called the 'tragedy of the oppressor', that's all.

I don't understand its value at all... I don't care if people want to use it, but it seems like a pretty useless label.

"trans" = your inside genetics and outside genetics don't match
"homosexual' = your sexual preference is for the same sex
"cis" = your inside genetics and outside genetics match and your sexual preference is for the opposite sex.

err... the first two I get, the third seems silly to me.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 16, 2012, 12:37:19 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 12:31:25 AM
I'm gonna add that the word "cis" doesn't try to define what "woman" or "man" means to you. Or how you express it. Or what it means in other cultures.

And who the fuck is Jayne Mansfield?

Made a bazillion dollars playing ditzy blond characters. Usually was falling out of her clothes, talking in a high, squeaky voice and crossing her eyes like she had brain trauma.  :lol: It was a long time ago.

(http://houseofglambeauty.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/sophia_and_jayne.jpg)


Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 12:37:26 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 15, 2012, 11:11:11 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 10:55:26 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 15, 2012, 10:54:31 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 10:18:44 PM
I'd have to see.  It looks pretty knotted up.

In fact, it looks like everything that's been explained to me in the last 2 days has been bullshit.

That's more than a little extreme, and comes across as a cop-out.

I rephrased in a later post.  On this page.

ETA:  reply 592, last page.

What I learned is still correct.  That's not the issue.

OK, I'm catching up now.

I think one thing to remember is that everybody makes mistakes. One of the worst mundane tragedies that happens to almost everyone is the fundamental attribution error; when someone words something badly or does something that is generally out of character for them, and the other person revises their entire concept of them negatively based on that one mistake or interaction.

No worries on that score.  I am more than a little dense, but once I see reason in something, it takes a lot more than that to get me to change my mind again (as far as the language goes), and I still think Garbo has her shit together.  On everything but this one subject.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Faust on August 16, 2012, 12:37:35 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 12:25:43 AM
Jesus christ, it's not a bigoted term any more than trans* is. It's a specialized word, that's all. Did I use it in a way that can be construed as bigoted? I suppose so, if you're not willing to see that it's about criticizing IDEAS rather than sex or gender (I really do not want to have to start this over again; I've explained it like twice already). Are there people who do use it like that and paint a broad brush over all cis men? Absolutely. I used it poorly to describe what Nigel called the 'tragedy of the oppressor', that's all.

Its a word that is worthless as a descriptor, and its common usage is pejorative or bigoted, hence its comparison to Cunt.
Criticise the ideas all you want but as a descriptor language goes the word CIS  is never going to be taken as anything other than a slur.

I'm not offended, in fact I'm doing my best to get my head around the concept in a way that is at least more fun and more interesting then the last five pages.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 16, 2012, 12:39:45 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 16, 2012, 12:32:03 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 12:25:43 AM
Jesus christ, it's not a bigoted term any more than trans* is. It's a specialized word, that's all. Did I use it in a way that can be construed as bigoted? I suppose so, if you're not willing to see that it's about criticizing IDEAS rather than sex or gender (I really do not want to have to start this over again; I've explained it like twice already). Are there people who do use it like that and paint a broad brush over all cis men? Absolutely. I used it poorly to describe what Nigel called the 'tragedy of the oppressor', that's all.

I don't understand its value at all... I don't care if people want to use it, but it seems like a pretty useless label.

"trans" = your inside genetics and outside genetics don't match
"homosexual' = your sexual preference is for the same sex
"cis" = your inside genetics and outside genetics match and your sexual preference is for the opposite sex.

err... the first two I get, the third seems silly to me.

"Cis" has nothing to do with sexual orientation, though. You can be a cisgender lesbian just as you can be a straight transman (or the myriad of possibilities in between!)

I guess, if "cis" seems silly, does "straight" seem silly as well?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: AFK on August 16, 2012, 12:41:10 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 12:31:25 AM
I'm gonna add that the word "cis" doesn't try to define what "woman" or "man" means to you. Or how you express it. Or what it means in other cultures.

And who the fuck is Jayne Mansfield?


A poor cis-man's Marilyn Monroe.


Not the guy who sings The Beautiful People.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Faust on August 16, 2012, 12:41:20 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 16, 2012, 12:32:03 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 12:25:43 AM
Jesus christ, it's not a bigoted term any more than trans* is. It's a specialized word, that's all. Did I use it in a way that can be construed as bigoted? I suppose so, if you're not willing to see that it's about criticizing IDEAS rather than sex or gender (I really do not want to have to start this over again; I've explained it like twice already). Are there people who do use it like that and paint a broad brush over all cis men? Absolutely. I used it poorly to describe what Nigel called the 'tragedy of the oppressor', that's all.

I don't understand its value at all... I don't care if people want to use it, but it seems like a pretty useless label.

"trans" = your inside genetics and outside genetics don't match
"homosexual' = your sexual preference is for the same sex
"cis" = your inside genetics and outside genetics match and your sexual preference is for the opposite sex.

err... the first two I get, the third seems silly to me.
Isn't that the word hetronormative, another redundant cumbersome word.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 12:43:03 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 16, 2012, 12:39:45 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 16, 2012, 12:32:03 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 12:25:43 AM
Jesus christ, it's not a bigoted term any more than trans* is. It's a specialized word, that's all. Did I use it in a way that can be construed as bigoted? I suppose so, if you're not willing to see that it's about criticizing IDEAS rather than sex or gender (I really do not want to have to start this over again; I've explained it like twice already). Are there people who do use it like that and paint a broad brush over all cis men? Absolutely. I used it poorly to describe what Nigel called the 'tragedy of the oppressor', that's all.

I don't understand its value at all... I don't care if people want to use it, but it seems like a pretty useless label.

"trans" = your inside genetics and outside genetics don't match
"homosexual' = your sexual preference is for the same sex
"cis" = your inside genetics and outside genetics match and your sexual preference is for the opposite sex.

err... the first two I get, the third seems silly to me.

"Cis" has nothing to do with sexual orientation, though. You can be a cisgender lesbian just as you can be a straight transman (or the myriad of possibilities in between!)

I guess, if "cis" seems silly, does "straight" seem silly as well?

I would think that the very idea of eglatarianism would be to remove labels, not add them.

I spent some time bouncing around google, and I have not seen one single example of "cis" that wasn't being used as a club to beat someone with.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Faust on August 16, 2012, 12:44:40 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 16, 2012, 12:39:45 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 16, 2012, 12:32:03 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 12:25:43 AM
Jesus christ, it's not a bigoted term any more than trans* is. It's a specialized word, that's all. Did I use it in a way that can be construed as bigoted? I suppose so, if you're not willing to see that it's about criticizing IDEAS rather than sex or gender (I really do not want to have to start this over again; I've explained it like twice already). Are there people who do use it like that and paint a broad brush over all cis men? Absolutely. I used it poorly to describe what Nigel called the 'tragedy of the oppressor', that's all.

I don't understand its value at all... I don't care if people want to use it, but it seems like a pretty useless label.

"trans" = your inside genetics and outside genetics don't match
"homosexual' = your sexual preference is for the same sex
"cis" = your inside genetics and outside genetics match and your sexual preference is for the opposite sex.

err... the first two I get, the third seems silly to me.

"Cis" has nothing to do with sexual orientation, though. You can be a cisgender lesbian just as you can be a straight transman (or the myriad of possibilities in between!)

I guess, if "cis" seems silly, does "straight" seem silly as well?

There was no room on the character sheet for that class selection. How do we roll for it and how many points can we spend in it?

Straight does seem silly.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Salty on August 16, 2012, 12:45:29 AM
Quote from: Faust on August 16, 2012, 12:44:40 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 16, 2012, 12:39:45 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 16, 2012, 12:32:03 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 12:25:43 AM
Jesus christ, it's not a bigoted term any more than trans* is. It's a specialized word, that's all. Did I use it in a way that can be construed as bigoted? I suppose so, if you're not willing to see that it's about criticizing IDEAS rather than sex or gender (I really do not want to have to start this over again; I've explained it like twice already). Are there people who do use it like that and paint a broad brush over all cis men? Absolutely. I used it poorly to describe what Nigel called the 'tragedy of the oppressor', that's all.

I don't understand its value at all... I don't care if people want to use it, but it seems like a pretty useless label.

"trans" = your inside genetics and outside genetics don't match
"homosexual' = your sexual preference is for the same sex
"cis" = your inside genetics and outside genetics match and your sexual preference is for the opposite sex.

err... the first two I get, the third seems silly to me.

"Cis" has nothing to do with sexual orientation, though. You can be a cisgender lesbian just as you can be a straight transman (or the myriad of possibilities in between!)

I guess, if "cis" seems silly, does "straight" seem silly as well?

There was no room on the character sheet for that class selection. How do we roll for it and how many points can we spend in it?

Straight does seem silly.

:lol:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 16, 2012, 12:48:21 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 16, 2012, 12:39:45 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 16, 2012, 12:32:03 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 12:25:43 AM
Jesus christ, it's not a bigoted term any more than trans* is. It's a specialized word, that's all. Did I use it in a way that can be construed as bigoted? I suppose so, if you're not willing to see that it's about criticizing IDEAS rather than sex or gender (I really do not want to have to start this over again; I've explained it like twice already). Are there people who do use it like that and paint a broad brush over all cis men? Absolutely. I used it poorly to describe what Nigel called the 'tragedy of the oppressor', that's all.

I don't understand its value at all... I don't care if people want to use it, but it seems like a pretty useless label.

"trans" = your inside genetics and outside genetics don't match
"homosexual' = your sexual preference is for the same sex
"cis" = your inside genetics and outside genetics match and your sexual preference is for the opposite sex.

err... the first two I get, the third seems silly to me.

"Cis" has nothing to do with sexual orientation, though. You can be a cisgender lesbian just as you can be a straight transman (or the myriad of possibilities in between!)

I guess, if "cis" seems silly, does "straight" seem silly as well?

Yeah. It does. Actually I think its kinda insulting because it indicates hetero = strait and gay = not straight; bent/twisted

So looking some more, I see how you could be a male/female who identifies as being a male/female but is homosexual. However, I still don't see any value in it. Its a label saying your inside and outside genetics match. Why make that into a label?

Labels are bad. Labels identify 100% of the person by 1% of their identity. It allows the brain mapping software to say "This person is X and therefore my interactin with them will be like my interaction with other X".

What positive value would there be to cis?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 16, 2012, 12:48:42 AM
How did you search for it, Rog? Because here's a couple of examples I got using "cisgendered" which are consistent with the common usage and general search results, although "cis man" still got similar results.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender
http://www.basicrights.org/uncategorized/trans-101-cisgender/
http://queerdictionary.tumblr.com/post/9264228131/cisgender-adj


Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 16, 2012, 12:32:03 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 12:25:43 AM
Jesus christ, it's not a bigoted term any more than trans* is. It's a specialized word, that's all. Did I use it in a way that can be construed as bigoted? I suppose so, if you're not willing to see that it's about criticizing IDEAS rather than sex or gender (I really do not want to have to start this over again; I've explained it like twice already). Are there people who do use it like that and paint a broad brush over all cis men? Absolutely. I used it poorly to describe what Nigel called the 'tragedy of the oppressor', that's all.

I don't understand its value at all... I don't care if people want to use it, but it seems like a pretty useless label.

"trans" = your inside genetics and outside genetics don't match
"homosexual' = your sexual preference is for the same sex
"cis" = your inside genetics and outside genetics match and your sexual preference is for the opposite sex.

err... the first two I get, the third seems silly to me.
No, that's intersexuality. Which is a difference between your physical and phenotypical sexes (XX and XY are the usual, but you get XXY, etc. and sometimes other things go wrong with the process of making a male, and bodies tend to default to female when that happens). Trans* is that the gender that is culturally expected of your body is not the one you are. Which may or may not have anything at all to do with your junk.

Correct.

Your sexuality has nothing to do with your gender. Cis is not a fancy way of saying heteronormative (heterosexual man born in a male body and a heterosexual woman born in a female body, among other things). It's a way of saying "man born in a male body" and "woman born in a female body". There are cis lesbians and cis gay men and cis heterosexuals, asexual, bisexuals, etc. etc. Cis is a word used to describe one part of the gender sphere or continuum or whatever your preferred word is, that's all.

Quote from: Faust on August 16, 2012, 12:37:35 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 12:25:43 AM
Jesus christ, it's not a bigoted term any more than trans* is. It's a specialized word, that's all. Did I use it in a way that can be construed as bigoted? I suppose so, if you're not willing to see that it's about criticizing IDEAS rather than sex or gender (I really do not want to have to start this over again; I've explained it like twice already). Are there people who do use it like that and paint a broad brush over all cis men? Absolutely. I used it poorly to describe what Nigel called the 'tragedy of the oppressor', that's all.

Its a word that is worthless as a descriptor, and its common usage is pejorative or bigoted, hence its comparison to Cunt.
Criticise the ideas all you want but as a descriptor language goes the word CIS  is never going to be taken as anything other than a slur.

I'm not offended, in fact I'm doing my best to get my head around the concept in a way that is at least more fun and more interesting then the last five pages.

No, the common use is specifically relate to one aspect of gender identity (which is not worthless, actually). That's all. If it were, for all intents and purposes, ONLY a slur, I sure as fuck wouldn't use it.
/cranky

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 12:37:26 AM
No worries on that score.  I am more than a little dense, but once I see reason in something, it takes a lot more than that to get me to change my mind again (as far as the language goes), and I still think Garbo has her shit together.  On everything but this one subject.
How? I know I fucked up with the wording and managed to alienate a lot of people, but where specifically is this still tangled?


Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 16, 2012, 12:37:19 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 12:31:25 AM
I'm gonna add that the word "cis" doesn't try to define what "woman" or "man" means to you. Or how you express it. Or what it means in other cultures.

And who the fuck is Jayne Mansfield?

Made a bazillion dollars playing ditzy blond characters. Usually was falling out of her clothes, talking in a high, squeaky voice and crossing her eyes like she had brain trauma.  :lol: It was a long time ago.

http://houseofglambeauty.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/sophia_and_jayne.jpg
THAT GAL! Didn't she have, like, a pink-and-hearts house or something?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Faust on August 16, 2012, 12:48:59 AM
While we are on the topic, of gender and sexuality.
If a persons sense of gender is cut off, say they are blindfolded even though there is the obvious flaw to that example and they are enjoying sexual behaviour with someone without knowledge of what gender they are.
Is this only sensuality as opposed to sexuality?
is that an asexual cis.
What if they imagine it is a a person of the opposite gender does that make them asexual cis hetrosexual?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 12:49:23 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 16, 2012, 12:48:21 AM


What positive value would there be to cis?

Jargon.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Faust on August 16, 2012, 12:51:30 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 12:48:42 AM

Quote from: Faust on August 16, 2012, 12:37:35 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 12:25:43 AM
Jesus christ, it's not a bigoted term any more than trans* is. It's a specialized word, that's all. Did I use it in a way that can be construed as bigoted? I suppose so, if you're not willing to see that it's about criticizing IDEAS rather than sex or gender (I really do not want to have to start this over again; I've explained it like twice already). Are there people who do use it like that and paint a broad brush over all cis men? Absolutely. I used it poorly to describe what Nigel called the 'tragedy of the oppressor', that's all.

Its a word that is worthless as a descriptor, and its common usage is pejorative or bigoted, hence its comparison to Cunt.
Criticise the ideas all you want but as a descriptor language goes the word CIS  is never going to be taken as anything other than a slur.

I'm not offended, in fact I'm doing my best to get my head around the concept in a way that is at least more fun and more interesting then the last five pages.

No, the common use is specifically relate to one aspect of gender identity (which is not worthless, actually). That's all. If it were, for all intents and purposes, ONLY a slur, I sure as fuck wouldn't use it.
/cranky


You sure fooled me
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Faust on August 16, 2012, 12:52:52 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 12:49:23 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 16, 2012, 12:48:21 AM


What positive value would there be to cis?

Jargon.

And a way of adding another gender pronoun divide where there wasn't one.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 16, 2012, 12:54:35 AM
QuoteJillana Enteen wrote that "cissexual" is "meant to show that there are embedded assumptions encoded in expecting this seamless conformity."

That seems like a terrible reason to create a label.

"Some people expect conformity. So lets label their version of normal."
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 12:55:08 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 12:48:42 AM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 12:37:26 AM
No worries on that score.  I am more than a little dense, but once I see reason in something, it takes a lot more than that to get me to change my mind again (as far as the language goes), and I still think Garbo has her shit together.  On everything but this one subject.
How? I know I fucked up with the wording and managed to alienate a lot of people, but where specifically is this still tangled?


You said yourself it was used in frustration.  It was used as a blunt instrument.

I've thought about it, and I don't see it as being the same as what Nigel said.  I saw it as being the same thing I was saying about Southern rednecks a couple of weeks back.  It was used as a perjorative.  It wasn't a wording issue, it was simply wrong.

You're not a politician, Garbo, you haven't got enough shit smeared all over you...So "poorly phrased" doesn't work.  It was just plain wrong.  Everyone does it.  Kings do it, beggars do it.  It's a matter of whether or not you can admit that it was wrong, without waffling.  Almost nobody can.  Can you?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 16, 2012, 12:58:09 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 16, 2012, 12:48:21 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 16, 2012, 12:39:45 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 16, 2012, 12:32:03 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 12:25:43 AM
Jesus christ, it's not a bigoted term any more than trans* is. It's a specialized word, that's all. Did I use it in a way that can be construed as bigoted? I suppose so, if you're not willing to see that it's about criticizing IDEAS rather than sex or gender (I really do not want to have to start this over again; I've explained it like twice already). Are there people who do use it like that and paint a broad brush over all cis men? Absolutely. I used it poorly to describe what Nigel called the 'tragedy of the oppressor', that's all.

I don't understand its value at all... I don't care if people want to use it, but it seems like a pretty useless label.

"trans" = your inside genetics and outside genetics don't match
"homosexual' = your sexual preference is for the same sex
"cis" = your inside genetics and outside genetics match and your sexual preference is for the opposite sex.

err... the first two I get, the third seems silly to me.

"Cis" has nothing to do with sexual orientation, though. You can be a cisgender lesbian just as you can be a straight transman (or the myriad of possibilities in between!)

I guess, if "cis" seems silly, does "straight" seem silly as well?

Yeah. It does. Actually I think its kinda insulting because it indicates hetero = strait and gay = not straight; bent/twisted

So looking some more, I see how you could be a male/female who identifies as being a male/female but is homosexual. However, I still don't see any value in it. Its a label saying your inside and outside genetics match. Why make that into a label?

Labels are bad. Labels identify 100% of the person by 1% of their identity. It allows the brain mapping software to say "This person is X and therefore my interactin with them will be like my interaction with other X".

What positive value would there be to cis?
No, it doesn't, unless that's the ONLY label you have, at which point it becomes a uniform.

Positive value to it: discussion, helping trans*/queer people realize and accept what might otherwise be a bewildering difference, use in academic studies.

Quote from: Faust on August 16, 2012, 12:48:59 AM
While we are on the topic, of gender and sexuality.
If a persons sense of gender is cut off, say they are blindfolded even though there is the obvious flaw to that example and they are enjoying sexual behaviour with someone without knowledge of what gender they are.
Is this only sensuality as opposed to sexuality?
is that an asexual cis.
What if they imagine it is a a person of the opposite gender does that make them asexual cis hetrosexual?

What? Gender is way, way not sex or sexuality.
Probably.
No. Asexuals either never or very, very rarely experience physical desires for sex.
I assume it either makes them bi or homosexual.

Quote from: Faust on August 16, 2012, 12:51:30 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 12:48:42 AM

Quote from: Faust on August 16, 2012, 12:37:35 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 12:25:43 AM
Jesus christ, it's not a bigoted term any more than trans* is. It's a specialized word, that's all. Did I use it in a way that can be construed as bigoted? I suppose so, if you're not willing to see that it's about criticizing IDEAS rather than sex or gender (I really do not want to have to start this over again; I've explained it like twice already). Are there people who do use it like that and paint a broad brush over all cis men? Absolutely. I used it poorly to describe what Nigel called the 'tragedy of the oppressor', that's all.

Its a word that is worthless as a descriptor, and its common usage is pejorative or bigoted, hence its comparison to Cunt.
Criticise the ideas all you want but as a descriptor language goes the word CIS  is never going to be taken as anything other than a slur.

I'm not offended, in fact I'm doing my best to get my head around the concept in a way that is at least more fun and more interesting then the last five pages.

No, the common use is specifically relate to one aspect of gender identity (which is not worthless, actually). That's all. If it were, for all intents and purposes, ONLY a slur, I sure as fuck wouldn't use it.
/cranky


You sure fooled me
I've used it elsewhere on the board in a way that can't be taken wrongly long before I said what I said (which, again, is my bad).

Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 16, 2012, 12:54:35 AM
QuoteJillana Enteen wrote that "cissexual" is "meant to show that there are embedded assumptions encoded in expecting this seamless conformity."

That seems like a terrible reason to create a label.

"Some people expect conformity. So lets label their version of normal."
Source?
And I disagree (surprising, amirite?). Useful for showing that their normal is not the ONLY normal.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 01:00:23 AM
Another thing is this:  The topic was whether or not the patriarchy was bad for men as well.  It started off discussing eglatarianism.

It has come all the way around to elitism, in a weird sense.  Whose oppression was worse.  Is there some sort of score being kept?  Who's the champ?  Blacks?  Women?  Gays?  The Welsh?   The people living NEXT to the Welsh?  Anyway, are we talking about the influence of the patriarchy on men, or are we lining up to measure our burdens?

Because if we are, Dirty Old Uncle Roger has a bedtime story to tell you.  It's full of misery and woe and really rotten shit happening to people who didn't particularly deserve it, and about the guy that made it all happen.  And the people that demanded that it occur.  It's got it all. 

Or we could go back to discussing the topic in its original form.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pope Pixie Pickle on August 16, 2012, 01:04:03 AM
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 16, 2012, 12:23:58 AM
:putin:

:lulz: :horrormirth:

Putin does not like the Feminism.

Search for "Pussy Riot".
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 12:25:43 AM
Jesus christ, it's not a bigoted term any more than trans* is. It's a specialized word, that's all. Did I use it in a way that can be construed as bigoted? I suppose so, if you're not willing to see that it's about criticizing IDEAS rather than sex or gender (I really do not want to have to start this over again; I've explained it like twice already). Are there people who do use it like that and paint a broad brush over all cis men? Absolutely. I used it poorly to describe what Nigel called the 'tragedy of the oppressor', that's all.

Yea I explained that "cis" is not a pejorative, or at least tried to.

At least the thread has got back on some kind of track.
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 16, 2012, 12:26:32 AM
Oh, and because I never get to be on this side of these things...


C'mon 50 pages!!!

I'm calling 45.   Just based on the history of discussions on feminism on PeeDee.

Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 16, 2012, 12:32:03 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 12:25:43 AM
Jesus christ, it's not a bigoted term any more than trans* is. It's a specialized word, that's all. Did I use it in a way that can be construed as bigoted? I suppose so, if you're not willing to see that it's about criticizing IDEAS rather than sex or gender (I really do not want to have to start this over again; I've explained it like twice already). Are there people who do use it like that and paint a broad brush over all cis men? Absolutely. I used it poorly to describe what Nigel called the 'tragedy of the oppressor', that's all.

I don't understand its value at all... I don't care if people want to use it, but it seems like a pretty useless label.

"trans" = your inside genetics and outside genetics don't match
"homosexual' = your sexual preference is for the same sex
"cis" = your inside genetics and outside genetics match and your sexual preference is for the opposite sex.

err... the first two I get, the third seems silly to me.

it's not about genetics, its about gender identity,

You are born a dude, with dudely genitals you idenitfy with being a dude- Cis man.

You are born a ladyperson, with lady genitals, you identify with being a lady person. - Cis woman.

You are born with dude parts, identify with being a ladyperson, - Trans woman

You are born with lady parts, identify with being a dudeperson- Trans man.
its separate from sexuality, as my shitty-looking yet time consuming to create graph crudely tries to explain.


Sexuality axis
Gay
|
|
|
Gender Identity Axis
Cis-------------------Trans
|
|
|
Hetero

In the middle of the gender identity axis, lives genderqueer folks, who can and often do flip between gender identities depending on how you are feeling that day.

In the middle of the sexuality axis, there is bi- (or if you have a thing for the genderqueer folks, maybe pan-) sexual.

Ah, crap. Signora Paes (BTW I thought you were Paes in Drag, I got a confused) already explained it while I was mid post. But formatting my little axis and descriptions was EFFORT, and so fuck alla youse I'm posting it.

Heteronormative MAY seem like a clunky term, but it describes a society that automatically assumes heterosexuality as a default.  Imagine a world where everyone  "came out" as their particular position on the gender identity/sexuality and no one made any assumptions. That would be a world where the word heteronormative is redundant.

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Faust on August 16, 2012, 01:06:20 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 12:58:09 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 16, 2012, 12:48:21 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 16, 2012, 12:39:45 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 16, 2012, 12:32:03 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 12:25:43 AM
Jesus christ, it's not a bigoted term any more than trans* is. It's a specialized word, that's all. Did I use it in a way that can be construed as bigoted? I suppose so, if you're not willing to see that it's about criticizing IDEAS rather than sex or gender (I really do not want to have to start this over again; I've explained it like twice already). Are there people who do use it like that and paint a broad brush over all cis men? Absolutely. I used it poorly to describe what Nigel called the 'tragedy of the oppressor', that's all.

I don't understand its value at all... I don't care if people want to use it, but it seems like a pretty useless label.

"trans" = your inside genetics and outside genetics don't match
"homosexual' = your sexual preference is for the same sex
"cis" = your inside genetics and outside genetics match and your sexual preference is for the opposite sex.

err... the first two I get, the third seems silly to me.

"Cis" has nothing to do with sexual orientation, though. You can be a cisgender lesbian just as you can be a straight transman (or the myriad of possibilities in between!)

I guess, if "cis" seems silly, does "straight" seem silly as well?

Yeah. It does. Actually I think its kinda insulting because it indicates hetero = strait and gay = not straight; bent/twisted

So looking some more, I see how you could be a male/female who identifies as being a male/female but is homosexual. However, I still don't see any value in it. Its a label saying your inside and outside genetics match. Why make that into a label?

Labels are bad. Labels identify 100% of the person by 1% of their identity. It allows the brain mapping software to say "This person is X and therefore my interactin with them will be like my interaction with other X".

What positive value would there be to cis?
No, it doesn't, unless that's the ONLY label you have, at which point it becomes a uniform.

Positive value to it: discussion, helping trans*/queer people realize and accept what might otherwise be a bewildering difference, use in academic studies.

Quote from: Faust on August 16, 2012, 12:48:59 AM
While we are on the topic, of gender and sexuality.
If a persons sense of gender is cut off, say they are blindfolded even though there is the obvious flaw to that example and they are enjoying sexual behaviour with someone without knowledge of what gender they are.
Is this only sensuality as opposed to sexuality?
is that an asexual cis.
What if they imagine it is a a person of the opposite gender does that make them asexual cis hetrosexual?

What? Gender is way, way not sex or sexuality.
Probably.
No. Asexuals either never or very, very rarely experience physical desires for sex.
I assume it either makes them bi or homosexual.

Quote from: Faust on August 16, 2012, 12:51:30 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 12:48:42 AM

Quote from: Faust on August 16, 2012, 12:37:35 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 12:25:43 AM
Jesus christ, it's not a bigoted term any more than trans* is. It's a specialized word, that's all. Did I use it in a way that can be construed as bigoted? I suppose so, if you're not willing to see that it's about criticizing IDEAS rather than sex or gender (I really do not want to have to start this over again; I've explained it like twice already). Are there people who do use it like that and paint a broad brush over all cis men? Absolutely. I used it poorly to describe what Nigel called the 'tragedy of the oppressor', that's all.

Its a word that is worthless as a descriptor, and its common usage is pejorative or bigoted, hence its comparison to Cunt.
Criticise the ideas all you want but as a descriptor language goes the word CIS  is never going to be taken as anything other than a slur.

I'm not offended, in fact I'm doing my best to get my head around the concept in a way that is at least more fun and more interesting then the last five pages.

No, the common use is specifically relate to one aspect of gender identity (which is not worthless, actually). That's all. If it were, for all intents and purposes, ONLY a slur, I sure as fuck wouldn't use it.
/cranky


You sure fooled me
I've used it elsewhere on the board in a way that can't be taken wrongly long before I said what I said (which, again, is my bad).
Because of the context in which you have used it in this thread, if I find it elsewhere it's going to cause serious reservations as to your impartiality on the subject and lack of prejudice on what you described as cis men.
I'm not saying that to shock or upset you, it's merely something that is. Personally I see it as a shame that my first exposure to the term is used as a slur.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 16, 2012, 01:11:05 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 12:58:09 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 16, 2012, 12:48:21 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 16, 2012, 12:39:45 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 16, 2012, 12:32:03 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 12:25:43 AM
Jesus christ, it's not a bigoted term any more than trans* is. It's a specialized word, that's all. Did I use it in a way that can be construed as bigoted? I suppose so, if you're not willing to see that it's about criticizing IDEAS rather than sex or gender (I really do not want to have to start this over again; I've explained it like twice already). Are there people who do use it like that and paint a broad brush over all cis men? Absolutely. I used it poorly to describe what Nigel called the 'tragedy of the oppressor', that's all.

I don't understand its value at all... I don't care if people want to use it, but it seems like a pretty useless label.

"trans" = your inside genetics and outside genetics don't match
"homosexual' = your sexual preference is for the same sex
"cis" = your inside genetics and outside genetics match and your sexual preference is for the opposite sex.

err... the first two I get, the third seems silly to me.

"Cis" has nothing to do with sexual orientation, though. You can be a cisgender lesbian just as you can be a straight transman (or the myriad of possibilities in between!)

I guess, if "cis" seems silly, does "straight" seem silly as well?

Yeah. It does. Actually I think its kinda insulting because it indicates hetero = strait and gay = not straight; bent/twisted

So looking some more, I see how you could be a male/female who identifies as being a male/female but is homosexual. However, I still don't see any value in it. Its a label saying your inside and outside genetics match. Why make that into a label?

Labels are bad. Labels identify 100% of the person by 1% of their identity. It allows the brain mapping software to say "This person is X and therefore my interactin with them will be like my interaction with other X".

What positive value would there be to cis?
No, it doesn't, unless that's the ONLY label you have, at which point it becomes a uniform.

Well, thats true for the individual who is identifying themselves as X. However, when we're labeling someone else, then yeah... the brain works on "This person is X, therefore they will act like other X's I've met" its the connection between the word and the idea, the reality and the semantic connection we have in our brain. Its the core problem with labels.


Quote
Positive value to it: discussion, helping trans*/queer people realize and accept what might otherwise be a bewildering difference, use in academic studies.

Uh... so 'lets make up a label for those guys, so these guys will feel better'?
Quote
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 16, 2012, 12:54:35 AM
QuoteJillana Enteen wrote that "cissexual" is "meant to show that there are embedded assumptions encoded in expecting this seamless conformity."

That seems like a terrible reason to create a label.

"Some people expect conformity. So lets label their version of normal."
Source?
And I disagree (surprising, amirite?). Useful for showing that their normal is not the ONLY normal.

Source is the wiki article you linked to which links to the original source. But the other definitions listed in that wiki seem equally bad to me... but as I stated above, I'm generally against labels whenever possible.

If we're scientists/psychologists writing a paper on a specific topic talking about a graph as Pixie so nicely posted, I can get it. But using it in a discussion like this seems really not great (to me)
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Faust on August 16, 2012, 01:11:58 AM
Quote from: Pixie on August 16, 2012, 01:04:03 AM
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 16, 2012, 12:23:58 AM
:putin:

:lulz: :horrormirth:

Putin does not like the Feminism.

Search for "Pussy Riot".
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 12:25:43 AM
Jesus christ, it's not a bigoted term any more than trans* is. It's a specialized word, that's all. Did I use it in a way that can be construed as bigoted? I suppose so, if you're not willing to see that it's about criticizing IDEAS rather than sex or gender (I really do not want to have to start this over again; I've explained it like twice already). Are there people who do use it like that and paint a broad brush over all cis men? Absolutely. I used it poorly to describe what Nigel called the 'tragedy of the oppressor', that's all.

Yea I explained that "cis" is not a pejorative, or at least tried to.

At least the thread has got back on some kind of track.
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 16, 2012, 12:26:32 AM
Oh, and because I never get to be on this side of these things...


C'mon 50 pages!!!

I'm calling 45.   Just based on the history of discussions on feminism on PeeDee.

Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 16, 2012, 12:32:03 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 12:25:43 AM
Jesus christ, it's not a bigoted term any more than trans* is. It's a specialized word, that's all. Did I use it in a way that can be construed as bigoted? I suppose so, if you're not willing to see that it's about criticizing IDEAS rather than sex or gender (I really do not want to have to start this over again; I've explained it like twice already). Are there people who do use it like that and paint a broad brush over all cis men? Absolutely. I used it poorly to describe what Nigel called the 'tragedy of the oppressor', that's all.

I don't understand its value at all... I don't care if people want to use it, but it seems like a pretty useless label.

"trans" = your inside genetics and outside genetics don't match
"homosexual' = your sexual preference is for the same sex
"cis" = your inside genetics and outside genetics match and your sexual preference is for the opposite sex.

err... the first two I get, the third seems silly to me.

it's not about genetics, its about gender identity,

You are born a dude, with dudely genitals you idenitfy with being a dude- Cis man.

You are born a ladyperson, with lady genitals, you identify with being a lady person. - Cis woman.

You are born with dude parts, identify with being a ladyperson, - Trans woman

You are born with lady parts, identify with being a dudeperson- Trans man.
its separate from sexuality, as my shitty-looking yet time consuming to create graph crudely tries to explain.


Sexuality axis
Gay
|
|
|
Gender Identity Axis
Cis-------------------Trans
|
|
|
Hetero

In the middle of the gender identity axis, lives genderqueer folks, who can and often do flip between gender identities depending on how you are feeling that day.

In the middle of the sexuality axis, there is bi- (or if you have a thing for the genderqueer folks, maybe pan-) sexual.

Ah, crap. Signora Paes (BTW I thought you were Paes in Drag, I got a confused) already explained it while I was mid post. But formatting my little axis and descriptions was EFFORT, and so fuck alla youse I'm posting it.

Heteronormative MAY seem like a clunky term, but it describes a society that automatically assumes heterosexuality as a default.  Imagine a world where everyone  "came out" as their particular position on the gender identity/sexuality and no one made any assumptions. That would be a world where the word heteronormative is redundant.
Wait a minute, I've seen this thing before
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/European-political-spectrum.png/372px-European-political-spectrum.png)
I wrote this thing off as absurdism and only specific context means anything with it.

I think I am becoming a gender/sexuality nihilist.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 01:13:40 AM
Quote from: Faust on August 16, 2012, 01:11:58 AM
Quote from: Pixie on August 16, 2012, 01:04:03 AM
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 16, 2012, 12:23:58 AM
:putin:

:lulz: :horrormirth:

Putin does not like the Feminism.

Search for "Pussy Riot".
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 12:25:43 AM
Jesus christ, it's not a bigoted term any more than trans* is. It's a specialized word, that's all. Did I use it in a way that can be construed as bigoted? I suppose so, if you're not willing to see that it's about criticizing IDEAS rather than sex or gender (I really do not want to have to start this over again; I've explained it like twice already). Are there people who do use it like that and paint a broad brush over all cis men? Absolutely. I used it poorly to describe what Nigel called the 'tragedy of the oppressor', that's all.

Yea I explained that "cis" is not a pejorative, or at least tried to.

At least the thread has got back on some kind of track.
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 16, 2012, 12:26:32 AM
Oh, and because I never get to be on this side of these things...


C'mon 50 pages!!!

I'm calling 45.   Just based on the history of discussions on feminism on PeeDee.

Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 16, 2012, 12:32:03 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 12:25:43 AM
Jesus christ, it's not a bigoted term any more than trans* is. It's a specialized word, that's all. Did I use it in a way that can be construed as bigoted? I suppose so, if you're not willing to see that it's about criticizing IDEAS rather than sex or gender (I really do not want to have to start this over again; I've explained it like twice already). Are there people who do use it like that and paint a broad brush over all cis men? Absolutely. I used it poorly to describe what Nigel called the 'tragedy of the oppressor', that's all.

I don't understand its value at all... I don't care if people want to use it, but it seems like a pretty useless label.

"trans" = your inside genetics and outside genetics don't match
"homosexual' = your sexual preference is for the same sex
"cis" = your inside genetics and outside genetics match and your sexual preference is for the opposite sex.

err... the first two I get, the third seems silly to me.

it's not about genetics, its about gender identity,

You are born a dude, with dudely genitals you idenitfy with being a dude- Cis man.

You are born a ladyperson, with lady genitals, you identify with being a lady person. - Cis woman.

You are born with dude parts, identify with being a ladyperson, - Trans woman

You are born with lady parts, identify with being a dudeperson- Trans man.
its separate from sexuality, as my shitty-looking yet time consuming to create graph crudely tries to explain.


Sexuality axis
Gay
|
|
|
Gender Identity Axis
Cis-------------------Trans
|
|
|
Hetero

In the middle of the gender identity axis, lives genderqueer folks, who can and often do flip between gender identities depending on how you are feeling that day.

In the middle of the sexuality axis, there is bi- (or if you have a thing for the genderqueer folks, maybe pan-) sexual.

Ah, crap. Signora Paes (BTW I thought you were Paes in Drag, I got a confused) already explained it while I was mid post. But formatting my little axis and descriptions was EFFORT, and so fuck alla youse I'm posting it.

Heteronormative MAY seem like a clunky term, but it describes a society that automatically assumes heterosexuality as a default.  Imagine a world where everyone  "came out" as their particular position on the gender identity/sexuality and no one made any assumptions. That would be a world where the word heteronormative is redundant.
Wait a minute, I've seen this thing before
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/European-political-spectrum.png/372px-European-political-spectrum.png)
I wrote this thing off as absurdism and only specific context means anything with it.

I think I am becoming a gender/sexuality nihilist.

Filing systems for people.    :lulz:  Isn't that GREAT?

Learn what you are.  Look at our chart and find out what box you go in.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 16, 2012, 01:16:25 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 12:55:08 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 12:48:42 AM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 12:37:26 AM
No worries on that score.  I am more than a little dense, but once I see reason in something, it takes a lot more than that to get me to change my mind again (as far as the language goes), and I still think Garbo has her shit together.  On everything but this one subject.
How? I know I fucked up with the wording and managed to alienate a lot of people, but where specifically is this still tangled?


You said yourself it was used in frustration.  It was used as a blunt instrument.

I've thought about it, and I don't see it as being the same as what Nigel said.  I saw it as being the same thing I was saying about Southern rednecks a couple of weeks back.  It was used as a perjorative.  It wasn't a wording issue, it was simply wrong.

You're not a politician, Garbo, you haven't got enough shit smeared all over you...So "poorly phrased" doesn't work.  It was just plain wrong.  Everyone does it.  Kings do it, beggars do it.  It's a matter of whether or not you can admit that it was wrong, without waffling.  Almost nobody can.  Can you?
I'm not denying that it was wrong. I've said it a couple times already. I do try to stand on my feet and keep my knuckles off the ground.

I'm not sure how you're not seeing how I used it to criticize the set of ideas it was intended to (eta: which matters less, I admit, since it was wrong anyway). I used "cis" to eliminate transmen. I used "man" to indicate who the oppressor was in that situation. I used "tears" in order to indicate that I think feeling attacked for being asked to think about or change oppressive behavior was silly and out of place.
Was it the wrong thing to say? Yes, and not just because it fucked up the thread. It's not a phrase I'll say again because it was wrong.


But I think the criticism - that men who otherwise want to help but freak out when asked to think about/change their shitty behavior are out of line - is still valid.


Quote from: Faust on August 16, 2012, 01:06:20 AM
Because of the context in which you have used it in this thread, if I find it elsewhere it's going to cause serious reservations as to your impartiality on the subject and lack of prejudice on what you described as cis men.
I'm not saying that to shock or upset you, it's merely something that is. Personally I see it as a shame that my first exposure to the term is used as a slur.
Which is 100% valid and I don't begrudge you or anyone else for it.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 16, 2012, 01:21:45 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 16, 2012, 01:11:05 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 12:58:09 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 16, 2012, 12:48:21 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 16, 2012, 12:39:45 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 16, 2012, 12:32:03 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 12:25:43 AM
Jesus christ, it's not a bigoted term any more than trans* is. It's a specialized word, that's all. Did I use it in a way that can be construed as bigoted? I suppose so, if you're not willing to see that it's about criticizing IDEAS rather than sex or gender (I really do not want to have to start this over again; I've explained it like twice already). Are there people who do use it like that and paint a broad brush over all cis men? Absolutely. I used it poorly to describe what Nigel called the 'tragedy of the oppressor', that's all.

I don't understand its value at all... I don't care if people want to use it, but it seems like a pretty useless label.

"trans" = your inside genetics and outside genetics don't match
"homosexual' = your sexual preference is for the same sex
"cis" = your inside genetics and outside genetics match and your sexual preference is for the opposite sex.

err... the first two I get, the third seems silly to me.

"Cis" has nothing to do with sexual orientation, though. You can be a cisgender lesbian just as you can be a straight transman (or the myriad of possibilities in between!)

I guess, if "cis" seems silly, does "straight" seem silly as well?

Yeah. It does. Actually I think its kinda insulting because it indicates hetero = strait and gay = not straight; bent/twisted

So looking some more, I see how you could be a male/female who identifies as being a male/female but is homosexual. However, I still don't see any value in it. Its a label saying your inside and outside genetics match. Why make that into a label?

Labels are bad. Labels identify 100% of the person by 1% of their identity. It allows the brain mapping software to say "This person is X and therefore my interactin with them will be like my interaction with other X".

What positive value would there be to cis?
No, it doesn't, unless that's the ONLY label you have, at which point it becomes a uniform.

Well, thats true for the individual who is identifying themselves as X. However, when we're labeling someone else, then yeah... the brain works on "This person is X, therefore they will act like other X's I've met" its the connection between the word and the idea, the reality and the semantic connection we have in our brain. Its the core problem with labels.


Quote
Positive value to it: discussion, helping trans*/queer people realize and accept what might otherwise be a bewildering difference, use in academic studies.

Uh... so 'lets make up a label for those guys, so these guys will feel better'?
Quote
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 16, 2012, 12:54:35 AM
QuoteJillana Enteen wrote that "cissexual" is "meant to show that there are embedded assumptions encoded in expecting this seamless conformity."

That seems like a terrible reason to create a label.

"Some people expect conformity. So lets label their version of normal."
Source?
And I disagree (surprising, amirite?). Useful for showing that their normal is not the ONLY normal.

Source is the wiki article you linked to which links to the original source. But the other definitions listed in that wiki seem equally bad to me... but as I stated above, I'm generally against labels whenever possible.

If we're scientists/psychologists writing a paper on a specific topic talking about a graph as Pixie so nicely posted, I can get it. But using it in a discussion like this seems really not great (to me)
I'm going to address this really quick and then run 'cause I have to go.

It's useful discussing privilege. It's useful for internal labels. It's useful for understanding systems.

Uh... so 'lets make up a label for those guys, so these guys will feel better'?
*shrug* okay. I found it useful for that. Not everyone will.

The first bit deserves more discussion than I have time for. I'll come back to it.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 01:23:14 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 01:16:25 AM
But I think the criticism - that men who otherwise want to help but freak out when asked to think about/change their shitty behavior are out of line - is still valid.

Sure.  But remember that to some degree, the medium IS the message...In this case, the choice of words contaminated the message.

And I've known some pretty misogynist gay men that weren't cis at all.  And we've seen that misandry is quite the same.  It's not related in any way to what your own orientation or gender or any of that shit happens to be, but rather what your perception of the quality in question is.  Otherwise, there'd be no such thing as a "self-loathing homosexual" or "self-loathing Black person".

What you and Nigel were describing is "threatened privilege", I think.  This can be displayed among people who say silly-ass shit like "If Gays marry, then all marriages become meaningless" (I wonder what THEIR home life is like?).  Or it can be seen among men who view feminism as "ball-busting"...Or hell, among women who think that the rise of feminism means they can't be feminine anymore (ludicrous, but very common), and therefore reject it.

It can REALLY be seen on Fox News, when they get all torqued up about Iran having its own opinions, or the fact that one of Those People got elected president.  And it's the same fucking thing, no matter what wrapper it comes in.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Faust on August 16, 2012, 01:25:08 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 01:16:25 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 12:55:08 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 12:48:42 AM

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 12:37:26 AM
No worries on that score.  I am more than a little dense, but once I see reason in something, it takes a lot more than that to get me to change my mind again (as far as the language goes), and I still think Garbo has her shit together.  On everything but this one subject.
How? I know I fucked up with the wording and managed to alienate a lot of people, but where specifically is this still tangled?


You said yourself it was used in frustration.  It was used as a blunt instrument.

I've thought about it, and I don't see it as being the same as what Nigel said.  I saw it as being the same thing I was saying about Southern rednecks a couple of weeks back.  It was used as a perjorative.  It wasn't a wording issue, it was simply wrong.

You're not a politician, Garbo, you haven't got enough shit smeared all over you...So "poorly phrased" doesn't work.  It was just plain wrong.  Everyone does it.  Kings do it, beggars do it.  It's a matter of whether or not you can admit that it was wrong, without waffling.  Almost nobody can.  Can you?
I'm not denying that it was wrong. I've said it a couple times already. I do try to stand on my feet and keep my knuckles off the ground.

I'm not sure how you're not seeing how I used it to criticize the set of ideas it was intended to. I used "cis" to eliminate transmen. I used "man" to indicate who the oppressor was in that situation. I used "tears" in order to indicate that I think feeling attacked for being asked to think about or change oppressive behavior was silly and out of place.
Was it the wrong thing to say? Yes, and not just because it fucked up the thread. It's not a phrase I'll say again because it was wrong.


But I think the criticism - that men who otherwise want to help but freak out when asked to think about/change their shitty behavior are out of line - is still valid.


Quote from: Faust on August 16, 2012, 01:06:20 AM
Because of the context in which you have used it in this thread, if I find it elsewhere it's going to cause serious reservations as to your impartiality on the subject and lack of prejudice on what you described as cis men.
I'm not saying that to shock or upset you, it's merely something that is. Personally I see it as a shame that my first exposure to the term is used as a slur.
Which is 100% valid and I don't begrudge you or anyone else for it.
It's refreshing to see you say it, and I'll do my best to keep an open mind if I do come across it. In response to the bolded part:

People don't learn that way, its not a natural way to change ones mental behaviour. It's why learn by experience will always beat textbook rote learning. It's frustrating but it is a natural defence mechanism built into people when confronted with things about themselves they don't want to hear, you cant just say it you have to social engineer them so they think they have realised it about themselves.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pope Pixie Pickle on August 16, 2012, 01:47:26 AM
eh they are spectrums, rather than boxes. Its a fancy way of saying , or at least in my case "hello I'm pixie, I'm heteroflexible, like to fap over dudes with beards and dresses and am a bit of a tomboy, and have had occasional sex with women" which would put me a little bit away from straight on the axis, and I've floated around the gender identity spectrum from Cis woman to a little bit into genderqueer country, although I refer and think of myself as a ladyperson and am by that point currently in Cis-woman land. the fact that I wanted to be a boy-person as a very young kid and wanted to be able to pee standing up and facing the loo is pretty irrelevant now. I tried it, and it was messy.  :lulz:  I'd like to find a way of peeing outside that doesn't involve me peeing on the legs of my jeans and shoes though.

Least that's the way I look at them, when I don't side eye the whole concept of a gender binary and set behaviours and traits determined by genitalia you were born with as being a needlessly restrictive pile of bullshit.

I think I said earlier upthread, that the reason I don't get pissed off by these terms is that despite my take on a gender binary being a bullshit social construct is that in the broader picture,  the world at large enforces a gender binary, so the terms like trans or genderqueer are a tool for those who don't feel particularly attuned to the gender identity that goes with the genitalia you were born with that helps them figure out what the fuck is going on with them as individuals.

Biological sex does not equal gender, is the basics of that concept, really. 
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 16, 2012, 02:05:46 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 16, 2012, 12:48:21 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 16, 2012, 12:39:45 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 16, 2012, 12:32:03 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 12:25:43 AM
Jesus christ, it's not a bigoted term any more than trans* is. It's a specialized word, that's all. Did I use it in a way that can be construed as bigoted? I suppose so, if you're not willing to see that it's about criticizing IDEAS rather than sex or gender (I really do not want to have to start this over again; I've explained it like twice already). Are there people who do use it like that and paint a broad brush over all cis men? Absolutely. I used it poorly to describe what Nigel called the 'tragedy of the oppressor', that's all.

I don't understand its value at all... I don't care if people want to use it, but it seems like a pretty useless label.

"trans" = your inside genetics and outside genetics don't match
"homosexual' = your sexual preference is for the same sex
"cis" = your inside genetics and outside genetics match and your sexual preference is for the opposite sex.

err... the first two I get, the third seems silly to me.

"Cis" has nothing to do with sexual orientation, though. You can be a cisgender lesbian just as you can be a straight transman (or the myriad of possibilities in between!)

I guess, if "cis" seems silly, does "straight" seem silly as well?

Yeah. It does. Actually I think its kinda insulting because it indicates hetero = strait and gay = not straight; bent/twisted

So looking some more, I see how you could be a male/female who identifies as being a male/female but is homosexual. However, I still don't see any value in it. Its a label saying your inside and outside genetics match. Why make that into a label?

Labels are bad. Labels identify 100% of the person by 1% of their identity. It allows the brain mapping software to say "This person is X and therefore my interactin with them will be like my interaction with other X".

What positive value would there be to cis?

Fair enough. And I'm not a fan of "straight" for much the same reason, though I haven't really found a decent alternative.

Most of the time I see "cis" used, it's trying to pull the dichotomy away from being "normal/trans" to "cis/trans". Something to do with giving all gender identities a label makes them all normal. Whether it works or not I don't know, but I have no issue being labelled a cis pansexual woman if the situation calls for it.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 02:08:01 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 16, 2012, 02:05:46 AM

Fair enough. And I'm not a fan of "straight" for much the same reason, though I haven't really found a decent alternative.


People?  Alongside all the other people?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on August 16, 2012, 02:11:25 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 02:08:01 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 16, 2012, 02:05:46 AM

Fair enough. And I'm not a fan of "straight" for much the same reason, though I haven't really found a decent alternative.


People?  Alongside all the other people?

The only time I've ever found a person's sexual orientation to be relevant to my judgment of them is when the possibility of sexual advances exists. And, in all of those cases, I've found my sexual orientation to be "yes please."
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 16, 2012, 02:13:13 AM
Quote from: v3x on August 16, 2012, 02:11:25 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 02:08:01 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 16, 2012, 02:05:46 AM

Fair enough. And I'm not a fan of "straight" for much the same reason, though I haven't really found a decent alternative.


People?  Alongside all the other people?

The only time I've ever found a person's sexual orientation to be relevant to my judgment of them is when the possibility of sexual advances exists. And, in all of those cases, I've found my sexual orientation to be "yes please."

-cough-

:fap:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 02:18:28 AM
I've been looking at the charts.  I'm apparently a cisliberal.

WOWEE!  No more agonizing introspection!  I can just look up what I am, and staple it to my face! 

THANKS, AMERICATM!  You really ARE everywhere!  Just like Santa1!












1  If Santa replaced the elves with child slave labor in Bangladesh, dumped Mrs Claus for a trophy wife, traded up the sleigh for a Hummer3, and short-sold the North Pole to flip some real estate in San Francisco.  And then invaded someone for reasons even he couldn't properly explain.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞ on August 16, 2012, 02:19:30 AM
Quote from: Pixie on August 16, 2012, 01:47:26 AM
the fact that I wanted to be a boy-person as a very young kid and wanted to be able to pee standing up and facing the loo is pretty irrelevant now. I tried it, and it was messy.  :lulz:  I'd like to find a way of peeing outside that doesn't involve me peeing on the legs of my jeans and shoes though.

Have you tried one of these (http://www.go-girl.com/)?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on August 16, 2012, 02:21:07 AM
Apparently the solution to using labels to oversimplify everything is using labels to complicate things, instead.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 02:21:56 AM
NET.

I HAVE A HOLY QUESTTM FOR YOU.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 16, 2012, 02:28:11 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 02:08:01 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 16, 2012, 02:05:46 AM

Fair enough. And I'm not a fan of "straight" for much the same reason, though I haven't really found a decent alternative.


People?  Alongside all the other people?

In terms of where you're coming from I completely agree. People are people. And it's not like how I think of myself on a daily basis is "white cis upper-middle-class pansexual". How I perceive myself on a daily basis is, you know, Signora.

But the "no labels we're all people" thing only really works in an egilatarian society. Labels come into play when I'm thinking "we're all people and deserve to be fucking equal, so why is my pay rise less than my make colleagues?... oh right, because I'm a woman."

In a truly egilatarian society, labels will become obsolete. And bring it the fuck on.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 02:31:18 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 16, 2012, 02:28:11 AM
But the "no labels we're all people" thing only really works in an egilatarian society. Labels come into play when I'm thinking "we're all people and deserve to be fucking equal, so why is my pay rise less than my make colleagues?... oh right, because I'm a woman."

You get the future you demand.  Thing is, most people don't think they're demanding what they're positively screaming for.

And one way to demand a future worth living in is to not tolerate labelling.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞ on August 16, 2012, 02:42:26 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 02:21:56 AM
NET.

I HAVE A HOLY QUESTTM FOR YOU.

HIT ME WITH IT!
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 02:43:06 AM
Quote from: Net on August 16, 2012, 02:42:26 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 02:21:56 AM
NET.

I HAVE A HOLY QUESTTM FOR YOU.

HIT ME WITH IT!

FUCK UP MY FACE REAL BAD AND STAPLE CISLIBERAL TO IT SOMEHOW.

I need it as a shaving mirror.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 16, 2012, 02:51:13 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 02:43:06 AM
Quote from: Net on August 16, 2012, 02:42:26 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 02:21:56 AM
NET.

I HAVE A HOLY QUESTTM FOR YOU.

HIT ME WITH IT!

FUCK UP MY FACE REAL BAD AND STAPLE CISLIBERAL TO IT SOMEHOW.

I need it as a shaving mirror.

OOOOOH! I WANT ONE! "CISANTIAUTHORITARIANLIBERALESTROGENDEREDHETERONORMATIVE. WITH CHEESE."
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 02:52:28 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 16, 2012, 02:51:13 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 02:43:06 AM
Quote from: Net on August 16, 2012, 02:42:26 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 02:21:56 AM
NET.

I HAVE A HOLY QUESTTM FOR YOU.

HIT ME WITH IT!

FUCK UP MY FACE REAL BAD AND STAPLE CISLIBERAL TO IT SOMEHOW.

I need it as a shaving mirror.

OOOOOH! I WANT ONE! "CISANTIAUTHORITARIANLIBERALESTROGENDEREDHETERONORMATIVE. WITH CHEESE."

Now you're just being SILLY.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞ on August 16, 2012, 02:52:56 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 02:43:06 AM
Quote from: Net on August 16, 2012, 02:42:26 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 02:21:56 AM
NET.

I HAVE A HOLY QUESTTM FOR YOU.

HIT ME WITH IT!

FUCK UP MY FACE REAL BAD AND STAPLE CISLIBERAL TO IT SOMEHOW.

I need it as a shaving mirror.

:lulz:

Halfway done already.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 02:53:44 AM
Quote from: Net on August 16, 2012, 02:52:56 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 02:43:06 AM
Quote from: Net on August 16, 2012, 02:42:26 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 02:21:56 AM
NET.

I HAVE A HOLY QUESTTM FOR YOU.

HIT ME WITH IT!

FUCK UP MY FACE REAL BAD AND STAPLE CISLIBERAL TO IT SOMEHOW.

I need it as a shaving mirror.

:lulz:

Halfway done already.

I've made do for the moment with a new avatar, but it's just not the same.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 16, 2012, 02:53:57 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 02:31:18 AM
You get the future you demand.  Thing is, most people don't think they're demanding what they're positively screaming for.

I'm so sorry Roger, I'm not sure what you mean by this. Would you mind clarifying?

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 02:31:18 AM
And one way to demand a future worth living in is to not tolerate labelling.

To me, it's kind of the other way around. While society in general perceives certain groups of people as lesser than others, those labels become a way to subvert and chip away at those perceptions. When we have a society where people are based solely on their merits, then we won't need the labels. I won't be getting paid less because I'm female; I'll be getting paid less because I'm on PD on my iPhone while I'm building ridiculously complicated reports  :lulz:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 16, 2012, 02:54:51 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 02:52:28 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 16, 2012, 02:51:13 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 02:43:06 AM
Quote from: Net on August 16, 2012, 02:42:26 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 02:21:56 AM
NET.

I HAVE A HOLY QUESTTM FOR YOU.

HIT ME WITH IT!

FUCK UP MY FACE REAL BAD AND STAPLE CISLIBERAL TO IT SOMEHOW.

I need it as a shaving mirror.

OOOOOH! I WANT ONE! "CISANTIAUTHORITARIANLIBERALESTROGENDEREDHETERONORMATIVE. WITH CHEESE."

Now you're just being SILLY.

BUT I DON'T WANT THE 'NO CHEESE' PEOPLE TO FEEL WEIRD.

Nice avvie.  :lulz:

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 02:57:32 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 16, 2012, 02:54:51 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 02:52:28 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 16, 2012, 02:51:13 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 02:43:06 AM
Quote from: Net on August 16, 2012, 02:42:26 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 02:21:56 AM
NET.

I HAVE A HOLY QUESTTM FOR YOU.

HIT ME WITH IT!

FUCK UP MY FACE REAL BAD AND STAPLE CISLIBERAL TO IT SOMEHOW.

I need it as a shaving mirror.

OOOOOH! I WANT ONE! "CISANTIAUTHORITARIANLIBERALESTROGENDEREDHETERONORMATIVE. WITH CHEESE."

Now you're just being SILLY.

BUT I DON'T WANT THE 'NO CHEESE' PEOPLE TO FEEL WEIRD.

Nice avvie.  :lulz:

No cheese people are filthy perverts and should be wiped out.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 16, 2012, 03:00:45 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 02:57:32 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 16, 2012, 02:54:51 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 02:52:28 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 16, 2012, 02:51:13 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 02:43:06 AM
Quote from: Net on August 16, 2012, 02:42:26 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 02:21:56 AM
NET.

I HAVE A HOLY QUESTTM FOR YOU.

HIT ME WITH IT!

FUCK UP MY FACE REAL BAD AND STAPLE CISLIBERAL TO IT SOMEHOW.

I need it as a shaving mirror.

OOOOOH! I WANT ONE! "CISANTIAUTHORITARIANLIBERALESTROGENDEREDHETERONORMATIVE. WITH CHEESE."

Now you're just being SILLY.

BUT I DON'T WANT THE 'NO CHEESE' PEOPLE TO FEEL WEIRD.

Nice avvie.  :lulz:

No cheese people are filthy perverts and should be wiped out.

:spittake:

Round 'em up.  :lulz:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pæs on August 16, 2012, 03:07:35 AM
I'm not comfortable telling a minority not to use labels because it feels a lot like "I don't see colour"... which is indicative of privilege. I feel like the obvious response I'm inviting is "oh, you don't? that must be nice for you. I fucking live labels, asshat, but enjoy your not being forced to acknowledge that by not being oppressed by it yourself. Yes we're all people, but I'm the kind of people with fewer opportunities because of the shape of my body, so I'm going to continue having a special word to refer to people who don't experience that" which I don't have a useful counterpoint to. The labels are descriptions of boxes that human behaviour already confirms as existing. If we, as a species, treat "the gays" differently, it seems a bit off for even those who don't to disapprove of there being a word for anyone who is not part of that group. As Signora said, it somewhat helps avoiding defaulting to gay/normal. They aren't making the divisions, they're just trying to have a little control over the discussion of them, as those most concerned by them.

Not to make any assumptions regarding your approach to no labels, Roger.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 16, 2012, 03:10:50 AM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 16, 2012, 03:07:35 AM
I'm not comfortable telling a minority not to use labels because it feels a lot like "I don't see colour"... which is indicative of privilege. I feel like the obvious response I'm inviting is "oh, you don't? that must be nice for you. I fucking live labels, asshat, but enjoy your not being forced to acknowledge that by not being oppressed by it yourself. Yes we're all people, but I'm the kind of people with fewer opportunities because of the shape of my body, so I'm going to continue having a special word to refer to people who don't experience that" which I don't have a useful counterpoint to. The labels are descriptions of boxes that human behaviour already confirms as existing. If we, as a species, treat "the gays" differently, it seems a bit off for even those who don't to disapprove of there being a word for anyone who is not part of that group. As Signora said, it somewhat helps avoiding defaulting to gay/normal. They aren't making the divisions, they're just trying to have a little control over the discussion of them, as those most concerned by them.

Not to make any assumptions regarding your approach to no labels, Roger.

As a member of the group that would be stuck sporting said label, I object. On the grounds that it's fucking retarded.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:16:18 AM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 16, 2012, 03:07:35 AM
I'm not comfortable telling a minority not to use labels because it feels a lot like "I don't see colour"... which is indicative of privilege.

I'm not telling anyone to do shit.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:17:32 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 16, 2012, 03:10:50 AM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 16, 2012, 03:07:35 AM
I'm not comfortable telling a minority not to use labels because it feels a lot like "I don't see colour"... which is indicative of privilege. I feel like the obvious response I'm inviting is "oh, you don't? that must be nice for you. I fucking live labels, asshat, but enjoy your not being forced to acknowledge that by not being oppressed by it yourself. Yes we're all people, but I'm the kind of people with fewer opportunities because of the shape of my body, so I'm going to continue having a special word to refer to people who don't experience that" which I don't have a useful counterpoint to. The labels are descriptions of boxes that human behaviour already confirms as existing. If we, as a species, treat "the gays" differently, it seems a bit off for even those who don't to disapprove of there being a word for anyone who is not part of that group. As Signora said, it somewhat helps avoiding defaulting to gay/normal. They aren't making the divisions, they're just trying to have a little control over the discussion of them, as those most concerned by them.

Not to make any assumptions regarding your approach to no labels, Roger.

As a member of the group that would be stuck sporting said label, I object. On the grounds that it's fucking retarded.

I'm just against the politics of division.  There are people out there that COUNT on us being divided.

Does that make me "privileged"? 

So I'm privileged.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:19:40 AM
I've been lying all along.  My name is Lloyd Craig Blankfein.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 16, 2012, 03:22:06 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:19:40 AM
I've been lying all along.  My name is Lloyd Craig Blankfein.

HOW CAN YOU BE THAT GUY WHEN YOU'RE CHARLES KOCH?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:22:55 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 16, 2012, 03:22:06 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:19:40 AM
I've been lying all along.  My name is Lloyd Craig Blankfein.

HOW CAN YOU BE THAT GUY WHEN YOU'RE CHARLES KOCH?

Shush.  I'm oppressing the masses with my enormous penis.

Talking makes it shrivel up.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 16, 2012, 03:24:37 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:22:55 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 16, 2012, 03:22:06 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:19:40 AM
I've been lying all along.  My name is Lloyd Craig Blankfein.

HOW CAN YOU BE THAT GUY WHEN YOU'RE CHARLES KOCH?

Shush.  I'm oppressing the masses with my enormous penis.

Talking makes it shrivel up.

:potd:  :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on August 16, 2012, 03:27:24 AM
on the subject of the OP for a minute, I can say that as a man, it's really annoying that my wife cannot even get a job at fucking McDonalds to help will expenses - they won't even look at her application, because she has spent the last 6 years being a stay at home mother and therefore "has no relevant work experience." how the fuck does that add up?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pæs on August 16, 2012, 03:28:32 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:17:32 AM
I'm just against the politics of division.  There are people out there that COUNT on us being divided.

Does that make me "privileged"? 

So I'm privileged.
So am I. Both against that division and privileged. Choosing to just see people as people is much easier when you aren't given daily reminders that you are one of "those people".

Attacking the concept of cisgenderism feels to me like telling blacks that "there ain't no 'whitey' we're all just people" as if THEY are responsible for the distinction being made.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:34:24 AM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 16, 2012, 03:28:32 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:17:32 AM
I'm just against the politics of division.  There are people out there that COUNT on us being divided.

Does that make me "privileged"? 

So I'm privileged.
So am I. Both against that division and privileged. Choosing to just see people as people is much easier when you aren't given daily reminders that you are one of "those people".

Attacking the concept of cisgenderism feels to me like telling blacks that "there ain't no 'whitey' we're all just people" as if THEY are responsible for the distinction being made.

Why, yes, here in the glorious United States of Murrica, we have no oppression for Whitey.  We're all one unified body, and we certainly don't make each other do the striptease at the airport, or get shot in the back of squadcars for no fucking reason, or get our jobs shopped out to Chinese slaves, or get thrown in prison for life without anything resembling due process, for reasons that are never actually explained.

We have meetings, where we plan this shit.  At those meetings, we drink cognac out of the muscular rectums of young Algerian women raised strictly for this purpose, while we eat endangered animals and decide where next to spill massive amounts of oil.

Because we Murrikans are all oppressors.  We're exactly alike.  None of us have felt a day's oppression in our shiny, shiny White lives.

That's why I want to take your labels away.  So you can't FIGHT THE POWER.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pæs on August 16, 2012, 03:42:29 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:34:24 AM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 16, 2012, 03:28:32 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:17:32 AM
I'm just against the politics of division.  There are people out there that COUNT on us being divided.

Does that make me "privileged"? 

So I'm privileged.
So am I. Both against that division and privileged. Choosing to just see people as people is much easier when you aren't given daily reminders that you are one of "those people".

Attacking the concept of cisgenderism feels to me like telling blacks that "there ain't no 'whitey' we're all just people" as if THEY are responsible for the distinction being made.

Why, yes, here in the glorious United States of Murrica, we have no oppression for Whitey.  We're all one unified body, and we certainly don't make each other do the striptease at the airport, or get shot in the back of squadcars for no fucking reason, or get our jobs shopped out to Chinese slaves, or get thrown in prison for life without anything resembling due process, for reasons that are never actually explained.

We have meetings, where we plan this shit.  At those meetings, we drink cognac out of the muscular rectums of young Algerian women raised strictly for this purpose, while we eat endangered animals and decide where next to spill massive amounts of oil.

Because we Murrikans are all oppressors.  We're exactly alike.  None of us have felt a day's oppression in our shiny, shiny White lives.

That's why I want to take your labels away.  So you can't FIGHT THE POWER.
All of your outrage relies on the stubborn insistence that people are saying things they are not.
I won't take that away from you by actually looking for conversation, or pointing out again which things are not attacks on you or which of your retorts target unrepresented arguments. You seem to be enjoying taking offense overdramatically.

Have a good time senselessly hollering at the internet until nobody is listening.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:43:49 AM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 16, 2012, 03:42:29 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:34:24 AM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 16, 2012, 03:28:32 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:17:32 AM
I'm just against the politics of division.  There are people out there that COUNT on us being divided.

Does that make me "privileged"? 

So I'm privileged.
So am I. Both against that division and privileged. Choosing to just see people as people is much easier when you aren't given daily reminders that you are one of "those people".

Attacking the concept of cisgenderism feels to me like telling blacks that "there ain't no 'whitey' we're all just people" as if THEY are responsible for the distinction being made.

Why, yes, here in the glorious United States of Murrica, we have no oppression for Whitey.  We're all one unified body, and we certainly don't make each other do the striptease at the airport, or get shot in the back of squadcars for no fucking reason, or get our jobs shopped out to Chinese slaves, or get thrown in prison for life without anything resembling due process, for reasons that are never actually explained.

We have meetings, where we plan this shit.  At those meetings, we drink cognac out of the muscular rectums of young Algerian women raised strictly for this purpose, while we eat endangered animals and decide where next to spill massive amounts of oil.

Because we Murrikans are all oppressors.  We're exactly alike.  None of us have felt a day's oppression in our shiny, shiny White lives.

That's why I want to take your labels away.  So you can't FIGHT THE POWER.
All of your outrage relies on the stubborn insistence that people are saying things they are not.
I won't take that away from you by actually looking for conversation, or pointing out again which things are not attacks on you or which of your retorts target unrepresented arguments. You seem to be enjoying taking offense overdramatically.

Have a good time senselessly hollering at the internet until nobody is listening.

Outrage? 

:lulz:

Have fun cherishing your zeal and your self-righteousness.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:45:03 AM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 16, 2012, 03:42:29 AM
You seem to be enjoying taking offense overdramatically.

I am, in fact, hamming it up like a mad bastard.

Something should be done about people like me.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 16, 2012, 03:45:49 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:34:24 AM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 16, 2012, 03:28:32 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:17:32 AM
I'm just against the politics of division.  There are people out there that COUNT on us being divided.

Does that make me "privileged"? 

So I'm privileged.
So am I. Both against that division and privileged. Choosing to just see people as people is much easier when you aren't given daily reminders that you are one of "those people".

Attacking the concept of cisgenderism feels to me like telling blacks that "there ain't no 'whitey' we're all just people" as if THEY are responsible for the distinction being made.

Why, yes, here in the glorious United States of Murrica, we have no oppression for Whitey.  We're all one unified body, and we certainly don't make each other do the striptease at the airport, or get shot in the back of squadcars for no fucking reason, or get our jobs shopped out to Chinese slaves, or get thrown in prison for life without anything resembling due process, for reasons that are never actually explained.

We have meetings, where we plan this shit.  At those meetings, we drink cognac out of the muscular rectums of young Algerian women raised strictly for this purpose, while we eat endangered animals and decide where next to spill massive amounts of oil.

Because we Murrikans are all oppressors.  We're exactly alike.  None of us have felt a day's oppression in our shiny, shiny White lives.

That's why I want to take your labels away.  So you can't FIGHT THE POWER.

"GODDAM CISTRIARCHAL CULTURE! NEVER AGAIN TEH BURNING TIEMS!"
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:46:52 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 16, 2012, 03:45:49 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:34:24 AM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 16, 2012, 03:28:32 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:17:32 AM
I'm just against the politics of division.  There are people out there that COUNT on us being divided.

Does that make me "privileged"? 

So I'm privileged.
So am I. Both against that division and privileged. Choosing to just see people as people is much easier when you aren't given daily reminders that you are one of "those people".

Attacking the concept of cisgenderism feels to me like telling blacks that "there ain't no 'whitey' we're all just people" as if THEY are responsible for the distinction being made.

Why, yes, here in the glorious United States of Murrica, we have no oppression for Whitey.  We're all one unified body, and we certainly don't make each other do the striptease at the airport, or get shot in the back of squadcars for no fucking reason, or get our jobs shopped out to Chinese slaves, or get thrown in prison for life without anything resembling due process, for reasons that are never actually explained.

We have meetings, where we plan this shit.  At those meetings, we drink cognac out of the muscular rectums of young Algerian women raised strictly for this purpose, while we eat endangered animals and decide where next to spill massive amounts of oil.

Because we Murrikans are all oppressors.  We're exactly alike.  None of us have felt a day's oppression in our shiny, shiny White lives.

That's why I want to take your labels away.  So you can't FIGHT THE POWER.

"GODDAM CISTRIARCHAL CULTURE! NEVER AGAIN TEH BURNING TIEMS!"

I have this paralyzing suspicion that you are being less than serious.

Frivolous, even.

:|
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 16, 2012, 03:48:31 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:46:52 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 16, 2012, 03:45:49 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:34:24 AM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 16, 2012, 03:28:32 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:17:32 AM
I'm just against the politics of division.  There are people out there that COUNT on us being divided.

Does that make me "privileged"? 

So I'm privileged.
So am I. Both against that division and privileged. Choosing to just see people as people is much easier when you aren't given daily reminders that you are one of "those people".

Attacking the concept of cisgenderism feels to me like telling blacks that "there ain't no 'whitey' we're all just people" as if THEY are responsible for the distinction being made.

Why, yes, here in the glorious United States of Murrica, we have no oppression for Whitey.  We're all one unified body, and we certainly don't make each other do the striptease at the airport, or get shot in the back of squadcars for no fucking reason, or get our jobs shopped out to Chinese slaves, or get thrown in prison for life without anything resembling due process, for reasons that are never actually explained.

We have meetings, where we plan this shit.  At those meetings, we drink cognac out of the muscular rectums of young Algerian women raised strictly for this purpose, while we eat endangered animals and decide where next to spill massive amounts of oil.

Because we Murrikans are all oppressors.  We're exactly alike.  None of us have felt a day's oppression in our shiny, shiny White lives.

That's why I want to take your labels away.  So you can't FIGHT THE POWER.

"GODDAM CISTRIARCHAL CULTURE! NEVER AGAIN TEH BURNING TIEMS!"

I have this paralyzing suspicion that you are being less than serious.

Frivolous, even.

:|

No way. I was just googling for non-cis defunct gods to pray to.  :lol:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:50:26 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 16, 2012, 03:48:31 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:46:52 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 16, 2012, 03:45:49 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:34:24 AM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 16, 2012, 03:28:32 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:17:32 AM
I'm just against the politics of division.  There are people out there that COUNT on us being divided.

Does that make me "privileged"? 

So I'm privileged.
So am I. Both against that division and privileged. Choosing to just see people as people is much easier when you aren't given daily reminders that you are one of "those people".

Attacking the concept of cisgenderism feels to me like telling blacks that "there ain't no 'whitey' we're all just people" as if THEY are responsible for the distinction being made.

Why, yes, here in the glorious United States of Murrica, we have no oppression for Whitey.  We're all one unified body, and we certainly don't make each other do the striptease at the airport, or get shot in the back of squadcars for no fucking reason, or get our jobs shopped out to Chinese slaves, or get thrown in prison for life without anything resembling due process, for reasons that are never actually explained.

We have meetings, where we plan this shit.  At those meetings, we drink cognac out of the muscular rectums of young Algerian women raised strictly for this purpose, while we eat endangered animals and decide where next to spill massive amounts of oil.

Because we Murrikans are all oppressors.  We're exactly alike.  None of us have felt a day's oppression in our shiny, shiny White lives.

That's why I want to take your labels away.  So you can't FIGHT THE POWER.

"GODDAM CISTRIARCHAL CULTURE! NEVER AGAIN TEH BURNING TIEMS!"

I have this paralyzing suspicion that you are being less than serious.

Frivolous, even.

:|

No way. I was just googling for non-cis defunct gods to pray to.  :lol:

If I didn't know better, I'd say you were making fun of the young man's religion.  Which would make you nothing short of a running dog lackey of the oppressor's mighty organ.

CLASS TRAITOR GENDER...UM...ORIENTATION...ER...WHATSIS TRAITOR!
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:52:45 AM
 :responsible:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 16, 2012, 03:53:44 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:50:26 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 16, 2012, 03:48:31 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:46:52 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 16, 2012, 03:45:49 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:34:24 AM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 16, 2012, 03:28:32 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:17:32 AM
I'm just against the politics of division.  There are people out there that COUNT on us being divided.

Does that make me "privileged"? 

So I'm privileged.
So am I. Both against that division and privileged. Choosing to just see people as people is much easier when you aren't given daily reminders that you are one of "those people".

Attacking the concept of cisgenderism feels to me like telling blacks that "there ain't no 'whitey' we're all just people" as if THEY are responsible for the distinction being made.

Why, yes, here in the glorious United States of Murrica, we have no oppression for Whitey.  We're all one unified body, and we certainly don't make each other do the striptease at the airport, or get shot in the back of squadcars for no fucking reason, or get our jobs shopped out to Chinese slaves, or get thrown in prison for life without anything resembling due process, for reasons that are never actually explained.

We have meetings, where we plan this shit.  At those meetings, we drink cognac out of the muscular rectums of young Algerian women raised strictly for this purpose, while we eat endangered animals and decide where next to spill massive amounts of oil.

Because we Murrikans are all oppressors.  We're exactly alike.  None of us have felt a day's oppression in our shiny, shiny White lives.

That's why I want to take your labels away.  So you can't FIGHT THE POWER.

"GODDAM CISTRIARCHAL CULTURE! NEVER AGAIN TEH BURNING TIEMS!"

I have this paralyzing suspicion that you are being less than serious.

Frivolous, even.

:|

No way. I was just googling for non-cis defunct gods to pray to.  :lol:

If I didn't know better, I'd say you were making fun of the young man's religion.  Which would make you nothing short of a running dog lackey of the oppressor's mighty organ.

CLASS TRAITOR GENDER...UM...ORIENTATION...ER...WHATSCIS TRAITOR!
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 16, 2012, 03:56:47 AM
THIS IS THE INTERNET POLICE!  EVERYONE SHUT UP AND REMAIN CALM, OR I WILL BACK TRACE YOU!

SO HELP ME, IF I GET ONE MORE POST FULL OF LIP, CONSEQUENCES WILL NEVER BE THE SAME!
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pæs on August 16, 2012, 03:57:06 AM
"I am just trying to be a better person."

I actually read this as genuine at first. My bad.
And then Roger was a successful troll.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:58:50 AM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 16, 2012, 03:57:06 AM
"I am just trying to be a better person."

I actually read this as genuine at first. My bad.
And then Roger was a successful troll.

Then Roger didn't take you seriously when you went off the fucking deep end.

Or words to that effect.

Well, I'm off to bed, to dream up more ways to keep a brother down.  Paes, be prepared to be consumed with Holy WrathTM at my outrageous acts of oppression on this very board, come tomorrow.  That way, you won't even notice when the people who are actually oppressing you come down on you like a ten ton sack of pigshit.

Way to go.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 04:00:45 AM
Also, we'll have no more joking around in Discordianism.

DO YOU SPAGS HEAR ME?  LOOKING ATCHOO, STELLA!   :argh!:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 16, 2012, 04:02:15 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:58:50 AM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 16, 2012, 03:57:06 AM
"I am just trying to be a better person."

I actually read this as genuine at first. My bad.
And then Roger was a successful troll.

Then Roger didn't take you seriously when you went off the fucking deep end.

Or words to that effect.

Well, I'm off to bed, to dream up more ways to keep a brother down.  Paes, be prepared to be consumed with Holy WrathTM at my outrageous acts of oppression on this very board, come tomorrow.  That way, you won't even notice when the people who are actually oppressing you come down on you like a ten ton sack of pigshit.

Way to go.

In fairness, no one's oppressing Paes. He's a straight white cis guy, bless him.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 16, 2012, 04:03:26 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 04:00:45 AM
Also, we'll have no more joking around in Discordianism.

DO YOU SPAGS HEAR ME?  LOOKING ATCHOO, STELLA!   :argh!:

THAT'S IT

IT'S THE GULAG FOR YOU

ALSO WHEN I HAVE FIFTY INCOHERENT MINUTES, A WOMP.  OF CONSEQUENCES.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 16, 2012, 04:04:57 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 04:00:45 AM
Also, we'll have no more joking around in Discordianism.

DO YOU SPAGS HEAR ME?  LOOKING ATCHOO, STELLA!   :argh!:

I can't help it. I'm DAMAGED from being OPRESSED by GIANT CISTRIARCHAL PENIS.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pæs on August 16, 2012, 04:06:09 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:58:50 AM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 16, 2012, 03:57:06 AM
"I am just trying to be a better person."

I actually read this as genuine at first. My bad.
And then Roger was a successful troll.

Then Roger didn't take you seriously when you went off the fucking deep end.

Or words to that effect.

Well, I'm off to bed, to dream up more ways to keep a brother down.  Paes, be prepared to be consumed with Holy WrathTM at my outrageous acts of oppression on this very board, come tomorrow.  That way, you won't even notice when the people who are actually oppressing you come down on you like a ten ton sack of pigshit.

Way to go.
Yeah, go with the "everyone calls me the villain" act. If anyone has bought into into of the strawmen you've been dissecting, they might assume that's a reasonable script for you to start reading from.

I don't think you're an evil oppressor and I'm not particularly upset, so nobody is going to get all CU on you. I'm just working through whether I have enough new information to dramatically revise my previously high opinion on you or whether you only seem to be an asshole because I'm limiting myself to this thread, in which I think you're an asshole.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 04:06:39 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 16, 2012, 04:02:15 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:58:50 AM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 16, 2012, 03:57:06 AM
"I am just trying to be a better person."

I actually read this as genuine at first. My bad.
And then Roger was a successful troll.

Then Roger didn't take you seriously when you went off the fucking deep end.

Or words to that effect.

Well, I'm off to bed, to dream up more ways to keep a brother down.  Paes, be prepared to be consumed with Holy WrathTM at my outrageous acts of oppression on this very board, come tomorrow.  That way, you won't even notice when the people who are actually oppressing you come down on you like a ten ton sack of pigshit.

Way to go.

In fairness, no one's oppressing Paes. He's a straight white cis guy, bless him.

Really?  To hear him talk, the ghost of Bull O'Connor shows up every night to give him a prodding.  Because, apparently, my objecting to labels is - not that he was talking about ME, mind you - something reminiscent of Jim Crow days.  It is in fact apparently on the same level (but not ME, he was just saying) as running out and blasting civil rights marchers with a fire hose.  Alas, I live in the high desert, and the water pressure I have available would only knock down the very young and the very old.

What's an oppressor to do?  I mean, if he was talking about me, which I am assured that he is not.

Dirty Old Uncle Roger,
Potential, theoretical vicious oppressor of the masses.  Maybe.

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pæs on August 16, 2012, 04:09:57 AM
I'm glad this time you at least READ the part where I said it wasn't describing your attitude.
The next step is believing it.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 04:11:43 AM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 16, 2012, 04:06:09 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:58:50 AM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 16, 2012, 03:57:06 AM
"I am just trying to be a better person."

I actually read this as genuine at first. My bad.
And then Roger was a successful troll.

Then Roger didn't take you seriously when you went off the fucking deep end.

Or words to that effect.

Well, I'm off to bed, to dream up more ways to keep a brother down.  Paes, be prepared to be consumed with Holy WrathTM at my outrageous acts of oppression on this very board, come tomorrow.  That way, you won't even notice when the people who are actually oppressing you come down on you like a ten ton sack of pigshit.

Way to go.
Yeah, go with the "everyone calls me the villain" act. If anyone has bought into into of the strawmen you've been dissecting, they might assume that's a reasonable script for you to start reading from.

I don't think you're an evil oppressor and I'm not particularly upset, so nobody is going to get all CU on you. I'm just working through whether I have enough new information to dramatically revise my previously high opinion on you or whether you only seem to be an asshole because I'm limiting myself to this thread, in which I think you're an asshole.

I have it on good authority that I am in fact an asshole, and have always been an asshole.  To make things worse, I am an unrepetent asshole, which is sort of like those rock stars back in the 80s, when it was okay if you got caught with drugs, as long as you were good and repentent about it.  To deny that you had a problem was the sin, not the massive lines of crank themselves.

In any case, I have just checked with my wife, and she agrees that I am an asshole.  This of course invalidates anything I have said to date, because my assholishness is prove positive that anything I may have said is to be scratched off as "the pill-driven frenzy of an asshole".

So, you'd best revise that opinion, because I'd hate for people to associate you with an enormous gaping prostate like myself.

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 04:13:53 AM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 16, 2012, 04:09:57 AM
I'm glad this time you at least READ the part where I said it wasn't describing your attitude.
The next step is believing it.

Go back and read your posts.  We seem to be having a slight disconnect, here.  I can explain a little better, if you'd like, what I think the problem is that is causing this communication issue.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 16, 2012, 04:15:44 AM
ATTENTION ROGER

WE HAVE BEEN INFORMED THAT YOU ARE AN ASSHOLE.

PLEASE SUBMIT YOURSELF FOR REEDUCATION.  WE WILL BE INFORMING YOUR SUPERIORS AT WORK THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND THE ANGER MANAGEMENT SERVICES.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 16, 2012, 04:15:57 AM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 16, 2012, 03:28:32 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:17:32 AM
I'm just against the politics of division.  There are people out there that COUNT on us being divided.

Does that make me "privileged"? 

So I'm privileged.
So am I. Both against that division and privileged. Choosing to just see people as people is much easier when you aren't given daily reminders that you are one of "those people".

Attacking the concept of cisgenderism feels to me like telling blacks that "there ain't no 'whitey' we're all just people" as if THEY are responsible for the distinction being made.

So because some people treat a minority on the basis of a single label... they should create labels to fight back with?

That just doesn't make sense to me if we're aiming for equality. It does make sense if we're aiming to perpetuate tribalism, Us vs Them. Ya gotta give Them a label.

So far the only argument I've seen for 'cis' that makes sense is as a term for use in medical/scientific/psychology/sociology papers discussing specific aspects of cis/trans research. As soon as we take it out of that context and say "cis people do/don't think/behave/understand/etc." we've gone right off the deep end, left the idea of treating people as people behind and dropped into labeling for no useful purpose.

I am a heterosexual male, who aside from the occasional cross dressing for fun, doesn't have any gender/genetic difference. However, I doubt (strongly doubt, though I could be wrong) that any generic statement about 'cis' people is gonna apply usefully to me. I have never treated or thought of a trans person as anything other than a person. It sucks that some monkeys do, but I don't and that those monkeys and I happen to share a single trait is a pretty nutty thing to consider valuable or important.

"Yeah, but people don't treat you differently because of your gender identity". So what? Prejudice exists. It exists for women, for transgendered people, for gays, for various religious groups, for various ethnic groups for various body types and for any of a thousand reasons that one group of monkeys can say "that person is different". That is exactly what we should be fighting against... not providing support for.

If instead of saying "Yeah, I'm transgendered, you're cis" the better statement is "No you fuck, I am a human being and so are you". It doesn't matter if we live in a perfect society or a perfectly horrible society, labels never help. To swipe from the PD:

QuoteWHAT BOTHERS YOU, MAL? YOU DON'T SOUND WELL.

        "I am filled with fear and tormented with terrible visions of pain. Everywhere people are labeling one another, the planet is rampant with injustices, whole societies subjugate groups of other people just because one aspect of their life is different, men label women, straights label gays, cis label trans. O, woe."

        WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH THAT, IF IT IS WHAT YOU WANT TO DO?

        "But nobody wants it! Everybody hates it."

        OH. WELL, THEN STOP.

The only way we can improve society is by improving ourselves. The only way we can change something about the machine is to change our own part in the mechanics. If humans want to rid our society of labels, then humans have to rid society of labels, starting with their own usage.

"Why do I get paid less... Oh because I am a *label*" is an example of why labels fail.
"Why do I get paid less... Oh because my boss is still behaving like a employer from the 19th century" is far more correct and places the blame where it belongs.

Accepting the labels others stick on you is a terrible injustice, to yourself and the people doing the labeling. Making up labels for the labelers is just descending to their level and an equal injustice.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 04:16:53 AM
My wife says to mention the fact that I am - in addition to being an asshole - a dumbass.

This is okay with me, as she LIKES 'em big & dumb, and I'm a bigger dumbass every day.  Her opinion counts in these matters, you see.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 04:18:09 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 16, 2012, 04:15:57 AM

That just doesn't make sense to me if we're aiming for equality. It does make sense if we're aiming to perpetuate tribalism, Us vs Them. Ya gotta give Them a label.


It helps if you're gonna shoot 'em or dump a trainload of artillery on them, too.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 04:18:47 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 16, 2012, 04:15:44 AM
ATTENTION ROGER

WE HAVE BEEN INFORMED THAT YOU ARE AN ASSHOLE.

PLEASE SUBMIT YOURSELF FOR REEDUCATION.  WE WILL BE INFORMING YOUR SUPERIORS AT WORK THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND THE ANGER MANAGEMENT SERVICES.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

Going to anger management on Monday.

In Louisiana.   :lulz:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Luna on August 16, 2012, 04:19:34 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 04:18:47 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 16, 2012, 04:15:44 AM
ATTENTION ROGER

WE HAVE BEEN INFORMED THAT YOU ARE AN ASSHOLE.

PLEASE SUBMIT YOURSELF FOR REEDUCATION.  WE WILL BE INFORMING YOUR SUPERIORS AT WORK THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND THE ANGER MANAGEMENT SERVICES.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

Going to anger management on Monday.

In Louisiana.   :lulz:

Oh, that should be something.  They have as much Nature down there as we do out here...
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 16, 2012, 04:19:51 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 04:18:09 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 16, 2012, 04:15:57 AM

That just doesn't make sense to me if we're aiming for equality. It does make sense if we're aiming to perpetuate tribalism, Us vs Them. Ya gotta give Them a label.


It helps if you're gonna shoot 'em or dump a trainload of artillery on them, too.

Hey those Charleys/Gooks/Krauts/Sandnags DESERVED IT!
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pæs on August 16, 2012, 04:20:26 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 04:11:43 AM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 16, 2012, 04:06:09 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:58:50 AM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 16, 2012, 03:57:06 AM
"I am just trying to be a better person."

I actually read this as genuine at first. My bad.
And then Roger was a successful troll.

Then Roger didn't take you seriously when you went off the fucking deep end.

Or words to that effect.

Well, I'm off to bed, to dream up more ways to keep a brother down.  Paes, be prepared to be consumed with Holy WrathTM at my outrageous acts of oppression on this very board, come tomorrow.  That way, you won't even notice when the people who are actually oppressing you come down on you like a ten ton sack of pigshit.

Way to go.
Yeah, go with the "everyone calls me the villain" act. If anyone has bought into into of the strawmen you've been dissecting, they might assume that's a reasonable script for you to start reading from.

I don't think you're an evil oppressor and I'm not particularly upset, so nobody is going to get all CU on you. I'm just working through whether I have enough new information to dramatically revise my previously high opinion on you or whether you only seem to be an asshole because I'm limiting myself to this thread, in which I think you're an asshole.

I have it on good authority that I am in fact an asshole, and have always been an asshole.  To make things worse, I am an unrepetent asshole, which is sort of like those rock stars back in the 80s, when it was okay if you got caught with drugs, as long as you were good and repentent about it.  To deny that you had a problem was the sin, not the massive lines of crank themselves.

In any case, I have just checked with my wife, and she agrees that I am an asshole.  This of course invalidates anything I have said to date, because my assholishness is prove positive that anything I may have said is to be scratched off as "the pill-driven frenzy of an asshole".

So, you'd best revise that opinion, because I'd hate for people to associate you with an enormous gaping prostate like myself.

I'll make a note of that. Is my lac of interest in protecting everyone from you by revealing you as the criminal mastermind that you are going to be a problem? Because I can summon up some obsession if you want it.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 04:13:53 AM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 16, 2012, 04:09:57 AM
I'm glad this time you at least READ the part where I said it wasn't describing your attitude.
The next step is believing it.

Go back and read your posts.  We seem to be having a slight disconnect, here.  I can explain a little better, if you'd like, what I think the problem is that is causing this communication issue.
Every time I have said this exact same thing to you, you haven't acknowledged it and continued to operate on information from that disconnect. This is what has caused me to write you off with regards to this thread.The part where I specifically say I am not addressing you directly isn't snark or anything, it's because of this previous misunderstanding.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 04:20:37 AM
Quote from: Luna on August 16, 2012, 04:19:34 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 04:18:47 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 16, 2012, 04:15:44 AM
ATTENTION ROGER

WE HAVE BEEN INFORMED THAT YOU ARE AN ASSHOLE.

PLEASE SUBMIT YOURSELF FOR REEDUCATION.  WE WILL BE INFORMING YOUR SUPERIORS AT WORK THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND THE ANGER MANAGEMENT SERVICES.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

Going to anger management on Monday.

In Louisiana.   :lulz:

Oh, that should be something.  They have as much Nature down there as we do out here...

I know.  I have to go there all the fucking time.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 16, 2012, 04:22:03 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 04:18:47 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 16, 2012, 04:15:44 AM
ATTENTION ROGER

WE HAVE BEEN INFORMED THAT YOU ARE AN ASSHOLE.

PLEASE SUBMIT YOURSELF FOR REEDUCATION.  WE WILL BE INFORMING YOUR SUPERIORS AT WORK THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND THE ANGER MANAGEMENT SERVICES.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

Going to anger management on Monday.

In Louisiana.   :lulz:

All right, I'll admit it.  I cackled at that.  I startled Torch's little one, too, as well as Torch, Torch's BF, and his brother.

Ooops. :lulz:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 16, 2012, 04:22:42 AM
Hey! Chill with the chest beating you two... you're gonna get the females all excited!!!
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 04:23:22 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 16, 2012, 04:19:51 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 04:18:09 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 16, 2012, 04:15:57 AM

That just doesn't make sense to me if we're aiming for equality. It does make sense if we're aiming to perpetuate tribalism, Us vs Them. Ya gotta give Them a label.


It helps if you're gonna shoot 'em or dump a trainload of artillery on them, too.

Hey those Charleys/Gooks/Krauts/Sandnags DESERVED IT!

Insurgents
The enemy
collateral damage
crispy critters
etc

We also have nice, sanitary terms for really rotten shit, which also helps.

delivering ordinance
handing them the bill
being a really good infantryman
grazing fire (one of my favorites...and grazing as in cattle eating, not as in just barely hitting)

All of this stuff sounds way better than "we shot into the building, only it was full of the wrong people".
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 16, 2012, 04:24:35 AM
YES! 50 pages!!!

Roger, but don't we need those labels? After all they call us infidels and use jihad as a label to cover their nasty shit... its the only way to fight them!
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 04:28:49 AM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 16, 2012, 04:20:26 AM

Every time I have said this exact same thing to you, you haven't acknowledged it and continued to operate on information from that disconnect. This is what has caused me to write you off with regards to this thread.The part where I specifically say I am not addressing you directly isn't snark or anything, it's because of this previous misunderstanding.

Well, here's my side of the disconnect:

"Roger, you are doing X or saying Y, which is totally shitty and oppressive, and reminiscent of the way people beat up on Black people.  Only I'm not saying that's what you're doing."

And there's already enough people who think I'm the biggest bastard in the world that MUST BE STOPPED, so don't feel the need to obsess.  Unless you want to, in which case there's always room at TCC.  You and I simply seem to operate 180 degrees out of phase with each other.  Wait, that's not right.  My rage is a sine wave, and you seem to be more of a straight line, so we catch each other mid-spazz, and the one that's spazzing thinks the OTHER guy is spazzing, and wonders what the fuck got up his arse.

If we could synchronize our spazzing, we wouldn't have these difficulties.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 04:29:54 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 16, 2012, 04:24:35 AM
YES! 50 pages!!!

Roger, but don't we need those labels? After all they call us infidels and use jihad as a label to cover their nasty shit... its the only way to fight them!

I don't want to fight them.  They were the opposing side, not the enemy.

If I'm gonna fight anyone ever again, it's gonna be the enemy.  But I don't see even that as likely, as I've had my fucking fill of that sort of shit.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 04:31:18 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 16, 2012, 04:22:42 AM
Hey! Chill with the chest beating you two... you're gonna get the females all excited!!!

The back of my brain says that arguing on the internet is going to increase my chances of attracting a mate.

And who am I going to believe?  You, or the virus-damaged crap stuck to the base of my skull?  Seriously, now.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 04:33:40 AM
Question:  Is it sexist if Rob Roy or Sir Mixalot says it?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pæs on August 16, 2012, 04:37:15 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 04:28:49 AM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 16, 2012, 04:20:26 AM

Every time I have said this exact same thing to you, you haven't acknowledged it and continued to operate on information from that disconnect. This is what has caused me to write you off with regards to this thread.The part where I specifically say I am not addressing you directly isn't snark or anything, it's because of this previous misunderstanding.

Well, here's my side of the disconnect:

"Roger, you are doing X or saying Y, which is totally shitty and oppressive, and reminiscent of the way people beat up on Black people.  Only I'm not saying that's what you're doing."

And there's already enough people who think I'm the biggest bastard in the world that MUST BE STOPPED, so don't feel the need to obsess.  Unless you want to, in which case there's always room at TCC.  You and I simply seem to operate 180 degrees out of phase with each other.  Wait, that's not right.  My rage is a sine wave, and you seem to be more of a straight line, so we catch each other mid-spazz, and the one that's spazzing thinks the OTHER guy is spazzing, and wonders what the fuck got up his arse.

If we could synchronize our spazzing, we wouldn't have these difficulties.
My phone makes it hard to go back and pull quotes, but I haven't said anything that read to me like accusing you of being oppressive. It wasn't my intention. I feel that I have expressed my discomfort with related attitudes in myself because I am conscious of how they can be intepreted as common antifeminist tropes.

Basically, until I have a real computer, if you feel like I am directly attacking you, I need a quote of where the breakdown occurred. Or, given my limited ability to go into thread histor, ignore the past and go forward with the understanding that I'm not accusing you of the described behaviours. I would eprime harder but tiny phone keyboard.

i'm sorry for things I said in anger while perceiving you as deliberately ignoring my offers of repairing our communication. You're probably still an asshole, though.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 04:43:16 AM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 16, 2012, 04:37:15 AM

My phone makes it hard to go back and pull quotes, but I haven't said anything that read to me like accusing you of being oppressive. It wasn't my intention. I feel that I have expressed my discomfort with related attitudes in myself because I am conscious of how they can be intepreted as common antifeminist tropes.

Oh, okay.  There's the disconnect. 

However, I gotta say, if I have an opinion that's honestly mine, I'm going to go with it until it is proven to me that it is unsupportable without said antifeminist tropes.  Using the word "cunt" with reference to a piece of malfunctioning equipment, for example, was okay by me until the flaw in my logic was demonstrated.  Since then, I've stopped doing it.

On the labeling issue, though, I do seriously believe that it is devisive at a time in which we really can't afford to be any more divided.

Quotei'm sorry for things I said in anger while perceiving you as deliberately ignoring my offers of repairing our communication. You're probably still an asshole, though.

S'ok.  I can see how this happened.

And I just checked the magic 8 ball.  It called me an asshole.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞ on August 16, 2012, 04:44:18 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 16, 2012, 04:02:15 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:58:50 AM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 16, 2012, 03:57:06 AM
"I am just trying to be a better person."

I actually read this as genuine at first. My bad.
And then Roger was a successful troll.

Then Roger didn't take you seriously when you went off the fucking deep end.

Or words to that effect.

Well, I'm off to bed, to dream up more ways to keep a brother down.  Paes, be prepared to be consumed with Holy WrathTM at my outrageous acts of oppression on this very board, come tomorrow.  That way, you won't even notice when the people who are actually oppressing you come down on you like a ten ton sack of pigshit.

Way to go.

In fairness, no one's oppressing Paes. He's a straight white cis guy, bless him.

People say things like this when they buy into the idea of patriarchy, rather than kyriarchy.

It probably helps if you've turned a blind eye to systemic banking corruption throughout the globe, the increasingly punitive prison culture right in your own back yard (http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/new-zealands-strange-relationship-with-prisons), and living in a country that has some of the worst inequality in the world (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/23/10-countries-with-worst-income-inequality_n_865869.html#s278234&title=10_New_Zealand).

Those all are things that white cis guys are immune from, see.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 16, 2012, 04:45:50 AM
Damn, I had no idea the Magic 8 ball and I would ever agree on anything.

:lulz:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 04:47:48 AM
Quote from: Net on August 16, 2012, 04:44:18 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 16, 2012, 04:02:15 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:58:50 AM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 16, 2012, 03:57:06 AM
"I am just trying to be a better person."

I actually read this as genuine at first. My bad.
And then Roger was a successful troll.

Then Roger didn't take you seriously when you went off the fucking deep end.

Or words to that effect.

Well, I'm off to bed, to dream up more ways to keep a brother down.  Paes, be prepared to be consumed with Holy WrathTM at my outrageous acts of oppression on this very board, come tomorrow.  That way, you won't even notice when the people who are actually oppressing you come down on you like a ten ton sack of pigshit.

Way to go.

In fairness, no one's oppressing Paes. He's a straight white cis guy, bless him.

People say things like this when they buy into the idea of patriarchy, rather than kyriarchy.

It probably helps if you've turned a blind eye to systemic banking corruption throughout the globe, the increasingly punitive prison culture right in your own back yard (http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/new-zealands-strange-relationship-with-prisons), and living in a country that has some of the worst inequality in the world (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/23/10-countries-with-worst-income-inequality_n_865869.html#s278234&title=10_New_Zealand).

Those all are things that white cis guys are immune from, see.

QuoteAs a result, for those who commit crime, prison has increasingly become New Zealand's punishment of choice. The only Western country with a higher rate of imprisonment than ours is the United States -- which locks up a massive 748 people per 100,000.

WE'RE NUMBER ONE!
WE'RE NUMBER ONE!
WE'RE NUMBER ONE!
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 04:48:19 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 16, 2012, 04:45:50 AM
Damn, I had no idea the Magic 8 ball and I would ever agree on anything.

:lulz:

DO NOT QUESTION MAGIC 8 BALL.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pæs on August 16, 2012, 04:56:53 AM
If I wander too close to antifeminist tropes, Signora turns up the voltage.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 16, 2012, 05:00:49 AM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 16, 2012, 04:56:53 AM
If I wander too close to antifeminist tropes, Signora turns up the voltage.

That's why you gotta keep them wimenz in their place!!! If she was barefoot, pregnant and makin' you a sammich, she wouldn't have time to hook your genitals up to those electrodes.


Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 16, 2012, 05:17:06 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 16, 2012, 12:32:03 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 12:25:43 AM
Jesus christ, it's not a bigoted term any more than trans* is. It's a specialized word, that's all. Did I use it in a way that can be construed as bigoted? I suppose so, if you're not willing to see that it's about criticizing IDEAS rather than sex or gender (I really do not want to have to start this over again; I've explained it like twice already). Are there people who do use it like that and paint a broad brush over all cis men? Absolutely. I used it poorly to describe what Nigel called the 'tragedy of the oppressor', that's all.

I don't understand its value at all... I don't care if people want to use it, but it seems like a pretty useless label.

"trans" = your inside genetics and outside genetics don't match
"homosexual' = your sexual preference is for the same sex
"cis" = your inside genetics and outside genetics match and your sexual preference is for the opposite sex.

err... the first two I get, the third seems silly to me.

1. "Inside genetics and outside genetics" makes no fucking sense. It might be accurate to describe "Cis" as "your self-concept and social presentation matches the gender identity society expects from you based on your sex".

2. It is not tied to sexual preference. Cis people can be straight or gay. It refers only to the relationship of social gender expression with biological sex.

3. I kind of hate it too, but I recognize its usefulness at the same time it makes me cringe for providing one more word to enable people to pigeonhole something that probably is better not being pigeonholed.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 16, 2012, 05:20:06 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 16, 2012, 12:48:21 AM

So looking some more, I see how you could be a male/female who identifies as being a male/female but is homosexual. However, I still don't see any value in it. Its a label saying your inside and outside genetics match. Why make that into a label?


PLEASE STOP SAYING THAT.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 16, 2012, 05:29:45 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 01:23:14 AM
I've known some pretty misogynist gay men that weren't cis at all.

I just wanted to pick this out because I don't understand it. They were gay men who did not identify as men? Or do you mean they were born as women but identify as gay men, and are misogynistic? It's the "not cis at all" part that's throwing me.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 16, 2012, 05:34:41 AM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 16, 2012, 03:28:32 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:17:32 AM
I'm just against the politics of division.  There are people out there that COUNT on us being divided.

Does that make me "privileged"? 

So I'm privileged.
So am I. Both against that division and privileged. Choosing to just see people as people is much easier when you aren't given daily reminders that you are one of "those people".

Attacking the concept of cisgenderism feels to me like telling blacks that "there ain't no 'whitey' we're all just people" as if THEY are responsible for the distinction being made.

He makes a valid point here, IMO.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 16, 2012, 06:32:58 AM
Quote from: Net on August 16, 2012, 04:44:18 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 16, 2012, 04:02:15 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:58:50 AM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 16, 2012, 03:57:06 AM
"I am just trying to be a better person."

I actually read this as genuine at first. My bad.
And then Roger was a successful troll.

Then Roger didn't take you seriously when you went off the fucking deep end.

Or words to that effect.

Well, I'm off to bed, to dream up more ways to keep a brother down.  Paes, be prepared to be consumed with Holy WrathTM at my outrageous acts of oppression on this very board, come tomorrow.  That way, you won't even notice when the people who are actually oppressing you come down on you like a ten ton sack of pigshit.

Way to go.

In fairness, no one's oppressing Paes. He's a straight white cis guy, bless him.

People say things like this when they buy into the idea of patriarchy, rather than kyriarchy.

It probably helps if you've turned a blind eye to systemic banking corruption throughout the globe, the increasingly punitive prison culture right in your own back yard (http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/new-zealands-strange-relationship-with-prisons), and living in a country that has some of the worst inequality in the world (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/23/10-countries-with-worst-income-inequality_n_865869.html#s278234&title=10_New_Zealand).

Those all are things that white cis guys are immune from, see.

The part where I said that my feminism is intersectional? Kind of assumes I "buy into" kyriarchy, but I'm sorry if I didn't specify that while hashing out replies on my phone :)

I'd also point out that the people who benefit the most from systemic banking corruption, our fucked-up prison culture (over half the prison population is Māori despite making up less than 15% of the total population), and income inequality (at the last census the mean income of Māori was 73.2% of that of non-Māori; women earn 2/5 of gross earnings) are upper-class white cis guys. Or perhaps it would be fairer to say that the system which currently allows this to happen was set up and is primarily run/controlled by white cis guys.

Which is not to say that Paes, personally, is not affected by living in a fucked-up system. Of course he is. We all are, because (whoo title reference) patriarchy/kyriarchy hurts men too.

And finally, I was being fairly tongue-in-cheek with my "Paes is a straight white cis guy" comment in the first place, but I realise that shit never translates well over the interbutts so that's my bad.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 16, 2012, 06:34:00 AM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 16, 2012, 04:56:53 AM
If I wander too close to antifeminist tropes, Signora turns up the voltage.

And you love it. :p
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Placid Dingo on August 16, 2012, 06:38:40 AM
Quote from: Nigel but I borked the link by backspacing half of itIt might be accurate to describe "Cis" as "your self-concept and social presentation matches the gender identity society expects from you based on your sex".

This is probably why cis is even in use; it's a lot SHORTER than the alternative, when you need to refer to it as a distinct idea.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 16, 2012, 06:40:24 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 16, 2012, 06:32:58 AM
Quote from: Net on August 16, 2012, 04:44:18 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 16, 2012, 04:02:15 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:58:50 AM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 16, 2012, 03:57:06 AM
"I am just trying to be a better person."

I actually read this as genuine at first. My bad.
And then Roger was a successful troll.

Then Roger didn't take you seriously when you went off the fucking deep end.

Or words to that effect.

Well, I'm off to bed, to dream up more ways to keep a brother down.  Paes, be prepared to be consumed with Holy WrathTM at my outrageous acts of oppression on this very board, come tomorrow.  That way, you won't even notice when the people who are actually oppressing you come down on you like a ten ton sack of pigshit.

Way to go.

In fairness, no one's oppressing Paes. He's a straight white cis guy, bless him.

People say things like this when they buy into the idea of patriarchy, rather than kyriarchy.

It probably helps if you've turned a blind eye to systemic banking corruption throughout the globe, the increasingly punitive prison culture right in your own back yard (http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/new-zealands-strange-relationship-with-prisons), and living in a country that has some of the worst inequality in the world (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/23/10-countries-with-worst-income-inequality_n_865869.html#s278234&title=10_New_Zealand).

Those all are things that white cis guys are immune from, see.

The part where I said that my feminism is intersectional? Kind of assumes I "buy into" kyriarchy, but I'm sorry if I didn't specify that while hashing out replies on my phone :)

I'd also point out that the people who benefit the most from systemic banking corruption, our fucked-up prison culture (over half the prison population is Māori despite making up less than 15% of the total population), and income inequality (at the last census the mean income of Māori was 73.2% of that of non-Māori; women earn 2/5 of gross earnings) are upper-class white cis guys. Or perhaps it would be fairer to say that the system which currently allows this to happen was set up and is primarily run/controlled by white cis guys.

Which is not to say that Paes, personally, is not affected by living in a fucked-up system. Of course he is. We all are, because (whoo title reference) patriarchy/kyriarchy hurts men too.

And finally, I was being fairly tongue-in-cheek with my "Paes is a straight white cis guy" comment in the first place, but I realise that shit never translates well over the interbutts so that's my bad.

I don't know if you're doing the tongue in cheek thing again, but you argued the same thing as Net right there.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 16, 2012, 06:42:53 AM
Okay, so I think we need a reminding of what "cis" means: not just what is it, but also examples of it, and who isn't cis, and examples of that.  It looks like this is the biggest thorn in the conversation.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 16, 2012, 06:43:34 AM
Quote from: Pixie on August 16, 2012, 01:04:03 AM
Signora Paes (BTW I thought you were Paes in Drag, I got a confused)

Nah, we keep that for the bedroom.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Placid Dingo on August 16, 2012, 06:46:02 AM
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.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 16, 2012, 06:52:16 AM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 16, 2012, 06:46:02 AM
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?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 16, 2012, 06:54:10 AM
I mean, I can't even picture myself acting like a woman/lady if what I have to act like is this subservient nothing hell bent on being a piece of art and nothing else.

And if I have it all wrong, that's because I don't understand what this concept is supposed to be, because nobody has explained it well enough to me.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 16, 2012, 06:56:00 AM
In short, You People make no sense.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 16, 2012, 06:57:23 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 16, 2012, 06:52:16 AM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 16, 2012, 06:46:02 AM
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.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 16, 2012, 07:02:15 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 16, 2012, 06:40:24 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 16, 2012, 06:32:58 AM
Quote from: Net on August 16, 2012, 04:44:18 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 16, 2012, 04:02:15 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:58:50 AM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 16, 2012, 03:57:06 AM
"I am just trying to be a better person."

I actually read this as genuine at first. My bad.
And then Roger was a successful troll.

Then Roger didn't take you seriously when you went off the fucking deep end.

Or words to that effect.

Well, I'm off to bed, to dream up more ways to keep a brother down.  Paes, be prepared to be consumed with Holy WrathTM at my outrageous acts of oppression on this very board, come tomorrow.  That way, you won't even notice when the people who are actually oppressing you come down on you like a ten ton sack of pigshit.

Way to go.

In fairness, no one's oppressing Paes. He's a straight white cis guy, bless him.

People say things like this when they buy into the idea of patriarchy, rather than kyriarchy.

It probably helps if you've turned a blind eye to systemic banking corruption throughout the globe, the increasingly punitive prison culture right in your own back yard (http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/new-zealands-strange-relationship-with-prisons), and living in a country that has some of the worst inequality in the world (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/23/10-countries-with-worst-income-inequality_n_865869.html#s278234&title=10_New_Zealand).

Those all are things that white cis guys are immune from, see.

The part where I said that my feminism is intersectional? Kind of assumes I "buy into" kyriarchy, but I'm sorry if I didn't specify that while hashing out replies on my phone :)

I'd also point out that the people who benefit the most from systemic banking corruption, our fucked-up prison culture (over half the prison population is Māori despite making up less than 15% of the total population), and income inequality (at the last census the mean income of Māori was 73.2% of that of non-Māori; women earn 2/5 of gross earnings) are upper-class white cis guys. Or perhaps it would be fairer to say that the system which currently allows this to happen was set up and is primarily run/controlled by white cis guys.

Which is not to say that Paes, personally, is not affected by living in a fucked-up system. Of course he is. We all are, because (whoo title reference) patriarchy/kyriarchy hurts men too.

And finally, I was being fairly tongue-in-cheek with my "Paes is a straight white cis guy" comment in the first place, but I realise that shit never translates well over the interbutts so that's my bad.

I don't know if you're doing the tongue in cheek thing again, but you argued the same thing as Net right there.

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.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 16, 2012, 07:03:55 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 16, 2012, 06:57:23 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 16, 2012, 06:52:16 AM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 16, 2012, 06:46:02 AM
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. :lulz:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 16, 2012, 07:06:32 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 16, 2012, 07:02:15 AM
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.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 16, 2012, 07:17:37 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 16, 2012, 07:03:55 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 16, 2012, 06:57:23 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 16, 2012, 06:52:16 AM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 16, 2012, 06:46:02 AM
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. :lulz:

That is... a really good question, actually. Hold on.

(I'm aware that, like, no time is passing to you while I look this up. Feel free to find some shitty elevator music and stop reading for a while if you want, though.)

Okay, just having a quick look around, there doesn't really seem to be a definitive answer (not that there's ever really a definitive answer to anything). I know that in the queer communities I'm involved in, "assigned at birth" usually translates to "this baby has a vagina, therefore it is a girl", which is obviously not always the case, as that child could actually be a trans male. The issues surrounding intersex babies being assigned one gender or the other at birth has always been treated as a separate issue, in my experience. HOWEVER, from what I can see just in the references that I have bookmarked, intersex doesn't seem to be considered to fall under either trans or cis. I know there are also differing opinions on whether people who are genderqueer/agender can claim to fall under the trans* umbrella, though it's generally agreed that they're not cis. I'm (obviously) not the expert, though, and it'll be interesting to research a bit further.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pæs on August 16, 2012, 07:20:02 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 16, 2012, 07:06:32 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 16, 2012, 07:02:15 AM
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.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 16, 2012, 07:38:13 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 16, 2012, 07:17:37 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 16, 2012, 07:03:55 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 16, 2012, 06:57:23 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 16, 2012, 06:52:16 AM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 16, 2012, 06:46:02 AM
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. :lulz:

That is... a really good question, actually. Hold on.

(I'm aware that, like, no time is passing to you while I look this up. Feel free to find some shitty elevator music and stop reading for a while if you want, though.)

Okay, just having a quick look around, there doesn't really seem to be a definitive answer (not that there's ever really a definitive answer to anything). I know that in the queer communities I'm involved in, "assigned at birth" usually translates to "this baby has a vagina, therefore it is a girl", which is obviously not always the case, as that child could actually be a trans male. The issues surrounding intersex babies being assigned one gender or the other at birth has always been treated as a separate issue, in my experience. HOWEVER, from what I can see just in the references that I have bookmarked, intersex doesn't seem to be considered to fall under either trans or cis. I know there are also differing opinions on whether people who are genderqueer/agender can claim to fall under the trans* umbrella, though it's generally agreed that they're not cis. I'm (obviously) not the expert, though, and it'll be interesting to research a bit further.

I guess the only thing is that I disagree with your description, mostly the words "assigned at birth."  You don't get assigned a sex, you grow that way.  Otherwise, thanks for clearing that up for me. :)

I agree with the POV that divisive labels aren't good for the common W/E right now, as there are bigger battles to fight, but I also see how the term "normal" in a conversation like this isn't helpful at all, and alienating to people who don't fit "normal."  Outside of this kind of dialogue, it is as pointless as Roger was saying earlier.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 16, 2012, 07:41:42 AM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 16, 2012, 07:20:02 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 16, 2012, 07:06:32 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 16, 2012, 07:02:15 AM
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.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 16, 2012, 08:05:49 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 16, 2012, 07:41:42 AM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 16, 2012, 07:20:02 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 16, 2012, 07:06:32 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 16, 2012, 07:02:15 AM
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.

I'm too tired to attack anyone, or to enjoy feeling indignant, and I definitely wasn't "reading his post that way on purpose". Also, the only thing I'd said that he was responding to was that Paes is a straight white cis guy. The articles he linked didn't back up what I was saying, because I hadn't said anything yet. As I've already said, I thought Net was being sarcastic because of the structure of his post, and I've already fucking apologised if I got that wrong.

Edit: To me, "Those all are things that white cis guys are immune from, see." reads as sarcasm. Because of course white cis guys are affected by the links Net posted, they're just not the ones who are going to suffer the most.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Cain on August 16, 2012, 08:11:26 AM
I lost the thread of this thread about 30 pages ago, but somewhere since then, between Pixie, P3nt, Roger and Ratatosk, what I was saying has been made pretty clear.  While I'm not a huge fan of the term "patriarchy", because in the way it gets misued and appropriated via popular culture into stupid arguments (I haven't looked into Kyriarchy enough to know what to think - it's 8am in the morning), my essential point is this:

Any sexist system will invariably have a negative influence on all genders, regardless of which one is favoured.  This influence will not be the same, the negative consequences of it will not be evenly distributed.  Nevertheless, an essentialist discourse on gender and sexuality puts everyone into neatly labelled boxes.  If one's behaviour does not match the box one is labelled as, then the identity will take precedence over the behaviour in the essentalist discourse, and will seek to correct the behaviour, rather than the perceptions one has of that label.  If people of the favoured gender do not act in gender appropriate ways, they will be punished for it.  Those of the lower-ranking gender will be considered to not "know their place", to be "uppity" and "disrespectful", and will often be policed by members of the higher ranking gender in order to create compliance, via various social and political arrangements involving ownership of property, voting rights, the ability to move independently and so on.  Those of the higher ranking gender will be associated with the negative qualities of the lower-ranking gender, and may be treated as such in social, political or other situations.

You'll notice the above can be applied to pretty much any sexist system, regardless of its particular viewpoints or beliefs.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 16, 2012, 08:13:36 AM
Quote from: Cain on August 16, 2012, 08:11:26 AM
Any sexist system will invariably have a negative influence on all genders, regardless of which one is favoured.  This influence will not be the same, the negative consequences of it will not be evenly distributed.  Nevertheless, an essentialist discourse on gender and sexuality puts everyone into neatly labelled boxes.  If one's behaviour does not match the box one is labelled as, then the identity will take precedence over the behaviour in the essentalist discourse, and will seek to correct the behaviour, rather than the perceptions one has of that label.  If people of the favoured gender do not act in gender appropriate ways, they will be punished for it.  Those of the lower-ranking gender will be considered to not "know their place", to be "uppity" and "disrespectful", and will often be policed by members of the higher ranking gender in order to create compliance, via various social and political arrangements involving ownership of property, voting rights, the ability to move independently and so on.  Those of the higher ranking gender will be associated with the negative qualities of the lower-ranking gender, and may be treated as such in social, political or other situations.

You'll notice the above can be applied to pretty much any sexist system, regardless of its particular viewpoints or beliefs.

The above can be applied to pretty much any oppressive system at all.

Basically, this comment is very good.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Cain on August 16, 2012, 08:17:07 AM
Well, with a few tweaks it could be made to apply to race, as well.  I'm not sure it has universal validity, but in any system where there are essentialist elements at the forefront (which in the modern world is usually gender/race/ethnicity/culture), it would no doubt have applications.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pæs on August 16, 2012, 10:38:15 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 16, 2012, 07:41:42 AM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 16, 2012, 07:20:02 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 16, 2012, 07:06:32 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 16, 2012, 07:02:15 AM
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.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 16, 2012, 10:53:14 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 16, 2012, 05:00:49 AM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 16, 2012, 04:56:53 AM
If I wander too close to antifeminist tropes, Signora turns up the voltage.

That's why you gotta keep them wimenz in their place!!! If she was barefoot, pregnant and makin' you a sammich, she wouldn't have time to hook your genitals up to those electrodes.

I beg to differ, good sir. We wimmenz are apparently quite good at multitasking  :lulz:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pæs on August 16, 2012, 11:05:46 AM
Hopefully he doesn't come back and say he was describing things that affect striaght white cis males because then he would "look like a huge asshole".

"People say things like this when X... It probably helps if you turn a blind eye..." doesn't sound like agreement to me. I don't disagree with that as a criticism of Signora's post, so have nothing invested in reading it this way.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pope Pixie Pickle on August 16, 2012, 12:17:39 PM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 16, 2012, 06:43:34 AM
Quote from: Pixie on August 16, 2012, 01:04:03 AM
Signora Paes (BTW I thought you were Paes in Drag, I got a confused)

Nah, we keep that for the bedroom.

HAWT! FUCK YEA BOYS IN DRESSES!  :fap:
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 16, 2012, 10:53:14 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 16, 2012, 05:00:49 AM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 16, 2012, 04:56:53 AM
If I wander too close to antifeminist tropes, Signora turns up the voltage.

That's why you gotta keep them wimenz in their place!!! If she was barefoot, pregnant and makin' you a sammich, she wouldn't have time to hook your genitals up to those electrodes.

I beg to differ, good sir. We wimmenz are apparently quite good at multitasking  :lulz:

I'm not. I suck at multitasking. for srs.
Quote from: Cain on August 16, 2012, 08:11:26 AM
I lost the thread of this thread about 30 pages ago, but somewhere since then, between Pixie, P3nt, Roger and Ratatosk, what I was saying has been made pretty clear.  While I'm not a huge fan of the term "patriarchy", because in the way it gets misued and appropriated via popular culture into stupid arguments (I haven't looked into Kyriarchy enough to know what to think - it's 8am in the morning), my essential point is this:

Any sexist system will invariably have a negative influence on all genders, regardless of which one is favoured.  This influence will not be the same, the negative consequences of it will not be evenly distributed.  Nevertheless, an essentialist discourse on gender and sexuality puts everyone into neatly labelled boxes.  If one's behaviour does not match the box one is labelled as, then the identity will take precedence over the behaviour in the essentalist discourse, and will seek to correct the behaviour, rather than the perceptions one has of that label.  If people of the favoured gender do not act in gender appropriate ways, they will be punished for it.  Those of the lower-ranking gender will be considered to not "know their place", to be "uppity" and "disrespectful", and will often be policed by members of the higher ranking gender in order to create compliance, via various social and political arrangements involving ownership of property, voting rights, the ability to move independently and so on.  Those of the higher ranking gender will be associated with the negative qualities of the lower-ranking gender, and may be treated as such in social, political or other situations.

You'll notice the above can be applied to pretty much any sexist system, regardless of its particular viewpoints or beliefs.

I am unsurprised that Cain nailed it in 2 paragraphs.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on August 16, 2012, 12:27:03 PM
I know it was like 50 pages ago but I was sleeping (due to the fact that I'm a white, scottish, TLA, male and am geographically and timezone-challenged) but I'd just like to go on record as being in complete agreement with Roger regarding the egalitarian - stick your labels up your fucking arsehole - thing.

Me and roger might not be living in the real world but at least we're doing it the way we think it should be and fuck everyone else's opinion on the matter because they're wrong. People with hobby-horse causes and crusades? They're standing on a soapbox, yelling about how it shouldn't be this way and it should be some other bullshit way and they're going to accomplish this by putting everyone in the boxes they belong in, as if that wasn't how we ended up with this clusterfuck in the first place.

Newsflash: for all intents and purposes there are no TLA white entitled people, there are no straight, gay lesbian, black yellow or green people, unless you're one of those poor demented fucks who believe in that kind of thing. There are just people. Most of them are assholes but they all deserve to be hated equally, without prejudices about what shape their genitals are or what they like to do with them when they're not using them to pee out of or what colour their skin is or how much they weigh or which brand of toothpaste they use.

That shit is irrelevant. It's irrelevant to judging those people and it's doubly irrelevant to how they judge themselves, despite their protestations to the contrary but, hey, me an Roger are idiots, what the fuck do we know about the plight of the one eyed black irish lesbian pepsi-drinker?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Sita on August 16, 2012, 01:29:31 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 16, 2012, 03:27:24 AM
on the subject of the OP for a minute, I can say that as a man, it's really annoying that my wife cannot even get a job at fucking McDonalds to help will expenses - they won't even look at her application, because she has spent the last 6 years being a stay at home mother and therefore "has no relevant work experience." how the fuck does that add up?
I have this problem too and it's annoying as hell.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 01:44:46 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 16, 2012, 12:27:03 PM
I know it was like 50 pages ago but I was sleeping (due to the fact that I'm a white, scottish, TLA, male and am geographically and timezone-challenged) but I'd just like to go on record as being in complete agreement with Roger regarding the egalitarian - stick your labels up your fucking arsehole - thing.

Me and roger might not be living in the real world but at least we're doing it the way we think it should be and fuck everyone else's opinion on the matter because they're wrong. People with hobby-horse causes and crusades? They're standing on a soapbox, yelling about how it shouldn't be this way and it should be some other bullshit way and they're going to accomplish this by putting everyone in the boxes they belong in, as if that wasn't how we ended up with this clusterfuck in the first place.

Newsflash: for all intents and purposes there are no TLA white entitled people, there are no straight, gay lesbian, black yellow or green people, unless you're one of those poor demented fucks who believe in that kind of thing. There are just people. Most of them are assholes but they all deserve to be hated equally, without prejudices about what shape their genitals are or what they like to do with them when they're not using them to pee out of or what colour their skin is or how much they weigh or which brand of toothpaste they use.

That shit is irrelevant. It's irrelevant to judging those people and it's doubly irrelevant to how they judge themselves, despite their protestations to the contrary but, hey, me an Roger are idiots, what the fuck do we know about the plight of the one eyed black irish lesbian pepsi-drinker?

I am disconsolate about their plight.   :sad:

But I'm not Irish or Black or a Lesbian or even a Pepsi-drinker, and both of my eyes work (to one degree or another), which means that I can't understand them...Though they, of course, understand MY plight (such as it is) perfectly.

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 01:59:20 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 16, 2012, 05:34:41 AM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 16, 2012, 03:28:32 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:17:32 AM
I'm just against the politics of division.  There are people out there that COUNT on us being divided.

Does that make me "privileged"? 

So I'm privileged.
So am I. Both against that division and privileged. Choosing to just see people as people is much easier when you aren't given daily reminders that you are one of "those people".

Attacking the concept of cisgenderism feels to me like telling blacks that "there ain't no 'whitey' we're all just people" as if THEY are responsible for the distinction being made.

He makes a valid point here, IMO.

I just don't need anymore stuff stapled to my face.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Cain on August 16, 2012, 02:02:45 PM
Quotefor all intents and purposes there are no TLA white entitled people, there are no straight, gay lesbian, black yellow or green people, unless you're one of those poor demented fucks who believe in that kind of thing. There are just people. Most of them are assholes but they all deserve to be hated equally, without prejudices about what shape their genitals are or what they like to do with them when they're not using them to pee out of or what colour their skin is or how much they weigh or which brand of toothpaste they use.

I agree with this as the way things should be.

But.

Well, do you remember the discussion about "not seeing race"?  Because this kinda reminds me of that.  You might not see these things...but rest assured, a lot of people do, and they will actively hold prejudices based on those opinions.  Even while they may have no objective reality, the fact is a whole lot of people believe there is a class of people called "women" who, for various reasons, should have less rights than they do, and they will viciously enforce that in more than a few places, with beatings and prison and stonings.

Not seeing these distinctions, while noble, doesn't really do much to help with that immediate problem.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 02:12:01 PM
Quote from: Cain on August 16, 2012, 02:02:45 PM
Quotefor all intents and purposes there are no TLA white entitled people, there are no straight, gay lesbian, black yellow or green people, unless you're one of those poor demented fucks who believe in that kind of thing. There are just people. Most of them are assholes but they all deserve to be hated equally, without prejudices about what shape their genitals are or what they like to do with them when they're not using them to pee out of or what colour their skin is or how much they weigh or which brand of toothpaste they use.

I agree with this as the way things should be.

But.

Well, do you remember the discussion about "not seeing race"?  Because this kinda reminds me of that.  You might not see these things...but rest assured, a lot of people do, and they will actively hold prejudices based on those opinions.  Even while they may have no objective reality, the fact is a whole lot of people believe there is a class of people called "women" who, for various reasons, should have less rights than they do, and they will viciously enforce that in more than a few places, with beatings and prison and stonings.

Not seeing these distinctions, while noble, doesn't really do much to help with that immediate problem.

I don't see them because I don't care.  Gay, trans, cis, whatever.  They're humans to me.  The objection I have against them is that we're BORN with shit stapled to our faces, and then society adds a bunch more.  Why do it to ourselves?

Another thing is, I am not my orientation.  I am not my gender.  I'm ME.  I don't want a bar code.

If other people need 'em, good on them.  But I personally want to work on being Roger.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Cain on August 16, 2012, 02:44:31 PM
It's not though.  If society has already stapled it to your face, it's there.  Recognising it and moving to improve the situation of people given that label is hardly "adding more".

I mean, it's not like the concept of "female" didn't exist until some PoMo theorists in the 1980s invented it, is it?  Every society recognizes that basic difference, and many (all?) discriminate based on it. 

Maybe you're talking in particular about the cis- prefix thing.  I'll be honest, I never liked that all that much, never understood why it was so popular.  I don't find it adds much, and could very easily be done away with, and not exactly harm the rich fruits of the human language.  But P3nt isn't just talking about that, in the section I quoted.  He's talking about all potential labels.

And sure, gender is mostly socially constructed.  But so is race.  And ethnicity.  And people see those all the time.  Going "well, I don't see Albanians" in Milosevich's Kosovo hardly helped the situation any (and if one was a Kosovan, dramatically shortened one's life expectancy).  If society has labelled you already, you can try and deny that label, but if society doesn't go along with your denial...well, things get messy.  Or you can say "yeah, I am [insert label here].  So what?  Shit still isn't right, no matter how you want to dress it up." 
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 02:50:42 PM
Quote from: Cain on August 16, 2012, 02:44:31 PM
It's not though.  If society has already stapled it to your face, it's there.  Recognising it and moving to improve the situation of people given that label is hardly "adding more".

I mean, it's not like the concept of "female" didn't exist until some PoMo theorists in the 1980s invented it, is it?  Every society recognizes that basic difference, and many (all?) discriminate based on it. 

Maybe you're talking in particular about the cis- prefix thing.  I'll be honest, I never liked that all that much, never understood why it was so popular.  I don't find it adds much, and could very easily be done away with, and not exactly harm the rich fruits of the human language.  But P3nt isn't just talking about that, in the section I quoted.  He's talking about all potential labels.

And sure, gender is mostly socially constructed.  But so is race.  And ethnicity.  And people see those all the time.  Going "well, I don't see Albanians" in Milosevich's Kosovo hardly helped the situation any (and if one was a Kosovan, dramatically shortened one's life expectancy).  If society has labelled you already, you can try and deny that label, but if society doesn't go along with your denial...well, things get messy.  Or you can say "yeah, I am
  • .  So what?  Shit still isn't right, no matter how you want to dress it up."
If society doesn't go along with my denial, then Kill Me.  Or words to that effect.  In any case, I gotta be me, and I don't hold with these labels.  Call it personal preference, or a state of denial, or whatever the case may be.  I am not going to start thinking of people in arbitrary terms, and if I already AM, then I'm going to work on stopping, whenever I catch myself doing it.

I realize that I'm not articulating this well.  I'm going to have to think it through, and then try again.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 16, 2012, 02:54:46 PM
There is value to 'labels' in a context, I think, like Cain is saying. That is "Our current system is obviously biased against *label* and that needs to change".

However, the only way (IMO) to make shit better is to do it yourself and try to get other people to do it to. If you don't like the idea of being labeled, stop labeling yourself. Stop using labels for other people and demand that the assholes that label you take a good fucking look at their own shit... well, I mean, unless that would cause you to lose your job when you really need it... in that case maybe you have to be a little more politic with them.

We saw comments about uniforms in the first half of this discussion. Yet every label, when self applied is a uniform (even if you take it off sometimes). I AM A FEMINIST, I AM A TRANS, I AM A WHITE DUDE THATS PISSED OFF AT THE WHOLE FUCKING SYSTEM (we need a good label for that). When you say I am X, people will (because its how our brains work) presume that you will behave like everyone else they've met that wears that uniform.

We need to get out of our uniforms and run around NAKED with all of our human bits hanging out.

:lulz:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:05:02 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 16, 2012, 02:54:46 PM
There is value to 'labels' in a context, I think, like Cain is saying. That is "Our current system is obviously biased against *label* and that needs to change".

However, the only way (IMO) to make shit better is to do it yourself and try to get other people to do it to. If you don't like the idea of being labeled, stop labeling yourself. Stop using labels for other people and demand that the assholes that label you take a good fucking look at their own shit... well, I mean, unless that would cause you to lose your job when you really need it... in that case maybe you have to be a little more politic with them.

We saw comments about uniforms in the first half of this discussion. Yet every label, when self applied is a uniform (even if you take it off sometimes). I AM A FEMINIST, I AM A TRANS, I AM A WHITE DUDE THATS PISSED OFF AT THE WHOLE FUCKING SYSTEM (we need a good label for that). When you say I am X, people will (because its how our brains work) presume that you will behave like everyone else they've met that wears that uniform.

We need to get out of our uniforms and run around NAKED with all of our human bits hanging out.

:lulz:

Yes.

In addition, when you wear a label willingly (or even unwillingly), you yourself begin to self-identify with that label.  It may start off as a description, but it becomes a uniform.

Now, if the subject comes up and is relevant, I don't see anything wrong with using the term as a convenient description.  If for some bizarre reason your sexual orientation becomes important, then it's perfectly appropriate to use the correct term for it...I just almost never see any time that this happens.

In fact, the only time I hear these labels is as a perjorative.  At least IRL. 
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:06:58 PM
Also, it just seems like intentionally burrowing deeper into your own personal BIP.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:10:11 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 16, 2012, 05:29:45 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 01:23:14 AM
I've known some pretty misogynist gay men that weren't cis at all.

I just wanted to pick this out because I don't understand it. They were gay men who did not identify as men? Or do you mean they were born as women but identify as gay men, and are misogynistic? It's the "not cis at all" part that's throwing me.

I mean they are Gay men who identify as women, but hate women.

People are really fucking strange.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Dark Monk on August 16, 2012, 03:22:49 PM
But then they aren't HUMAN bits, they are label-bits, which therefore are discriminated against :P

Gender is a societal uniform you know. However, then again, what isn't?
If you aren't manufactured human A that is exactly like manufactured human B, then there will be a problem.
Also, even posing on that, manufactured human A might have went swimming one day and his hair turned temporarily green, which is HERESY. Chlorine is the devil. Manufactured human B punches and ridicules him, while A feels shame and guilt and tries to go back into the fold.

As far as labels go, a lot of people want them. A lot of people wish to be seen as "white guy" or "Black girl" or what have you. It is what the self identifies with. It is not "we are human beings" which I believe it's the way it should be. Since that happens, a pile of "In your face" does from time to time need to happen. You may be white or black or whatever, but everyone still feels emotion, has thoughts, experiences, etc and sometimes you have to shout at some people so you don't go on a killing spree.
That's where the damage of labels comes in. The fact that they exist in reference to human beings is just insane to me.
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. Through exchange of ideas and education you should never feel or WANT to feel like a soldier fighting a war, as then you simply fight for a position on the monkey council. I also believe that that mindset causes more enemies and rebellion than getting your point across.

I apologize if this has been covered already but I wanted to drop a thought in last night I was too tired to post it and remembered it this morning.


Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:29:01 PM
Quote from: The Dark Monk on August 16, 2012, 03:22:49 PM
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?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 16, 2012, 03:45:49 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:10:11 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 16, 2012, 05:29:45 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 01:23:14 AM
I've known some pretty misogynist gay men that weren't cis at all.

I just wanted to pick this out because I don't understand it. They were gay men who did not identify as men? Or do you mean they were born as women but identify as gay men, and are misogynistic? It's the "not cis at all" part that's throwing me.

I mean they are Gay men who identify as women, but hate women.

People are really fucking strange.

Yeah, like the weird woman-hating right wing women.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Dark Monk on August 16, 2012, 03:53:39 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:29:01 PM
Quote from: The Dark Monk on August 16, 2012, 03:22:49 PM
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?

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." Aggressive behavior begets aggressive behavior. When people see John and being John, not John who sleeps with Andy, being gay will no longer require a battle, and will no longer require someone living out their orientation as a label itself and becoming only that. Their worries about the persecution or what have you being gone, John can live the way John wants to.

Are you your race? By societies standard yes. If you were born in America you are American.  Does that mean you have to live drinking bud light on the back of your ford? No. Less importance should be put on race overall. Whether you are any other race, there's no point in not getting along or at least saying "fuck you" and going your separate ways and living your own lives. I feel I need to address culture here as well, which is different than simply color of skin. Are you your culture? Absolutely for one reason: If you continue with the choice of continuing traditions and attitudes which make up your culture, which your parents have done and their parents have done, then you are what you have defined yourself to be. If you choose to go a different way, then you are what you have defined yourself to be.

Are you your gender? In a small matter. It is a shade of grey. Men and women are physically able to do what the others do unless you are a stripper waving different sets of genitals. Emotionally men and women are different due to our internal wiring and hormones. Our experiences are different, the way we handle and process experiences are different. Should all you be is a man? No. If you have a large feminine side, show it. If you like days of our lives, show it. Should all you be is a woman? no. If you hate the kitchen, don't cook. If you love monster trucks and shoving your hands down your pants, do it. Gender does however have a difference in men and women which should be noted, but in no way discriminated against or seen as lesser.

Is it the same as becoming your job? If you allow it to be, yes. I would soup that up to personal decision about personal culture however.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 16, 2012, 03:59:22 PM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 16, 2012, 06:52:16 AM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 16, 2012, 06:46:02 AM
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?

This highlights the main problem I have with the term cis, which is that it reinforces the idea that gender and sex are a set of binaries rather than a group of spectrums, which is, IMO, exactly what we need to be pulling away from if we want a truly egalitarian society. Am I cis, according to the accepted definition? I'm gonna go with yes because I like my body (especially the tits) and I like to wear dresses and makeup, even though in other ways I've always been more of a dude and "cis" makes me cringe. But for people looking for a way to pigeonhole me, I guess they can use that.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 16, 2012, 04:03:24 PM
Quote from: Cain on August 16, 2012, 08:11:26 AM
I lost the thread of this thread about 30 pages ago, but somewhere since then, between Pixie, P3nt, Roger and Ratatosk, what I was saying has been made pretty clear.  While I'm not a huge fan of the term "patriarchy", because in the way it gets misued and appropriated via popular culture into stupid arguments (I haven't looked into Kyriarchy enough to know what to think - it's 8am in the morning), my essential point is this:

Any sexist system will invariably have a negative influence on all genders, regardless of which one is favoured.  This influence will not be the same, the negative consequences of it will not be evenly distributed.  Nevertheless, an essentialist discourse on gender and sexuality puts everyone into neatly labelled boxes.  If one's behaviour does not match the box one is labelled as, then the identity will take precedence over the behaviour in the essentalist discourse, and will seek to correct the behaviour, rather than the perceptions one has of that label.  If people of the favoured gender do not act in gender appropriate ways, they will be punished for it.  Those of the lower-ranking gender will be considered to not "know their place", to be "uppity" and "disrespectful", and will often be policed by members of the higher ranking gender in order to create compliance, via various social and political arrangements involving ownership of property, voting rights, the ability to move independently and so on.  Those of the higher ranking gender will be associated with the negative qualities of the lower-ranking gender, and may be treated as such in social, political or other situations.

You'll notice the above can be applied to pretty much any sexist system, regardless of its particular viewpoints or beliefs.

Yes, yes, and yes!
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 16, 2012, 04:08:55 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:29:01 PM
Quote from: The Dark Monk on August 16, 2012, 03:22:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 16, 2012, 04:11:10 PM
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.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 04:13:31 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 16, 2012, 03:45:49 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:10:11 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 16, 2012, 05:29:45 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 01:23:14 AM
I've known some pretty misogynist gay men that weren't cis at all.

I just wanted to pick this out because I don't understand it. They were gay men who did not identify as men? Or do you mean they were born as women but identify as gay men, and are misogynistic? It's the "not cis at all" part that's throwing me.

I mean they are Gay men who identify as women, but hate women.

People are really fucking strange.

Yeah, like the weird woman-hating right wing women.

No shortage of them.  They lined right up and bought the goods.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 04:19:18 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 16, 2012, 04:11:10 PM
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.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 04:24:08 PM
Quote from: The Dark Monk on August 16, 2012, 03:53:39 PM
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.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 16, 2012, 04:57:15 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 04:24:08 PM
Quote from: The Dark Monk on August 16, 2012, 03:53:39 PM
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!
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on August 16, 2012, 05:09:30 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 16, 2012, 04:08:55 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:29:01 PM
Quote from: The Dark Monk on August 16, 2012, 03:22:49 PM
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.

You can't avoid it. If I came across as saying that then chalk it down to the piss poor at explaining thing. The way I see it is that I can't beat them but there's no fucking way I'm going to join them. It's kinda how I feel about voting - you don't change a retarded fucking system by pushing button A or button B like you're supposed to. Same with labels - I don't feel I can change discrimination against group-x by joining the group-x appreciation society. That's just reinforcing the idea that group-x are different from the rest of society, which is what the problem stems from in the first place. So instead I treat everyone the same. Isn't that the idea behind equality? To treat everyone the same? So I do that, not because I think the world will magically change but because I think it's the right thing to do.

Meanwhile I'm being told that I'm wrong and the right way to make sure everyone gets treated the same is to form a little enclave and bitch and whine about how everything is wrong. Well I can't buy into that mentality. I go with what feels right, not with what is popular. Popular is how we got in this mess to begin with.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 16, 2012, 05:17:42 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 16, 2012, 04:08:55 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:29:01 PM
Quote from: The Dark Monk on August 16, 2012, 03:22:49 PM
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.

Of course. You can't avoid discrimination by refusing to recognize that other people label you. You can however refuse to label yourself or others. You aren't discriminated against because you are a woman, you are discriminated against because some men are assholes. Put the blame where it belongs.

Not accepting the label doesn't change how some people will treat you... but I don't think that accepting the label will change how those people treat you either.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 06:16:40 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 16, 2012, 04:08:55 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:29:01 PM
Quote from: The Dark Monk on August 16, 2012, 03:22:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 16, 2012, 07:47:43 PM
Rat, Imma start a new thread for the labels thing, okay?

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 01:23:14 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 01:16:25 AM
But I think the criticism - that men who otherwise want to help but freak out when asked to think about/change their shitty behavior are out of line - is still valid.

Sure.  But remember that to some degree, the medium IS the message...In this case, the choice of words contaminated the message.

And I've known some pretty misogynist gay men that weren't cis at all.  And we've seen that misandry is quite the same.  It's not related in any way to what your own orientation or gender or any of that shit happens to be, but rather what your perception of the quality in question is.  Otherwise, there'd be no such thing as a "self-loathing homosexual" or "self-loathing Black person".

What you and Nigel were describing is "threatened privilege", I think.  This can be displayed among people who say silly-ass shit like "If Gays marry, then all marriages become meaningless" (I wonder what THEIR home life is like?).  Or it can be seen among men who view feminism as "ball-busting"...Or hell, among women who think that the rise of feminism means they can't be feminine anymore (ludicrous, but very common), and therefore reject it.

It can REALLY be seen on Fox News, when they get all torqued up about Iran having its own opinions, or the fact that one of Those People got elected president.  And it's the same fucking thing, no matter what wrapper it comes in.
Gender =/= sexuality. At all. Cis doesn't necessarily have anything to do with gender presentation, either, which is where I'm thinking you're getting the "not cis at all" thing. Are you pretty femme but still ID as a man? You're still a cis man.

Threatened privilege is definitely part of it, but what I was specifically describing was men who generally want to help women, but flip the fuck out when asked to think about/modify subtle parts of their behavior. Which is what Pent was doing.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 07:55:47 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 07:47:43 PM
Gender =/= sexuality. At all. Cis doesn't necessarily have anything to do with gender presentation, either, which is where I'm thinking you're getting the "not cis at all" thing. Are you pretty femme but still ID as a man? You're still a cis man.

I clarified that in a later post.  I meant it exactly as described.

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 07:47:43 PM
Threatened privilege is definitely part of it, but what I was specifically describing was men who generally want to help women, but flip the fuck out when asked to think about/modify subtle parts of their behavior. Which is what Pent was doing.

And what I was doing for a moment, a few days back, although that's actually just how I work through things.  I gotta slam my head against it for a while.

But on the other hand, there has been some flipping out in the other direction.  You have to account for the fact that you're dealing with a lifetime of conditioning.  Becoming frustrated because your point isn't getting through is an indication that you might want to alter your method of explaining your point (but not your point) because, well, it isn't getting through.  And it doesn't matter why it's not getting through, if it's not getting through.  "He's not listening" can also be said "I haven't found a means to get by his filters".  Not talking about P3nt here, mind you, I'm talking about ANYBODY about ANYTHING.

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on August 16, 2012, 08:11:50 PM
Flip the fuck out? must have missed that one. :lulz:

What actually happened was that I disagreed that certain words and phrases I use are tantamount to an attack on gender. You tried to explain to me why you thought I was badwrong. I explained that I'd heard this crap before so I understood but disagreed. You then explained it in a more condescending way, perhaps under the misguided impression that I was lying and didn't really understand such a complex notion, given that I only have a tiny little man brain. I restated my position a couple of times then gave up, since I wasn't getting through to you.

Flip the fuck out? No, I found it vaguely funny in a depressing, facepalmy kind of way.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 16, 2012, 08:16:48 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 07:55:47 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 07:47:43 PM
Gender =/= sexuality. At all. Cis doesn't necessarily have anything to do with gender presentation, either, which is where I'm thinking you're getting the "not cis at all" thing. Are you pretty femme but still ID as a man? You're still a cis man.

I clarified that in a later post.  I meant it exactly as described.

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 07:47:43 PM
Threatened privilege is definitely part of it, but what I was specifically describing was men who generally want to help women, but flip the fuck out when asked to think about/modify subtle parts of their behavior. Which is what Pent was doing.

And what I was doing for a moment, a few days back, although that's actually just how I work through things.  I gotta slam my head against it for a while.

But on the other hand, there has been some flipping out in the other direction.  You have to account for the fact that you're dealing with a lifetime of conditioning.  Becoming frustrated because your point isn't getting through is an indication that you might want to alter your method of explaining your point (but not your point) because, well, it isn't getting through.  And it doesn't matter why it's not getting through, if it's not getting through.  "He's not listening" can also be said "I haven't found a means to get by his filters".  Not talking about P3nt here, mind you, I'm talking about ANYBODY about ANYTHING.


Still catching up.

I realize I'm dealing with a life time of conditioning. Which is why I'm generally more patient with people who have expressed a desire to help.
I'm still working on a way to do that, yeah. "Here, you're demonstrating behavior x, which is oppressive," for ten pages doesn't seem to work.


Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 16, 2012, 08:11:50 PM
Flip the fuck out? must have missed that one. :lulz:

What actually happened was that I disagreed that certain words and phrases I use are tantamount to an attack on gender. You tried to explain to me why you thought I was badwrong. I explained that I'd heard this crap before so I understood but disagreed. You then explained it in a more condescending way, perhaps under the misguided impression that I was lying and didn't really understand such a complex notion, given that I only have a tiny little man brain. I restated my position a couple of times then gave up, since I wasn't getting through to you.

Flip the fuck out? No, I found it vaguely funny in a depressing, facepalmy kind of way.
Yeah, you did. You got aggressive with me for no apparently reason except that I was asking you to think about shit.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 08:24:10 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 16, 2012, 08:11:50 PM
Flip the fuck out? must have missed that one. :lulz:

Perception is everything, P3nt, especially in a medium where you don't get non-verbal cues.

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 16, 2012, 08:26:47 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 04:33:40 AM
Question:  Is it sexist if Rob Roy or Sir Mixalot says it?
Yes.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 08:27:18 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 08:26:47 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 04:33:40 AM
Question:  Is it sexist if Rob Roy or Sir Mixalot says it?
Yes.

:cry:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 16, 2012, 08:36:15 PM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 16, 2012, 07:03:55 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 16, 2012, 06:57:23 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 16, 2012, 06:52:16 AM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 16, 2012, 06:46:02 AM
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. :lulz:
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)
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 16, 2012, 08:37:45 PM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 16, 2012, 07:38:13 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 16, 2012, 07:17:37 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 16, 2012, 07:03:55 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 16, 2012, 06:57:23 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 16, 2012, 06:52:16 AM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 16, 2012, 06:46:02 AM
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. :lulz:

That is... a really good question, actually. Hold on.

(I'm aware that, like, no time is passing to you while I look this up. Feel free to find some shitty elevator music and stop reading for a while if you want, though.)

Okay, just having a quick look around, there doesn't really seem to be a definitive answer (not that there's ever really a definitive answer to anything). I know that in the queer communities I'm involved in, "assigned at birth" usually translates to "this baby has a vagina, therefore it is a girl", which is obviously not always the case, as that child could actually be a trans male. The issues surrounding intersex babies being assigned one gender or the other at birth has always been treated as a separate issue, in my experience. HOWEVER, from what I can see just in the references that I have bookmarked, intersex doesn't seem to be considered to fall under either trans or cis. I know there are also differing opinions on whether people who are genderqueer/agender can claim to fall under the trans* umbrella, though it's generally agreed that they're not cis. I'm (obviously) not the expert, though, and it'll be interesting to research a bit further.

I guess the only thing is that I disagree with your description, mostly the words "assigned at birth."  You don't get assigned a sex, you grow that way.  Otherwise, thanks for clearing that up for me. :)

I agree with the POV that divisive labels aren't good for the common W/E right now, as there are bigger battles to fight, but I also see how the term "normal" in a conversation like this isn't helpful at all, and alienating to people who don't fit "normal."  Outside of this kind of dialogue, it is as pointless as Roger was saying earlier.
Sex is your junk, so I'm not understanding this.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 16, 2012, 08:42:54 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:05:02 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 16, 2012, 02:54:46 PM
There is value to 'labels' in a context, I think, like Cain is saying. That is "Our current system is obviously biased against *label* and that needs to change".

However, the only way (IMO) to make shit better is to do it yourself and try to get other people to do it to. If you don't like the idea of being labeled, stop labeling yourself. Stop using labels for other people and demand that the assholes that label you take a good fucking look at their own shit... well, I mean, unless that would cause you to lose your job when you really need it... in that case maybe you have to be a little more politic with them.

We saw comments about uniforms in the first half of this discussion. Yet every label, when self applied is a uniform (even if you take it off sometimes). I AM A FEMINIST, I AM A TRANS, I AM A WHITE DUDE THATS PISSED OFF AT THE WHOLE FUCKING SYSTEM (we need a good label for that). When you say I am X, people will (because its how our brains work) presume that you will behave like everyone else they've met that wears that uniform.

We need to get out of our uniforms and run around NAKED with all of our human bits hanging out.

:lulz:

Yes.

In addition, when you wear a label willingly (or even unwillingly), you yourself begin to self-identify with that label.  It may start off as a description, but it becomes a uniform.

Now, if the subject comes up and is relevant, I don't see anything wrong with using the term as a convenient description.  If for some bizarre reason your sexual orientation becomes important, then it's perfectly appropriate to use the correct term for it...I just almost never see any time that this happens.

In fact, the only time I hear these labels is as a perjorative.  At least IRL.
No. I'll explain why later, but no.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 16, 2012, 08:45:10 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:10:11 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 16, 2012, 05:29:45 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 01:23:14 AM
I've known some pretty misogynist gay men that weren't cis at all.

I just wanted to pick this out because I don't understand it. They were gay men who did not identify as men? Or do you mean they were born as women but identify as gay men, and are misogynistic? It's the "not cis at all" part that's throwing me.

I mean they are Gay men who identify as women, but hate women.

People are really fucking strange.
Absolutely none of that makes sense. Are you sure you're using the correct pronouns or gender names? Because a gay transgal who is still a misogynist makes sense, but you can't be a man who is a woman (exactly, anyway; genderfluid and bigender is different).
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 08:47:56 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 08:42:54 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:05:02 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 16, 2012, 02:54:46 PM
There is value to 'labels' in a context, I think, like Cain is saying. That is "Our current system is obviously biased against *label* and that needs to change".

However, the only way (IMO) to make shit better is to do it yourself and try to get other people to do it to. If you don't like the idea of being labeled, stop labeling yourself. Stop using labels for other people and demand that the assholes that label you take a good fucking look at their own shit... well, I mean, unless that would cause you to lose your job when you really need it... in that case maybe you have to be a little more politic with them.

We saw comments about uniforms in the first half of this discussion. Yet every label, when self applied is a uniform (even if you take it off sometimes). I AM A FEMINIST, I AM A TRANS, I AM A WHITE DUDE THATS PISSED OFF AT THE WHOLE FUCKING SYSTEM (we need a good label for that). When you say I am X, people will (because its how our brains work) presume that you will behave like everyone else they've met that wears that uniform.

We need to get out of our uniforms and run around NAKED with all of our human bits hanging out.

:lulz:

Yes.

In addition, when you wear a label willingly (or even unwillingly), you yourself begin to self-identify with that label.  It may start off as a description, but it becomes a uniform.

Now, if the subject comes up and is relevant, I don't see anything wrong with using the term as a convenient description.  If for some bizarre reason your sexual orientation becomes important, then it's perfectly appropriate to use the correct term for it...I just almost never see any time that this happens.

In fact, the only time I hear these labels is as a perjorative.  At least IRL.
No. I'll explain why later, but no.

Well, yeah, actually.  I never hear people bring up things like homosexuality, etc, in anything other than a perjorative sense.  For people - at least around me, I obviously can't speak for everyone, etc - teh subject never comes up, because it's not relevant.

One exception:  Freaky once had a thing for this one guy, Mark.  We told her that Mark was Gay, and while a really nice guy, would have no romantic interest in her (after a little prompting from Mark).  But that's sort of an informational thing, which is not the same as labelling.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on August 16, 2012, 08:48:56 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 08:24:10 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 16, 2012, 08:11:50 PM
Flip the fuck out? must have missed that one. :lulz:

Perception is everything, P3nt, especially in a medium where you don't get non-verbal cues.

True that. :oops: I guess I got a pretty vicious sense of humour. Especially if you can't see the smirk on my face.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 08:49:08 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 08:45:10 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:10:11 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 16, 2012, 05:29:45 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 01:23:14 AM
I've known some pretty misogynist gay men that weren't cis at all.

I just wanted to pick this out because I don't understand it. They were gay men who did not identify as men? Or do you mean they were born as women but identify as gay men, and are misogynistic? It's the "not cis at all" part that's throwing me.

I mean they are Gay men who identify as women, but hate women.

People are really fucking strange.
Absolutely none of that makes sense. Are you sure you're using the correct pronouns or gender names? Because a gay transgal who is still a misogynist makes sense, but you can't be a man who is a woman (exactly, anyway; genderfluid and bigender is different).

No, it doesn't make sense.  People often don't.

Gay guy, identifies as female, hates women.  <--- what am I doing wrong, here?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on August 16, 2012, 08:51:08 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 08:49:08 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 08:45:10 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:10:11 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 16, 2012, 05:29:45 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 01:23:14 AM
I've known some pretty misogynist gay men that weren't cis at all.

I just wanted to pick this out because I don't understand it. They were gay men who did not identify as men? Or do you mean they were born as women but identify as gay men, and are misogynistic? It's the "not cis at all" part that's throwing me.

I mean they are Gay men who identify as women, but hate women.

People are really fucking strange.
Absolutely none of that makes sense. Are you sure you're using the correct pronouns or gender names? Because a gay transgal who is still a misogynist makes sense, but you can't be a man who is a woman (exactly, anyway; genderfluid and bigender is different).

No, it doesn't make sense.  People often don't.

Gay guy, identifies as female, hates women.  <--- what am I doing wrong, here?

I'd go so far as to say I can see a kind of twisted logic - jealous cos they're born that way and he has to try so fucking hard?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 16, 2012, 09:01:11 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 08:49:08 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 08:45:10 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:10:11 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 16, 2012, 05:29:45 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 01:23:14 AM
I've known some pretty misogynist gay men that weren't cis at all.

I just wanted to pick this out because I don't understand it. They were gay men who did not identify as men? Or do you mean they were born as women but identify as gay men, and are misogynistic? It's the "not cis at all" part that's throwing me.

I mean they are Gay men who identify as women, but hate women.

People are really fucking strange.
Absolutely none of that makes sense. Are you sure you're using the correct pronouns or gender names? Because a gay transgal who is still a misogynist makes sense, but you can't be a man who is a woman (exactly, anyway; genderfluid and bigender is different).

No, it doesn't make sense.  People often don't.

Gay guy, identifies as female, hates women.  <--- what am I doing wrong, here?
I have no idea. I'd have to meet the person in question.

Quote from: The Dark Monk on August 16, 2012, 03:22:49 PM
But then they aren't HUMAN bits, they are label-bits, which therefore are discriminated against :P

Gender is a societal uniform you know. However, then again, what isn't?
If you aren't manufactured human A that is exactly like manufactured human B, then there will be a problem.
Also, even posing on that, manufactured human A might have went swimming one day and his hair turned temporarily green, which is HERESY. Chlorine is the devil. Manufactured human B punches and ridicules him, while A feels shame and guilt and tries to go back into the fold.

As far as labels go, a lot of people want them. A lot of people wish to be seen as "white guy" or "Black girl" or what have you. It is what the self identifies with. It is not "we are human beings" which I believe it's the way it should be. Since that happens, a pile of "In your face" does from time to time need to happen. You may be white or black or whatever, but everyone still feels emotion, has thoughts, experiences, etc and sometimes you have to shout at some people so you don't go on a killing spree.
That's where the damage of labels comes in. The fact that they exist in reference to human beings is just insane to me.
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. Through exchange of ideas and education you should never feel or WANT to feel like a soldier fighting a war, as then you simply fight for a position on the monkey council. I also believe that that mindset causes more enemies and rebellion than getting your point across.

I apologize if this has been covered already but I wanted to drop a thought in last night I was too tired to post it and remembered it this morning.
If you don't have empowerment, why bother? Because empowerment is increasing the power of oppressed groups, and if you're telling me that as a female, I still should have the same political, social, and economic power as women before me did, then you really don't understand the whole point of any social movement. It's necessary to balance the scales.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 16, 2012, 09:04:06 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 16, 2012, 03:59:22 PM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 16, 2012, 06:52:16 AM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 16, 2012, 06:46:02 AM
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?

This highlights the main problem I have with the term cis, which is that it reinforces the idea that gender and sex are a set of binaries rather than a group of spectrums, which is, IMO, exactly what we need to be pulling away from if we want a truly egalitarian society. Am I cis, according to the accepted definition? I'm gonna go with yes because I like my body (especially the tits) and I like to wear dresses and makeup, even though in other ways I've always been more of a dude and "cis" makes me cringe. But for people looking for a way to pigeonhole me, I guess they can use that.
Ditto. It also implies that gender binaries are the ONLY gender systems that can and should exist. Which is pretty bigoted and ethnocentric.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 16, 2012, 09:05:48 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 16, 2012, 04:08:55 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:29:01 PM
Quote from: The Dark Monk on August 16, 2012, 03:22:49 PM
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.
This is actually like 80% of what the Labels thread I'm still gonna start is about.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 16, 2012, 09:24:04 PM
Quote
Sex is your junk, so I'm not understanding this.

What I'm saying is that I disagree with the use of "assigned" in Signora's post because it isn't a situation of schroedinger's genitals, it's pretty much determined what sex you are fairly early on


Regarding "assigned at birth" gender, this is retarded. Oh noez, the delivering doctor has identified the baby's sex and went with the obvious! LIFE ROONT!

More seriously, her argument sounded like she blames the doctors for shit that is the fault of their family or caretakers and immediate social environment. It isn't the job of a doctor to worry if this baby will be cis or genderfluid or transfer. His job is to get the baby from womb to world.

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?"
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 09:27:08 PM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 16, 2012, 09:24:04 PM
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.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 09:27:54 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 09:05:48 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 16, 2012, 04:08:55 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:29:01 PM
Quote from: The Dark Monk on August 16, 2012, 03:22:49 PM
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.
This is actually like 80% of what the Labels thread I'm still gonna start is about.

I just don't see how labels stop rape and discrimination.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 16, 2012, 09:32:23 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 16, 2012, 05:09:30 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 16, 2012, 04:08:55 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:29:01 PM
Quote from: The Dark Monk on August 16, 2012, 03:22:49 PM
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.

You can't avoid it. If I came across as saying that then chalk it down to the piss poor at explaining thing. The way I see it is that I can't beat them but there's no fucking way I'm going to join them. It's kinda how I feel about voting - you don't change a retarded fucking system by pushing button A or button B like you're supposed to. Same with labels - I don't feel I can change discrimination against group-x by joining the group-x appreciation society. That's just reinforcing the idea that group-x are different from the rest of society, which is what the problem stems from in the first place. So instead I treat everyone the same. Isn't that the idea behind equality? To treat everyone the same? So I do that, not because I think the world will magically change but because I think it's the right thing to do.

Meanwhile I'm being told that I'm wrong and the right way to make sure everyone gets treated the same is to form a little enclave and bitch and whine about how everything is wrong. Well I can't buy into that mentality. I go with what feels right, not with what is popular. Popular is how we got in this mess to begin with.
We've gotten wrapped up in what feminism means for (Western) women and females. Which is important, but not the whole point of third-wave feminism, which is serious about intersectionality and what oppressive systems mean for all of us ("white womanhood" was used to oppress Black people and affected Black men in particular. World wide colonization by white people created shadeism, which continues to affect people today, etc.).



Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 16, 2012, 09:24:04 PM
Quote
Sex is your junk, so I'm not understanding this.

What I'm saying is that I disagree with the use of "assigned" in Signora's post because it isn't a situation of schroedinger's genitals, it's pretty much determined what sex you are fairly early on


Regarding "assigned at birth" gender, this is retarded. Oh noez, the delivering doctor has identified the baby's sex and went with the obvious! LIFE ROONT!

More seriously, her argument sounded like she blames the doctors for shit that is the fault of their family or caretakers and immediate social environment. It isn't the job of a doctor to worry if this baby will be cis or genderfluid or transfer. His job is to get the baby from womb to world.

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?"
What other term would you suggest to use? Because the concept isn't retarded; not every person who appears female at birth actually is, because sex is just as much a spectrum as any other facet of human existence.

It's not her argument, precisely. That's the general term for "baby A looks like they are female but short of a phenotypic test, we don't know for sure that this child is female in the truest sense" or "this child has a condition that is best remedied by doing x, which makes them appear female, whether they are or not." What would you suggest calling instead?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 16, 2012, 09:33:29 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 09:27:54 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 09:05:48 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 16, 2012, 04:08:55 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:29:01 PM
Quote from: The Dark Monk on August 16, 2012, 03:22:49 PM
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.
This is actually like 80% of what the Labels thread I'm still gonna start is about.

I just don't see how labels stop rape and discrimination.
Which is understandable. It's something I used to think, too. I''ll try to explain why.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on August 16, 2012, 09:35:13 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 09:27:54 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 09:05:48 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 16, 2012, 04:08:55 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:29:01 PM
Quote from: The Dark Monk on August 16, 2012, 03:22:49 PM
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.
This is actually like 80% of what the Labels thread I'm still gonna start is about.

I just don't see how labels stop rape and discrimination.

But it's not just labels, when you factor in telling people who support you that they don't understand it becomes a surefire recipe for success.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 16, 2012, 09:35:51 PM
Are you done yet? That horse is a pulp now.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on August 16, 2012, 09:37:07 PM
Dunno, are you going to say "CIS" any more?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 09:40:16 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 09:33:29 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 09:27:54 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 09:05:48 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 16, 2012, 04:08:55 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:29:01 PM
Quote from: The Dark Monk on August 16, 2012, 03:22:49 PM
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.
This is actually like 80% of what the Labels thread I'm still gonna start is about.

I just don't see how labels stop rape and discrimination.
Which is understandable. It's something I used to think, too. I''ll try to explain why.

The concept is totally alien to me, so you'll get a fair hearing...I have no preconceived notions on this that I know of.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 16, 2012, 09:41:04 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 09:27:08 PM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 16, 2012, 09:24:04 PM
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.u

I've been going with offer any clothes and toys and books and movies/TV.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 09:41:59 PM
Um, P3nt, Garbo?  We're all friends here.  If we can't discuss this sort of thing without getting pissed, we may as well jump back into the sty with the other piggies.

Just saying.

I am also very uncomfortable with the label, but how can we discuss it if we can't say it?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on August 16, 2012, 09:47:11 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 09:41:59 PM
Um, P3nt, Garbo?  We're all friends here.  If we can't discuss this sort of thing without getting pissed, we may as well jump back into the sty with the other piggies.

Just saying.

I am also very uncomfortable with the label, but how can we discuss it if we can't say it?

Sorry Rog. Sorry Garbo. I'm dubious as a motherfucker but I'll try to keep an open mind.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 16, 2012, 09:51:06 PM
Which is understandable and fine.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 16, 2012, 09:57:34 PM
@Garbo reply #828:

Can intersex be a lifethreatening thing? I was under the impression it wasn't, which makes me feel like those doctors are overstepping their boundaries, their job only being to get the baby out. They have no business doing any of that, and I reject this notion as a valid counterargument of what is a Dr's job (unless the answer to my first question is yes). I feel like that is someone trying to enforce their views, which is a separate and valid argument but it isn't what I'm talking about, and I already addressed this point.  It really makes me see red when I know people don't read what I say.

I'd call the baby as whatever sex it is until notified otherwise.

I know that people are fucking stupid, and would rather just stuff them in a box and leave it at that, but they're very, very wrong. I agree that in a dialogue about sex/gender it's a necessary term. In fact, my only problem here is that blame is being put in the wrong place.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞ on August 16, 2012, 10:05:10 PM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 16, 2012, 07:02:15 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 16, 2012, 06:40:24 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 16, 2012, 06:32:58 AM
Quote from: Net on August 16, 2012, 04:44:18 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 16, 2012, 04:02:15 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:58:50 AM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 16, 2012, 03:57:06 AM
"I am just trying to be a better person."

I actually read this as genuine at first. My bad.
And then Roger was a successful troll.

Then Roger didn't take you seriously when you went off the fucking deep end.

Or words to that effect.

Well, I'm off to bed, to dream up more ways to keep a brother down.  Paes, be prepared to be consumed with Holy WrathTM at my outrageous acts of oppression on this very board, come tomorrow.  That way, you won't even notice when the people who are actually oppressing you come down on you like a ten ton sack of pigshit.

Way to go.

In fairness, no one's oppressing Paes. He's a straight white cis guy, bless him.

People say things like this when they buy into the idea of patriarchy, rather than kyriarchy.

It probably helps if you've turned a blind eye to systemic banking corruption throughout the globe, the increasingly punitive prison culture right in your own back yard (http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/new-zealands-strange-relationship-with-prisons), and living in a country that has some of the worst inequality in the world (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/23/10-countries-with-worst-income-inequality_n_865869.html#s278234&title=10_New_Zealand).

Those all are things that white cis guys are immune from, see.

The part where I said that my feminism is intersectional? Kind of assumes I "buy into" kyriarchy, but I'm sorry if I didn't specify that while hashing out replies on my phone :)

I'd also point out that the people who benefit the most from systemic banking corruption, our fucked-up prison culture (over half the prison population is Māori despite making up less than 15% of the total population), and income inequality (at the last census the mean income of Māori was 73.2% of that of non-Māori; women earn 2/5 of gross earnings) are upper-class white cis guys. Or perhaps it would be fairer to say that the system which currently allows this to happen was set up and is primarily run/controlled by white cis guys.

Which is not to say that Paes, personally, is not affected by living in a fucked-up system. Of course he is. We all are, because (whoo title reference) patriarchy/kyriarchy hurts men too.

And finally, I was being fairly tongue-in-cheek with my "Paes is a straight white cis guy" comment in the first place, but I realise that shit never translates well over the interbutts so that's my bad.

I don't know if you're doing the tongue in cheek thing again, but you argued the same thing as Net right there.

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.

Maybe I'm going to look like a huge asshole according to Paesior, but yes, most straight white cis guys get oppressed by a nationless, plutocratic ultrawealthy elite. Do we have it better than everybody else? Of course we do. But merely being a SWC guy doesn't make us free from economic oppression either. We might get paid more than women for the same job, but it's not likely to be a living wage.

The point is that there's a class war being waged on millions of SWC guys along with everyone else in the lower economic strata, and equating SWC males with freedom from systematic economic oppression is going to be a hard sell. Being a SWC guy does not make one immune from poverty, prison profiteers, and the fallout from systemic banking fraud, sorry.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 16, 2012, 10:30:10 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 16, 2012, 09:35:13 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 09:27:54 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 09:05:48 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 16, 2012, 04:08:55 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:29:01 PM
Quote from: The Dark Monk on August 16, 2012, 03:22:49 PM
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.
This is actually like 80% of what the Labels thread I'm still gonna start is about.

I just don't see how labels stop rape and discrimination.

But it's not just labels, when you factor in telling people who support you that they don't understand it becomes a surefire recipe for success.

Horse may be pulp, but he just nailed the bulk of this thread in one sentence.

As for labels, yeah, I see them. I can't NOT see if a person is black/white/asian/in drag/whatever. I also see things like red t shirts. None of it really makes a fuck in the total scheme of things. And I'm satisfied with "red t shirt", I see no reason to subdivide it into a bazillion shades of red t shirts with various degrees of fading, fiber content and wear for general usage. 
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 16, 2012, 10:39:59 PM
I'll get into that.


That's class, Net. Class oppression hits 99.999999% of the planet's population. SWC Western dude, straight Chinese cis chick, gay African trans*x person. All the same. Unless you're a super wealthy, you get hit, too.


Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 16, 2012, 09:57:34 PM
@Garbo reply #828:

Can intersex be a lifethreatening thing? I was under the impression it wasn't, which makes me feel like those doctors are overstepping their boundaries, their job only being to get the baby out. They have no business doing any of that, and I reject this notion as a valid counterargument of what is a Dr's job (unless the answer to my first question is yes). I feel like that is someone trying to enforce their views, which is a separate and valid argument but it isn't what I'm talking about, and I already addressed this point.  It really makes me see red when I know people don't read what I say.

I'd call the baby as whatever sex it is until notified otherwise.

I know that people are fucking stupid, and would rather just stuff them in a box and leave it at that, but they're very, very wrong. I agree that in a dialogue about sex/gender it's a necessary term. In fact, my only problem here is that blame is being put in the wrong place.
It can be (although I wanna note that a lot of intersexuality is not immediately obvious until the kid hits puberty, especially if some cells are reading XX and others are reading XY, or it's an androgen insensitivity problem). There's a condition I can't remember the name of, but the baby is born with literally no sexual or excertory organs. It's a giant gaping hole. I don't remember what they do about the urethra, but they take a section of small intestine and use it as a vagina, and then make the kid an anus.


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.

But, OTOH, (for both the parents and the doctor) what do you do about an intersexed baby? There's some social responsibility there.

ALSO, the book I read about intersexuality is in that bunch of books I gave you. It's called Between XX and XY.


edited real quick for clarity.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 16, 2012, 10:43:08 PM
I don't see CIS catching on. It got a backlash at peedee, FFS, and everybody's usually all for anything to do with diversity. It's just squicky as fuck. Label.  :x
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 16, 2012, 10:45:05 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 16, 2012, 10:43:08 PM
I don't see CIS catching on. It got a backlash at peedee, FFS, and everybody's usually all for anything to do with diversity. It's just squicky as fuck. Label.  :x
That had more to do with me. I've used it in ways that can't be interpreted as derogatory elsewhere on this board before. All it got then was "labels are bad and I don't need labels". *shrug*
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 16, 2012, 10:47:26 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 16, 2012, 10:43:08 PM
I don't see CIS catching on. It got a backlash at peedee, FFS, and everybody's usually all for anything to do with diversity. It's just squicky as fuck. Label.  :x

I don't see what is squick about it. It's a descriptive term that replaces "normal." Now there's a thing for it, rather than everyone who isn't normal is abnormal (with PC descriptive terms).
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 10:53:34 PM
Quote from: Net on August 16, 2012, 10:05:10 PM
Maybe I'm going to look like a huge asshole according to Paesior,

I am now operating under the ground rule that if someone wants to advance an argument, they should, despite what anyone may decide is an "unacceptable opinion".  If you can't talk about it without accusing the other side of being some horrible monster and/or bigot, then you probably don't have a very good argument yourself.

Fanaticism is just another way to not think.

Quote
but yes, most straight white cis guys get oppressed by a nationless, plutocratic ultrawealthy elite. Do we have it better than everybody else? Of course we do. But merely being a SWC guy doesn't make us free from economic oppression either. We might get paid more than women for the same job, but it's not likely to be a living wage.

Yep.  Men have it bad.  Women have it worse.  Worse is "worse" than bad, but bad is still bad.

Quote
The point is that there's a class war being waged on millions of SWC guys along with everyone else in the lower economic strata, and equating SWC males with freedom from systematic economic oppression is going to be a hard sell. Being a SWC guy does not make one immune from poverty, prison profiteers, and the fallout from systemic banking fraud, sorry.

See above. 

To acknowledge that men face issues as well does not in anyway lessen the issues that women face.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 10:54:24 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 10:45:05 PM
All it got then was "labels are bad and I don't need labels". *shrug*

That is my current opinion, but I am withholding my argument pending your thread on the subject.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 16, 2012, 10:55:32 PM
Which is up, btw.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 16, 2012, 10:57:55 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 10:39:59 PM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 16, 2012, 09:57:34 PM
@Garbo reply #828:

Can intersex be a lifethreatening thing? I was under the impression it wasn't, which makes me feel like those doctors are overstepping their boundaries, their job only being to get the baby out. They have no business doing any of that, and I reject this notion as a valid counterargument of what is a Dr's job (unless the answer to my first question is yes). I feel like that is someone trying to enforce their views, which is a separate and valid argument but it isn't what I'm talking about, and I already addressed this point.  It really makes me see red when I know people don't read what I say.

I'd call the baby as whatever sex it is until notified otherwise.

I know that people are fucking stupid, and would rather just stuff them in a box and leave it at that, but they're very, very wrong. I agree that in a dialogue about sex/gender it's a necessary term. In fact, my only problem here is that blame is being put in the wrong place.
It can be (although I wanna note that a lot of intersexuality is not immediately obvious until the kid hits puberty, especially if some cells are reading XX and others are reading XY, or it's an androgen insensitivity problem). There's a condition I can't remember the name of, but the baby is born with literally no sexual or excertory organs. It's a giant gaping hole. I don't remember what they do about the urethra, but they take a section of small intestine and use it as a vagina, and then make the kid an anus.


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.

But, OTOH, (for both the parents and the doctor) what do you do about an intersexed baby? There's some social responsibility there.

ALSO, the book I read about intersexuality is in that bunch of books I gave you. It's called Between XX and XY.

edited real quick for clarity.

I did not know about that medical thing. Sounds awful. I have no idea what should happen there.

As for intersex babby, I would personally alternate between he and she for pronouns, and if it were mine I would get both boy and girl clothes, toys, whatever. I do that now, and monkey is probably a boy through and through.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 16, 2012, 10:59:42 PM
So you'd say no to surgery? That doesn't always work out well, in terms of the kid being happy as an adult.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 16, 2012, 11:09:34 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 10:59:42 PM
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.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 16, 2012, 11:57:33 PM
Quote from: Net on August 16, 2012, 10:05:10 PM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 16, 2012, 07:02:15 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 16, 2012, 06:40:24 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 16, 2012, 06:32:58 AM
Quote from: Net on August 16, 2012, 04:44:18 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 16, 2012, 04:02:15 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:58:50 AM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 16, 2012, 03:57:06 AM
"I am just trying to be a better person."

I actually read this as genuine at first. My bad.
And then Roger was a successful troll.

Then Roger didn't take you seriously when you went off the fucking deep end.

Or words to that effect.

Well, I'm off to bed, to dream up more ways to keep a brother down.  Paes, be prepared to be consumed with Holy WrathTM at my outrageous acts of oppression on this very board, come tomorrow.  That way, you won't even notice when the people who are actually oppressing you come down on you like a ten ton sack of pigshit.

Way to go.

In fairness, no one's oppressing Paes. He's a straight white cis guy, bless him.

People say things like this when they buy into the idea of patriarchy, rather than kyriarchy.

It probably helps if you've turned a blind eye to systemic banking corruption throughout the globe, the increasingly punitive prison culture right in your own back yard (http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/new-zealands-strange-relationship-with-prisons), and living in a country that has some of the worst inequality in the world (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/23/10-countries-with-worst-income-inequality_n_865869.html#s278234&title=10_New_Zealand).

Those all are things that white cis guys are immune from, see.

The part where I said that my feminism is intersectional? Kind of assumes I "buy into" kyriarchy, but I'm sorry if I didn't specify that while hashing out replies on my phone :)

I'd also point out that the people who benefit the most from systemic banking corruption, our fucked-up prison culture (over half the prison population is Māori despite making up less than 15% of the total population), and income inequality (at the last census the mean income of Māori was 73.2% of that of non-Māori; women earn 2/5 of gross earnings) are upper-class white cis guys. Or perhaps it would be fairer to say that the system which currently allows this to happen was set up and is primarily run/controlled by white cis guys.

Which is not to say that Paes, personally, is not affected by living in a fucked-up system. Of course he is. We all are, because (whoo title reference) patriarchy/kyriarchy hurts men too.

And finally, I was being fairly tongue-in-cheek with my "Paes is a straight white cis guy" comment in the first place, but I realise that shit never translates well over the interbutts so that's my bad.

I don't know if you're doing the tongue in cheek thing again, but you argued the same thing as Net right there.

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.

Maybe I'm going to look like a huge asshole according to Paesior, but yes, most straight white cis guys get oppressed by a nationless, plutocratic ultrawealthy elite. Do we have it better than everybody else? Of course we do. But merely being a SWC guy doesn't make us free from economic oppression either. We might get paid more than women for the same job, but it's not likely to be a living wage.

The point is that there's a class war being waged on millions of SWC guys along with everyone else in the lower economic strata, and equating SWC males with freedom from systematic economic oppression is going to be a hard sell. Being a SWC guy does not make one immune from poverty, prison profiteers, and the fallout from systemic banking fraud, sorry.

It was actually Freeky who said that argument would make you look like a huge asshole, Paes was quoting her.

Thanks for clarifying your argument, btw, I appreciate it.

As Garbo said -- that's class oppression, which is a different thing again. It's just one more societal privilege in a giant fucking mess of them.

Look. Unless you are a rich, white, straight, able-bodied, thin, cis guy (I've probably missed some) then you will face some sort of systemic oppression somewhere. Even if you are all those things, you are still going to be negatively affected by them, it's just that you're not being actively oppressed by them. Which, again, doesn't mean that they don't harm you in some way.

And while I'm thinking about it, oppressions aren't rankable (I seem to recall this coming up earlier but god knows where). It's all situational and oppression Olympics are bullshit. There are situations where I will be in a position of privilege over a black man, and there are times when he will be in a position of privilege over me. And a white guy is in a position of privilege over both of us.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2012, 11:59:06 PM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 16, 2012, 11:57:33 PM

And while I'm thinking about it, oppressions aren't rankable (I seem to recall this coming up earlier but god knows where). It's all situational and oppression Olympics are bullshit. There are situations where I will be in a position of privilege over a black man, and there are times when he will be in a position of privilege over me. And a white guy is in a position of privilege over both of us.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞ on August 17, 2012, 12:03:27 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 10:53:34 PM
Quote from: Net on August 16, 2012, 10:05:10 PM
Maybe I'm going to look like a huge asshole according to Paesior,

I am now operating under the ground rule that if someone wants to advance an argument, they should, despite what anyone may decide is an "unacceptable opinion".  If you can't talk about it without accusing the other side of being some horrible monster and/or bigot, then you probably don't have a very good argument yourself.

Fanaticism is just another way to not think.


Agreed. Though I will point out that I wasn't putting words into his mouth:

Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 16, 2012, 11:05:46 AM
Hopefully he doesn't come back and say he was describing things that affect striaght white cis males because then he would "look like a huge asshole".




Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 10:53:34 PM
To acknowledge that men face issues as well does not in anyway lessen the issues that women face.

Absolutely. I should have said that myself.

I'm grateful to have lucked into a spot near the top of the shitpile, and the fact that I'm still getting shat on from great heights was only brought up when Signora said straight white cis males aren't oppressed. She claimed it was tongue in cheek but then appeared to waffle about it, so I expanded on my point.


Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 10:39:59 PM
That's class, Net. Class oppression hits 99.999999% of the planet's population. SWC Western dude, straight Chinese cis chick, gay African trans*x person. All the same. Unless you're a super wealthy, you get hit, too.

Yep. That's all I was pointing out.

Patriarchy helps keep us divided as a class as well.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞ on August 17, 2012, 12:05:59 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 11:59:06 PM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 16, 2012, 11:57:33 PM

And while I'm thinking about it, oppressions aren't rankable (I seem to recall this coming up earlier but god knows where). It's all situational and oppression Olympics are bullshit. There are situations where I will be in a position of privilege over a black man, and there are times when he will be in a position of privilege over me. And a white guy is in a position of privilege over both of us.

I'm probably a bad person for finding this fascinating.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 17, 2012, 12:06:22 AM
Quote from: Net on August 17, 2012, 12:03:27 AM

I'm grateful to have lucked into a spot near the top of the shitpile, and the fact that I'm still getting shat on from great heights was only brought up when Signora said straight white cis males aren't oppressed.

And at that point, the appeal to ridicule has come into play.  I'm referring to "cis man tears", which while having been beaten to death already, is still the only response that has been given, besides, "You are incapable of understanding", which relegates you to the level of an animal with respect to the conversation.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 17, 2012, 12:06:52 AM
Quote from: Net on August 17, 2012, 12:05:59 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 11:59:06 PM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 16, 2012, 11:57:33 PM

And while I'm thinking about it, oppressions aren't rankable (I seem to recall this coming up earlier but god knows where). It's all situational and oppression Olympics are bullshit. There are situations where I will be in a position of privilege over a black man, and there are times when he will be in a position of privilege over me. And a white guy is in a position of privilege over both of us.

I'm probably a bad person for finding this fascinating.

I'm still sort of stunned, myself.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 17, 2012, 12:15:29 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 11:59:06 PM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 16, 2012, 11:57:33 PM

And while I'm thinking about it, oppressions aren't rankable (I seem to recall this coming up earlier but god knows where). It's all situational and oppression Olympics are bullshit. There are situations where I will be in a position of privilege over a black man, and there are times when he will be in a position of privilege over me. And a white guy is in a position of privilege over both of us.

Sorry, I should have said: all other things being equal.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Faust on August 17, 2012, 12:16:52 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 12:06:22 AM
Quote from: Net on August 17, 2012, 12:03:27 AM

I'm grateful to have lucked into a spot near the top of the shitpile, and the fact that I'm still getting shat on from great heights was only brought up when Signora said straight white cis males aren't oppressed.

And at that point, the appeal to ridicule has come into play.  I'm referring to "cis man tears", which while having been beaten to death already, is still the only response that has been given, besides, "You are incapable of understanding", which relegates you to the level of an animal with respect to the conversation.
Every single person here. Every one is incapable of understanding oppression. Especially the ones claiming they do.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 17, 2012, 12:17:52 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 17, 2012, 12:15:29 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 11:59:06 PM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 16, 2012, 11:57:33 PM

And while I'm thinking about it, oppressions aren't rankable (I seem to recall this coming up earlier but god knows where). It's all situational and oppression Olympics are bullshit. There are situations where I will be in a position of privilege over a black man, and there are times when he will be in a position of privilege over me. And a white guy is in a position of privilege over both of us.

Sorry, I should have said: all other things being equal.

It's still a blatant ranking.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: AFK on August 17, 2012, 12:18:04 AM
Quote from: Faust on August 17, 2012, 12:16:52 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 12:06:22 AM
Quote from: Net on August 17, 2012, 12:03:27 AM

I'm grateful to have lucked into a spot near the top of the shitpile, and the fact that I'm still getting shat on from great heights was only brought up when Signora said straight white cis males aren't oppressed.

And at that point, the appeal to ridicule has come into play.  I'm referring to "cis man tears", which while having been beaten to death already, is still the only response that has been given, besides, "You are incapable of understanding", which relegates you to the level of an animal with respect to the conversation.
Every single person here. Every one is incapable of understanding oppression. Especially the ones claiming they do.


Faust nails it in one.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 17, 2012, 12:18:43 AM
Quote from: Faust on August 17, 2012, 12:16:52 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 12:06:22 AM
Quote from: Net on August 17, 2012, 12:03:27 AM

I'm grateful to have lucked into a spot near the top of the shitpile, and the fact that I'm still getting shat on from great heights was only brought up when Signora said straight white cis males aren't oppressed.

And at that point, the appeal to ridicule has come into play.  I'm referring to "cis man tears", which while having been beaten to death already, is still the only response that has been given, besides, "You are incapable of understanding", which relegates you to the level of an animal with respect to the conversation.
Every single person here. Every one is incapable of understanding oppression. Especially the ones claiming they do.

Incorrect.  There are two ways of understanding oppression:  To be oppressed, and to be the oppressor.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 17, 2012, 12:20:31 AM
Also, that's an incredibly fucked up generalization, based on no facts whatsoever.

You have NO IDEA if Garbo has been oppressed.  You have no idea if Nigel has been oppressed.  You have no idea if anyone here has been oppressed.

HAVING PRIVILEGE DOES NOT EXCLUDE THE POSSIBILITY OF BEING OPPRESSED.

A plague on both your houses.  Seriously.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Faust on August 17, 2012, 12:26:39 AM
I agree, no one here has any idea of the oppression anyone else here has endured in the least.
I was being facetious and exaggerating it as a pile of oppressors squabbling to see who is marginally less of the oppressor. The hipster equivalent of the privilege game.

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 17, 2012, 12:33:13 AM
You're a dick. :lulz:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 17, 2012, 12:33:45 AM
Quote from: Faust on August 17, 2012, 12:26:39 AM
I agree, no one here has any idea of the oppression anyone else here has endured in the least.
I was being facetious and exaggerating it as a pile of oppressors squabbling to see who is marginally less of the oppressor. The hipster equivalent of the privilege game.

Okay.  No argument there.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 17, 2012, 12:34:02 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 17, 2012, 12:33:13 AM
You're a dick. :lulz:

SEXIST!

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: AFK on August 17, 2012, 12:34:11 AM
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.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 17, 2012, 12:36:46 AM
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 17, 2012, 12:34:11 AM
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.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: AFK on August 17, 2012, 12:40:50 AM
The US Congress shows us on a daily basis how well that works and how mich progress that acheives.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Faust on August 17, 2012, 12:43:11 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 17, 2012, 12:33:13 AM
You're a dick. :lulz:
Mea culpa
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 17, 2012, 12:45:02 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 12:34:02 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 17, 2012, 12:33:13 AM
You're a dick. :lulz:

SEXIST!

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_vyAoR1jlf3M/S0hYrlg3rEI/AAAAAAAAAEU/4VDyKJfh93E/s320/Smiley+=D.png)
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 17, 2012, 01:01:55 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 12:17:52 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 17, 2012, 12:15:29 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 11:59:06 PM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 16, 2012, 11:57:33 PM

And while I'm thinking about it, oppressions aren't rankable (I seem to recall this coming up earlier but god knows where). It's all situational and oppression Olympics are bullshit. There are situations where I will be in a position of privilege over a black man, and there are times when he will be in a position of privilege over me. And a white guy is in a position of privilege over both of us.

Sorry, I should have said: all other things being equal.

It's still a blatant ranking.

White people holding societal privilege over black people, or men holding societal privilege over women, is something that patriarchy and/or kyriarchy ranks us on, yes. No arguments here. That's not what I was talking about with my first sentence, though. There is a tendency to say (not in this thread, just generally) that "sexism is worse than racism" or "racism is worse than heterosexism" or what the fuck ever, when there isn't an Official Ranking of Societal Oppressions And How Terrible They Are. It's all situational.

Or have I misinterpreted what you find objectionable?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 17, 2012, 01:04:59 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 17, 2012, 01:01:55 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 12:17:52 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 17, 2012, 12:15:29 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 11:59:06 PM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 16, 2012, 11:57:33 PM

And while I'm thinking about it, oppressions aren't rankable (I seem to recall this coming up earlier but god knows where). It's all situational and oppression Olympics are bullshit. There are situations where I will be in a position of privilege over a black man, and there are times when he will be in a position of privilege over me. And a white guy is in a position of privilege over both of us.

Sorry, I should have said: all other things being equal.

It's still a blatant ranking.

White people holding societal privilege over black people, or men holding societal privilege over women, is something that patriarchy and/or kyriarchy ranks us on, yes. No arguments here. That's not what I was talking about with my first sentence, though. There is a tendency to say (not in this thread, just generally) that "sexism is worse than racism" or "racism is worse than heterosexism" or what the fuck ever, when there isn't an Official Ranking of Societal Oppressions And How Terrible They Are. It's all situational.

Or have I misinterpreted what you find objectionable?

Well, sure.  They all pale in comparison to Mighty Whitey.  Specifically male CIS/Straight Mighty Whitey.  Beneath THAT, there's no ranking, then.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 17, 2012, 01:08:25 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 01:04:59 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 17, 2012, 01:01:55 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 12:17:52 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 17, 2012, 12:15:29 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 11:59:06 PM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 16, 2012, 11:57:33 PM

And while I'm thinking about it, oppressions aren't rankable (I seem to recall this coming up earlier but god knows where). It's all situational and oppression Olympics are bullshit. There are situations where I will be in a position of privilege over a black man, and there are times when he will be in a position of privilege over me. And a white guy is in a position of privilege over both of us.

Sorry, I should have said: all other things being equal.

It's still a blatant ranking.

White people holding societal privilege over black people, or men holding societal privilege over women, is something that patriarchy and/or kyriarchy ranks us on, yes. No arguments here. That's not what I was talking about with my first sentence, though. There is a tendency to say (not in this thread, just generally) that "sexism is worse than racism" or "racism is worse than heterosexism" or what the fuck ever, when there isn't an Official Ranking of Societal Oppressions And How Terrible They Are. It's all situational.

Or have I misinterpreted what you find objectionable?

Well, sure.  They all pale in comparison to Mighty Whitey.  Specifically male CIS/Straight Mighty Whitey.  Beneath THAT, there's no ranking, then.

Yeah, sorry about that, I see where there was a clarity fail now.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 17, 2012, 01:19:37 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 17, 2012, 01:08:25 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 01:04:59 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 17, 2012, 01:01:55 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 12:17:52 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 17, 2012, 12:15:29 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 11:59:06 PM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 16, 2012, 11:57:33 PM

And while I'm thinking about it, oppressions aren't rankable (I seem to recall this coming up earlier but god knows where). It's all situational and oppression Olympics are bullshit. There are situations where I will be in a position of privilege over a black man, and there are times when he will be in a position of privilege over me. And a white guy is in a position of privilege over both of us.

Sorry, I should have said: all other things being equal.

It's still a blatant ranking.

White people holding societal privilege over black people, or men holding societal privilege over women, is something that patriarchy and/or kyriarchy ranks us on, yes. No arguments here. That's not what I was talking about with my first sentence, though. There is a tendency to say (not in this thread, just generally) that "sexism is worse than racism" or "racism is worse than heterosexism" or what the fuck ever, when there isn't an Official Ranking of Societal Oppressions And How Terrible They Are. It's all situational.

Or have I misinterpreted what you find objectionable?

Well, sure.  They all pale in comparison to Mighty Whitey.  Specifically male CIS/Straight Mighty Whitey.  Beneath THAT, there's no ranking, then.

Yeah, sorry about that, I see where there was a clarity fail now.

This implies that *I* am responsible for YOUR problems, seeing as how I am the king-hell oppressor in the pecking order.

Sorry about all those things, I was just being what I am.

I now have an excuse, just like you do.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 17, 2012, 01:23:11 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 01:19:37 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 17, 2012, 01:08:25 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 01:04:59 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 17, 2012, 01:01:55 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 12:17:52 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 17, 2012, 12:15:29 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 11:59:06 PM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 16, 2012, 11:57:33 PM

And while I'm thinking about it, oppressions aren't rankable (I seem to recall this coming up earlier but god knows where). It's all situational and oppression Olympics are bullshit. There are situations where I will be in a position of privilege over a black man, and there are times when he will be in a position of privilege over me. And a white guy is in a position of privilege over both of us.

Sorry, I should have said: all other things being equal.

It's still a blatant ranking.

White people holding societal privilege over black people, or men holding societal privilege over women, is something that patriarchy and/or kyriarchy ranks us on, yes. No arguments here. That's not what I was talking about with my first sentence, though. There is a tendency to say (not in this thread, just generally) that "sexism is worse than racism" or "racism is worse than heterosexism" or what the fuck ever, when there isn't an Official Ranking of Societal Oppressions And How Terrible They Are. It's all situational.

Or have I misinterpreted what you find objectionable?

Well, sure.  They all pale in comparison to Mighty Whitey.  Specifically male CIS/Straight Mighty Whitey.  Beneath THAT, there's no ranking, then.

Yeah, sorry about that, I see where there was a clarity fail now.

This implies that *I* am responsible for YOUR problems, seeing as how I am the king-hell oppressor in the pecking order.

Sorry about all those things, I was just being what I am.

I now have an excuse, just like you do.

Where the fuck did I imply that?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 17, 2012, 01:30:46 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 17, 2012, 01:23:11 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 01:19:37 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 17, 2012, 01:08:25 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 01:04:59 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 17, 2012, 01:01:55 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 12:17:52 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 17, 2012, 12:15:29 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 11:59:06 PM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 16, 2012, 11:57:33 PM

And while I'm thinking about it, oppressions aren't rankable (I seem to recall this coming up earlier but god knows where). It's all situational and oppression Olympics are bullshit. There are situations where I will be in a position of privilege over a black man, and there are times when he will be in a position of privilege over me. And a white guy is in a position of privilege over both of us.

Sorry, I should have said: all other things being equal.

It's still a blatant ranking.

White people holding societal privilege over black people, or men holding societal privilege over women, is something that patriarchy and/or kyriarchy ranks us on, yes. No arguments here. That's not what I was talking about with my first sentence, though. There is a tendency to say (not in this thread, just generally) that "sexism is worse than racism" or "racism is worse than heterosexism" or what the fuck ever, when there isn't an Official Ranking of Societal Oppressions And How Terrible They Are. It's all situational.

Or have I misinterpreted what you find objectionable?

Well, sure.  They all pale in comparison to Mighty Whitey.  Specifically male CIS/Straight Mighty Whitey.  Beneath THAT, there's no ranking, then.

Yeah, sorry about that, I see where there was a clarity fail now.

This implies that *I* am responsible for YOUR problems, seeing as how I am the king-hell oppressor in the pecking order.

Sorry about all those things, I was just being what I am.

I now have an excuse, just like you do.

Where the fuck did I imply that?

White males are the top of the shit heap, right?  We are in fact the top-dog oppressor.  And since we all know that shit rolls downhill (and splashes all over everything at or near the bottom), reason dictates that my privilege is the author of your misfortune.  See how that works?  (I trust you can spot the obvious fallacy)

You know what the funny thing about privilege is?  It isn't "rights", because privileges can be revoked.  Therefore, privilege has NOTHING to do with oppression, because all privilege means is that some forms of oppression haven't been enacted on you because they merely haven't gotten around to you, or because you have escaped their notice. 

Consider:

The person who is dragged off in the night, tortured, and either killed or indefinitely imprisoned without trial isn't "being oppressed", that person is being FUCKED.  PROPER.

The person who lives under the specter of the above is being oppressed.  Privilege is not preventing that treatment, it is the state of that treatment not occurring at the moment.

The person who orders the above to occur is the oppressor, NOT the person hiding in their privilege, pretending nothing's wrong because surely THEY won't come after such a fine example of male White American exceptionalism or whatever the privilege they think they enjoy.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 17, 2012, 01:36:27 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 01:30:46 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 17, 2012, 01:23:11 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 01:19:37 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 17, 2012, 01:08:25 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 01:04:59 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 17, 2012, 01:01:55 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 12:17:52 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 17, 2012, 12:15:29 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 11:59:06 PM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 16, 2012, 11:57:33 PM

And while I'm thinking about it, oppressions aren't rankable (I seem to recall this coming up earlier but god knows where). It's all situational and oppression Olympics are bullshit. There are situations where I will be in a position of privilege over a black man, and there are times when he will be in a position of privilege over me. And a white guy is in a position of privilege over both of us.

Sorry, I should have said: all other things being equal.

It's still a blatant ranking.

White people holding societal privilege over black people, or men holding societal privilege over women, is something that patriarchy and/or kyriarchy ranks us on, yes. No arguments here. That's not what I was talking about with my first sentence, though. There is a tendency to say (not in this thread, just generally) that "sexism is worse than racism" or "racism is worse than heterosexism" or what the fuck ever, when there isn't an Official Ranking of Societal Oppressions And How Terrible They Are. It's all situational.

Or have I misinterpreted what you find objectionable?

Well, sure.  They all pale in comparison to Mighty Whitey.  Specifically male CIS/Straight Mighty Whitey.  Beneath THAT, there's no ranking, then.

Yeah, sorry about that, I see where there was a clarity fail now.

This implies that *I* am responsible for YOUR problems, seeing as how I am the king-hell oppressor in the pecking order.

Sorry about all those things, I was just being what I am.

I now have an excuse, just like you do.

Where the fuck did I imply that?

White males are the top of the shit heap, right?  We are in fact the top-dog oppressor.  And since we all know that shit rolls downhill (and splashes all over everything at or near the bottom), reason dictates that my privilege is the author of your misfortune.  See how that works?  (I trust you can spot the obvious fallacy)

You know what the funny thing about privilege is?  It isn't "rights", because privileges can be revoked.  Therefore, privilege has NOTHING to do with oppression, because all privilege means is that some forms of oppression haven't been enacted on you because they merely haven't gotten around to you, or because you have escaped their notice. 

Consider:

The person who is dragged off in the night, tortured, and either killed or indefinitely imprisoned without trial isn't "being oppressed", that person is being FUCKED.  PROPER.

The person who lives under the specter of the above is being oppressed.  Privilege is not preventing that treatment, it is the state of that treatment not occurring at the moment.

The person who orders the above to occur is the oppressor, NOT the person hiding in their privilege, pretending nothing's wrong because surely THEY won't come after such a fine example of male White American exceptionalism or whatever the privilege they think they enjoy.

I can spot the fallacy, but I never made it. You did.

It sounds like you want to argue the existence of structural privilege, which is a completely different discussion to the one we're having. Let me know if I've got that wrong, though.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: AFK on August 17, 2012, 01:43:38 AM
Aww jeez, MOAR adjectives. 
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 17, 2012, 01:44:45 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 17, 2012, 01:36:27 AM

It sounds like you want to argue the existence of structural privilege, which is a completely different discussion to the one we're having. Let me know if I've got that wrong, though.

No, that's not at what I'm arguing at all.  I want to argue the definition of privilege.

And it's more fucked up than it seems.  Consider the following two examples:

1.  A woman is raped.  She is obviously enjoying no privilege whatsoever.

2.  A woman is not raped.  By the arguments given in this thread since page 23 or so, she is enjoying the privilege of having the status of "not being raped".

Privileges are granted by chance or by power greater than yours being exerted (or by a hostile strength NOT being exerted, as in the second example above).

RIGHTS, on the other hand, are seized, and then assumed.  I would expect that a society worth having would work toward a woman having the RIGHT not to be raped, rather than focusing on who has enjoyed the privilege of "not being fucked over yet".

Arguing privilege is like having two people fighting over who gets to be eaten by a lion last.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 17, 2012, 01:56:00 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 01:44:45 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 17, 2012, 01:36:27 AM

It sounds like you want to argue the existence of structural privilege, which is a completely different discussion to the one we're having. Let me know if I've got that wrong, though.

No, that's not at what I'm arguing at all.  I want to argue the definition of privilege.

And it's more fucked up than it seems.  Consider the following two examples:

1.  A woman is raped.  She is obviously enjoying no privilege whatsoever.

2.  A woman is not raped.  By the arguments given in this thread since page 23 or so, she is enjoying the privilege of having the status of "not being raped".

Privileges are granted by chance or by power greater than yours being exerted (or by a hostile strength NOT being exerted, as in the second example above).

RIGHTS, on the other hand, are seized, and then assumed.  I would expect that a society worth having would work toward a woman having the RIGHT not to be raped, rather than focusing on who has enjoyed the privilege of "not being fucked over yet".

Arguing privilege is like having two people fighting over who gets to be eaten by a lion last.

Okay, awesome, I see where you're coming from now. Thanks!

I'm not totally sure I agree, but I definitely want to have the discussion. I'm going to come back to this when I'm finished work for the day and am actually using PD on a computer.

Might be worth a separate thread once I've wrapped my head around what I want to say  :)
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 17, 2012, 01:56:56 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 17, 2012, 01:56:00 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 01:44:45 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 17, 2012, 01:36:27 AM

It sounds like you want to argue the existence of structural privilege, which is a completely different discussion to the one we're having. Let me know if I've got that wrong, though.

No, that's not at what I'm arguing at all.  I want to argue the definition of privilege.

And it's more fucked up than it seems.  Consider the following two examples:

1.  A woman is raped.  She is obviously enjoying no privilege whatsoever.

2.  A woman is not raped.  By the arguments given in this thread since page 23 or so, she is enjoying the privilege of having the status of "not being raped".

Privileges are granted by chance or by power greater than yours being exerted (or by a hostile strength NOT being exerted, as in the second example above).

RIGHTS, on the other hand, are seized, and then assumed.  I would expect that a society worth having would work toward a woman having the RIGHT not to be raped, rather than focusing on who has enjoyed the privilege of "not being fucked over yet".

Arguing privilege is like having two people fighting over who gets to be eaten by a lion last.

Okay, awesome, I see where you're coming from now. Thanks!

I'm not totally sure I agree, but I definitely want to have the discussion. I'm going to come back to this when I'm finished work for the day and am actually using PD on a computer.

Might be worth a separate thread once I've wrapped my head around what I want to say  :)

Oki doke.  I'll be going to bed in about an hour and a half, but I'll read your responses in the morning.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 17, 2012, 02:03:22 AM
Another way to say it:  Privilege isn't power, it's the state of "not currently paying the price of powerlessness."
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pæs on August 17, 2012, 02:12:23 AM
Quote from: Net on August 17, 2012, 12:03:27 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 10:53:34 PM
Quote from: Net on August 16, 2012, 10:05:10 PM
Maybe I'm going to look like a huge asshole according to Paesior,

I am now operating under the ground rule that if someone wants to advance an argument, they should, despite what anyone may decide is an "unacceptable opinion".  If you can't talk about it without accusing the other side of being some horrible monster and/or bigot, then you probably don't have a very good argument yourself.

Fanaticism is just another way to not think.


Agreed. Though I will point out that I wasn't putting words into his mouth:

Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 16, 2012, 11:05:46 AM
Hopefully he doesn't come back and say he was describing things that affect striaght white cis males because then he would "look like a huge asshole".

I'll point out that "look like a huge asshole" was in quotations because it was a direct quotation from Freeky who attacked me for interpreting your argument exactly as you were making it.

She said that you and Signora were making the same point and that if your argument were for cis white guys being oppressed, you would look like a huge asshole for undermining your own argument or something.

I guess you missed the part where I explicitly said I didn't disagree with that as a criticism of Signora's post and tried to clarify whether "these are all things cis guys are immune from" a typo or sarcasm.

But, fuck, why should anyone respond to attempts to communicate after being butthurt has served us so well this far.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pæs on August 17, 2012, 02:16:23 AM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 16, 2012, 10:38:15 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 16, 2012, 07:41:42 AM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 16, 2012, 07:20:02 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 16, 2012, 07:06:32 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 16, 2012, 07:02:15 AM
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.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 17, 2012, 02:40:26 AM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 17, 2012, 02:12:23 AM
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.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pæs on August 17, 2012, 02:43:52 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 02:40:26 AM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 17, 2012, 02:12:23 AM
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.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 17, 2012, 02:47:32 AM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 17, 2012, 02:43:52 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 02:40:26 AM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 17, 2012, 02:12:23 AM
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!
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 17, 2012, 03:02:06 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 02:47:32 AM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 17, 2012, 02:43:52 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 02:40:26 AM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 17, 2012, 02:12:23 AM
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!

:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: but this needs to be taught in the schools. Seriously.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 17, 2012, 03:04:58 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 17, 2012, 03:02:06 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 02:47:32 AM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 17, 2012, 02:43:52 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 02:40:26 AM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 17, 2012, 02:12:23 AM
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!

:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: 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.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 17, 2012, 03:12:57 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 03:04:58 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 17, 2012, 03:02:06 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 02:47:32 AM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 17, 2012, 02:43:52 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 02:40:26 AM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 17, 2012, 02:12:23 AM
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!

:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: 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.  :lulz:

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".
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 17, 2012, 04:06:52 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 17, 2012, 12:36:46 AM
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 17, 2012, 12:34:11 AM
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.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 17, 2012, 04:52:48 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 04:19:18 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 16, 2012, 04:11:10 PM
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.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 17, 2012, 04:53:35 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 16, 2012, 04:57:15 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 04:24:08 PM
Quote from: The Dark Monk on August 16, 2012, 03:53:39 PM
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.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 17, 2012, 04:57:53 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 06:16:40 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 16, 2012, 04:08:55 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 03:29:01 PM
Quote from: The Dark Monk on August 16, 2012, 03:22:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 17, 2012, 05:01:47 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 08:36:15 PM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 16, 2012, 07:03:55 AM
Quote from: Signora Paesior on August 16, 2012, 06:57:23 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 16, 2012, 06:52:16 AM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 16, 2012, 06:46:02 AM
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. :lulz:
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  :cn:.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 17, 2012, 05:16:16 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 09:27:08 PM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 16, 2012, 09:24:04 PM
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.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 17, 2012, 05:21:03 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 10:39:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 17, 2012, 05:22:34 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 16, 2012, 11:09:34 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 10:59:42 PM
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?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 17, 2012, 05:22:50 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 17, 2012, 05:16:16 AM
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.

Yes, I remember my mind being blown when I was a kid when they told me that a baby wearing a long white dress in a photograph was my grandpa.  :)

And then there were the rituals of cutting off baby curls, graduating from short pants, etc. It's like nobody was born male then, they kind of grew into it.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 17, 2012, 05:30:15 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 17, 2012, 05:22:50 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 17, 2012, 05:16:16 AM
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.

Yes, I remember my mind being blown when I was a kid when they told me that a baby wearing a long white dress in a photograph was my grandpa.  :)

And then there were the rituals of cutting off baby curls, graduating from short pants, etc. It's like nobody was born male then, they kind of grew into it.

Yeah.

I don't necessarily think it was a healthier time in general, just that may have been a healthier way of dealing with babies instead of shoving gender at them right off the bat.

Also, having caught up, I am saddened that the thread seems to have largely degenerated into pedanticism, butthurt, and us-vs.-them. It's probably time for me to bow out, because I largely feel that what I've had to say has been pushed out the window or swept under the rug. I might scavenge through for material for an essay so it doesn't go to waste.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 17, 2012, 05:52:34 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 17, 2012, 05:30:15 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 17, 2012, 05:22:50 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 17, 2012, 05:16:16 AM
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.

Yes, I remember my mind being blown when I was a kid when they told me that a baby wearing a long white dress in a photograph was my grandpa.  :)

And then there were the rituals of cutting off baby curls, graduating from short pants, etc. It's like nobody was born male then, they kind of grew into it.

Yeah.

I don't necessarily think it was a healthier time in general, just that may have been a healthier way of dealing with babies instead of shoving gender at them right off the bat.

Also, having caught up, I am saddened that the thread seems to have largely degenerated into pedanticism, butthurt, and us-vs.-them. It's probably time for me to bow out, because I largely feel that what I've had to say has been pushed out the window or swept under the rug. I might scavenge through for material for an essay so it doesn't go to waste.

Yeah. It's been fucked up for a couple of days at least. Glad you can salvage something out of all this.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 17, 2012, 06:02:01 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 17, 2012, 05:22:34 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 16, 2012, 11:09:34 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 10:59:42 PM
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?
I was excluded for things just as arbitrary, or so I dimly remember. 
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞ on August 17, 2012, 06:30:40 AM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 17, 2012, 02:12:23 AM
Quote from: Net on August 17, 2012, 12:03:27 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 16, 2012, 10:53:34 PM
Quote from: Net on August 16, 2012, 10:05:10 PM
Maybe I'm going to look like a huge asshole according to Paesior,

I am now operating under the ground rule that if someone wants to advance an argument, they should, despite what anyone may decide is an "unacceptable opinion".  If you can't talk about it without accusing the other side of being some horrible monster and/or bigot, then you probably don't have a very good argument yourself.

Fanaticism is just another way to not think.


Agreed. Though I will point out that I wasn't putting words into his mouth:

Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 16, 2012, 11:05:46 AM
Hopefully he doesn't come back and say he was describing things that affect striaght white cis males because then he would "look like a huge asshole".

I'll point out that "look like a huge asshole" was in quotations because it was a direct quotation from Freeky who attacked me for interpreting your argument exactly as you were making it.

She said that you and Signora were making the same point and that if your argument were for cis white guys being oppressed, you would look like a huge asshole for undermining your own argument or something.

I guess you missed the part where I explicitly said I didn't disagree with that as a criticism of Signora's post and tried to clarify whether "these are all things cis guys are immune from" a typo or sarcasm.

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

It sounded to me like you had changed your mind since your earlier assessment.

And woe, imaginary butthurt also rained down on the thread.

That's okay though, it's a hot button subject and these sort of things are bound to happen.

Sorry for misinterpreting you there dude.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 17, 2012, 10:35:15 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 17, 2012, 05:21:03 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 10:39:59 PM
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.
Between XX and XY which is relatively recent, I think? I might be wrong. I'll go look it up soon. And written by an actual doctor, too. Do you know when the rule changed, off hand?

Re: the asterisk, I meant to add things like androgyn insensitivity (complete or partial) and weird things like some of your cells being XX an others being XY. Am I the one using 'em and not expanding on them?


edited to fix capitalization.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 17, 2012, 05:55:50 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 17, 2012, 10:35:15 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 17, 2012, 05:21:03 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 16, 2012, 10:39:59 PM
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.
Between XX and XY which is relatively recent, I think? I might be wrong. I'll go look it up soon. And written by an actual doctor, too. Do you know when the rule changed, off hand?

Re: the asterisk, I meant to add things like androgyn insensitivity (complete or partial) and weird things like some of your cells being XX an others being XY. Am I the one using 'em and not expanding on them?


edited to fix capitalization.

If that book actually claims that it's not a violation of state and in some cases Federal law to perform elective surgery on infants without informed parental consent, view absolutely everything in it with heavy suspicion. The author being a doctor is meaningless. The laws protecting vulnerable populations from unconsented procedures have been evolving since the Nuremberg trials, but really got codified after the exposure of the Tuskeegee experiments and public outrage about eugenics programs (particularly the widespread sterilization of poor women and women of color) in the 1970's. There's a timeline on one of the government websites... I'll try to find it, it was part of my NIH Human Research Subject certification training. The only time informed consent can be waived is in the case of a life-threatening emergency.

Here's the timeline pertaining to informed consent in human research subjects:
http://history.nih.gov/about/timelines_laws_human.html

Some additional discussion of informed consent:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=7.70.065
http://www.uic.edu/depts/mcam/ethics/ic.htm

There is muddy water when it comes to refusing treatment to children, however:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17181756

Note that this does not in any way mean that it is legal to waive the informed consent process for elective procedures for children, but rather that there is legal gray area when it comes to children or their guardians refusing medical procedures for children. This is particularly relevant in cases such as recent events in Oregon where children died due to parental refusal of treatment.

Thanks to ongoing open dialogue about gender and intersex, the model in the US is slowly shifting toward avoiding non-medically-necessary surgical intervention until the patient is able to make their own decision. This does create a conflict when parents insist on surgery where none is necessary. Colombia, of course, has had laws protecting intersex children from genital surgery for over a decade.
http://www.isna.org/node/97


Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Roaring Biscuit! on August 17, 2012, 07:26:16 PM
I was definitely more interested in the psychological effects of patriarchy on men, I mean, being taught that 50% of people on the planet are inferior to you is gotta have some effect on your friendships and stuff :/

Also, this study looks like it could be pretty interesting when it's done:

http://bigboysdontcry.weebly.com/index.html
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Verbal Mike on August 18, 2012, 01:07:18 AM
Took me a bit long to catch up...

I just have a couple of thoughts I thought I'd share.

First, on the OP subject, there's one point I forgot to mention that I've thought about a lot and talked about with people. Basically, patriarchal patterns of courting dictate that the man typically make the first move. Aside from the fact that this leads many men to be overly aggressive in their advances, it also seriously bites for Nice Guys, i.e. men who aren't predisposed to advance courting. You're expected to do something you find difficult or odd and women will not typically actively advance on you if you don't. The whole way the two normative genders relate with one another - within a position of relative privilege compared to other gender/sexual identities – is totally out of whack and it sucks for everyone.

Second, even after all the shit here, I'm still glad I learned the "cis" terminology. It will allow me to refer to non-trans people as a group of our own rather than have to clumsily take trans people out of the equation. Sometimes a dichotomy is something you want to use in a discussion, and using it does not in any way preclude being aware of the more fine-grained reality. And better a lofty, detached-sounding intellectual word than one already laden with cultural connotations. What matters is how a word affects people, and most people haven't even heard this "cis" thing used once so it's not likely to offend or oppress people.

Third, I talked with a friend earlier about this a little, and I think an important distinction has been missing in some of this thread. I seem to recall someone already more or less pointing it out, might have been Rat. But anyway, the distinction is between culturally-conditioned self-oppression and interpersonal oppression. I.e., limiting/harming yourself because of ingrained cultural norms you are programmed to stick to, and limiting/harming others because of said programs.
I like where Roger was going with privilege only meaning you haven't been harmed in this and that way just yet. But isn't "privilege" as used in this context simply the difference between groups that are interpersonally oppressed more and groups that are interpersonally oppressed less? All groups self-oppress, some groups just also have other people oppressing them more. Privilege is about getting a bit less shit from others than some other group does.

Ultimately, it seems to me that self-oppression and interpersonal oppression are two sides of the same coin, and this is maybe something that goes right back to the heart of this thread's original topic. If you're busy stuffing your own life into a neat standard-issue box, you're likelier to expect others to do the same, and hence likely to oppress them for not acting like a standard-issue box resident. You can't truly stop being part of oppressing others while you are busy oppressing yourself in that same way. By following your White Man programming, you are both limiting yourself to a tiny box and taking part in policing literally all other people (your White Man peers included) to keep them in some box as well. If you see a box as the space in which life takes place, you're pretty likely to apply that principle to other individuals and to yourself at the same time.

Am I making sense here?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 18, 2012, 01:08:55 AM
Quote from: VERBL on August 18, 2012, 01:07:18 AM

Second, even after all the shit here, I'm still glad I learned the "cis" terminology. It will allow me to refer to non-trans people as a group of our own rather than have to clumsily take trans people out of the equation.

YOU CAN'T LABEL ME!  WHAT ABOUT MY WHITE MALE AMERICAN PRIVILEGE?   :argh!:

IT'S ALL RUINED!  RUUUUUINED!

PJ,
Tongue rammed through cheek.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Verbal Mike on August 18, 2012, 01:09:25 AM
Quote from: Pixie on August 15, 2012, 06:02:40 PM
... Roger's comments and experience of porn stars and how the life can seriously fuck them up ...
That sounds really worth reading, link?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 18, 2012, 01:15:28 AM
Quote from: VERBL on August 18, 2012, 01:09:25 AM
Quote from: Pixie on August 15, 2012, 06:02:40 PM
... Roger's comments and experience of porn stars and how the life can seriously fuck them up ...
That sounds really worth reading, link?

I think it's in horrorology.

BRB.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 18, 2012, 01:21:56 AM
Crap.  Can't find it.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Verbal Mike on August 18, 2012, 01:31:02 AM
 :cry: :cry: :argh!: :horrormirth:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 18, 2012, 01:49:27 AM
Quote from: VERBL on August 18, 2012, 01:31:02 AM
:cry: :cry: :argh!: :horrormirth:

Pix might know.  I've long since lost track of 90% of what I've written here.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on August 18, 2012, 03:43:21 AM
relevant?
(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1715856/hjhjh.jpg)
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pope Pixie Pickle on August 18, 2012, 04:05:06 AM
Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 18, 2012, 01:49:27 AM
Quote from: VERBL on August 18, 2012, 01:31:02 AM
:cry: :cry: :argh!: :horrormirth:

Pix might know.  I've long since lost track of 90% of what I've written here.

ack, it was months ago, maybe around the time of the Prostitution Vs Feminism thread Nigel started waaay back. IIRC was before I moved in to this place, which was in March.
Quote from: v3x on August 18, 2012, 03:43:21 AM
relevant?
(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1715856/hjhjh.jpg)

hahah. Yes, relevant.

VERBL has a point about the term cis. I don't object to it because I know a few transgender and genderqueer folks IRL and cis is better than "normal" for me and them to use, when being trans is opposite to normal rather than an intellectual word like cis it kinda can make people feel like freaks, and those cats and kittens have it pretty tough already.  I don't see it as a restriction on me, just that it makes my (already marginalised and often misunderstood) friends that I hang out with more comfortable.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 18, 2012, 04:11:43 AM
Quote from: Pixie on August 18, 2012, 04:05:06 AM

VERBL has a point about the term cis. I don't object to it because I know a few transgender and genderqueer folks IRL and cis is better than "normal" for me and them to use, when being trans is opposite to normal rather than an intellectual word like cis it kinda can make people feel like freaks, and those cats and kittens have it pretty tough already.  I don't see it as a restriction on me, just that it makes my (already marginalised and often misunderstood) friends that I hang out with more comfortable.

I can see how labels could make someone feel more comfortable.

I'm just not sure that comfortable is a good thing.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 18, 2012, 04:24:58 AM
Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 18, 2012, 04:11:43 AM
Quote from: Pixie on August 18, 2012, 04:05:06 AM

VERBL has a point about the term cis. I don't object to it because I know a few transgender and genderqueer folks IRL and cis is better than "normal" for me and them to use, when being trans is opposite to normal rather than an intellectual word like cis it kinda can make people feel like freaks, and those cats and kittens have it pretty tough already.  I don't see it as a restriction on me, just that it makes my (already marginalised and often misunderstood) friends that I hang out with more comfortable.

I can see how labels could make someone feel more comfortable.

I'm just not sure that comfortable is a good thing.

In fact I think that is an even worse reason for a label.

"I'ma label those people so I feel better about me"

WTF?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 18, 2012, 04:26:13 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 18, 2012, 04:24:58 AM
Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 18, 2012, 04:11:43 AM
Quote from: Pixie on August 18, 2012, 04:05:06 AM

VERBL has a point about the term cis. I don't object to it because I know a few transgender and genderqueer folks IRL and cis is better than "normal" for me and them to use, when being trans is opposite to normal rather than an intellectual word like cis it kinda can make people feel like freaks, and those cats and kittens have it pretty tough already.  I don't see it as a restriction on me, just that it makes my (already marginalised and often misunderstood) friends that I hang out with more comfortable.

I can see how labels could make someone feel more comfortable.

I'm just not sure that comfortable is a good thing.

In fact I think that is an even worse reason for a label.

"I'ma label those people so I feel better about me"

WTF?

Or even, "I'm going to label myself so I feel better about me."

Or worse.

"I'm going to label myself so others feel better about me."

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: East Coast Hustle on August 18, 2012, 04:49:17 AM
Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 14, 2012, 09:17:58 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 14, 2012, 09:15:41 PM
So, we need to invent a new catalog of swear words. Resolved, then.

We still have

Shit
Fuck
Damn
Cocksucker
Motherfucker (assuming strapons are available)

Now, what about using terms in a positive light?  As in "This new reverse F wrench design is the tits"?

This whole line of conversation makes me so motherfucking angry that I'm not even going to read the rest of the thread (posting from page 20 here). Anybody who expects me to stop using any swear word or obscene phrase for any reason can just get bent in half at the asshole.

Not like they're getting bent over in half so that their asshole ends up folding IN on itself. Oh no.

The OTHER way.

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 18, 2012, 04:51:40 AM
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on August 18, 2012, 04:49:17 AM
Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 14, 2012, 09:17:58 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 14, 2012, 09:15:41 PM
So, we need to invent a new catalog of swear words. Resolved, then.

We still have

Shit
Fuck
Damn
Cocksucker
Motherfucker (assuming strapons are available)

Now, what about using terms in a positive light?  As in "This new reverse F wrench design is the tits"?

This whole line of conversation makes me so motherfucking angry that I'm not even going to read the rest of the thread (posting from page 20 here). Anybody who expects me to stop using any swear word or obscene phrase for any reason can just get bent in half at the asshole.

Not like they're getting bent over in half so that their asshole ends up folding IN on itself. Oh no.

The OTHER way.

Damn. I shoulda mentioned ECH in the warm fuzzy post.  :lol:

Filing this away for future use.  :lulz:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 18, 2012, 04:53:44 AM
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on August 18, 2012, 04:49:17 AM
Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 14, 2012, 09:17:58 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 14, 2012, 09:15:41 PM
So, we need to invent a new catalog of swear words. Resolved, then.

We still have

Shit
Fuck
Damn
Cocksucker
Motherfucker (assuming strapons are available)

Now, what about using terms in a positive light?  As in "This new reverse F wrench design is the tits"?

This whole line of conversation makes me so motherfucking angry that I'm not even going to read the rest of the thread (posting from page 20 here). Anybody who expects me to stop using any swear word or obscene phrase for any reason can just get bent in half at the asshole.

Not like they're getting bent over in half so that their asshole ends up folding IN on itself. Oh no.

The OTHER way.

I slay myself sometimes.   :lulz:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: East Coast Hustle on August 18, 2012, 04:56:49 AM
And now I see we're on the whole "labels" thing again.

I swear to fucking christ, sometimes this board is like a place where somebody put the "smart" lemmings and tried to teach them not to jump off the cliff. And succeeded. And now the lemmings are all jumping into the fucking washing machine and calling it progress. There isn't really a single word to describe a place like that. but if there was, PD would be like one of those.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 18, 2012, 04:58:58 AM
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on August 18, 2012, 04:56:49 AM
And now I see we're on the whole "labels" thing again.

I swear to fucking christ, sometimes this board is like a place where somebody put the "smart" lemmings and tried to teach them not to jump off the cliff. And succeeded. And now the lemmings are all jumping into the fucking washing machine and calling it progress. There isn't really a single word to describe a place like that. but if there was, PD would be like one of those.

I'd respond, but I'm still giggling like a mad bastard about your last post.

I am SO stealing that.

QuoteAnybody who expects me to stop using any swear word or obscene phrase for any reason can just get bent in half at the asshole.

Not like they're getting bent over in half so that their asshole ends up folding IN on itself. Oh no.

The OTHER way.

I think I'm gonna pee myself.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 18, 2012, 05:10:15 AM
To get back to the original discussion... I think the real point is that Patriarchy, or ANY system where there are oppressors isn't ANYONE's friend. It wasn't like everyone in 1806 liked the idea of slavery or thought that color should matter. However, for the most part we don't think about that, we think of the 1800's Americans as slave owning, Native American killing bastards. The poor sods that actually gave a fuck get slopped in with the oppressors.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pope Pixie Pickle on August 18, 2012, 05:37:10 AM
Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 18, 2012, 04:11:43 AM
Quote from: Pixie on August 18, 2012, 04:05:06 AM

VERBL has a point about the term cis. I don't object to it because I know a few transgender and genderqueer folks IRL and cis is better than "normal" for me and them to use, when being trans is opposite to normal rather than an intellectual word like cis it kinda can make people feel like freaks, and those cats and kittens have it pretty tough already.  I don't see it as a restriction on me, just that it makes my (already marginalised and often misunderstood) friends that I hang out with more comfortable.

I can see how labels could make someone feel more comfortable.

I'm just not sure that comfortable is a good thing.

eh it's not something that bothers me, using the word, to describe myself in certain company,  whereas being given transphobic abuse by people who consider themselves "normal" and my trans/ GQ mates freaks and abominations is shitty as fuck. Think of it as one of the small signals of acceptance I can send them that makes them feel safer in my company, rather than a label. Other signals would be asking what pronouns they prefer.  A tiny three letter word that means I will not freak out if you use the same loo as me, and I'll tell others to back the fuck up if they start something, and I get the idea about gender identity having spectrums, even though I view the whole gender thing as a social construct.

They may not feel comfortable or safe once they've left my company, but I can make it easier by understanding, using and not rejecting their terminology while they are with me. They usually just call me Annie rather than "that weird cis-hetroflexible-geek who yammers on about culture jamming to anyone who will listen."  :lulz:

and if that makes me some kind of uniform or eejit or whatever I couldn't care less, they are my friends and I only really use or consider the terms when I am around that particular group, like some sort of sociology slang/jargon. Its basically just a taxonomy.



Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Cain on August 18, 2012, 05:44:42 AM
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on August 18, 2012, 04:49:17 AM
Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 14, 2012, 09:17:58 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 14, 2012, 09:15:41 PM
So, we need to invent a new catalog of swear words. Resolved, then.

We still have

Shit
Fuck
Damn
Cocksucker
Motherfucker (assuming strapons are available)

Now, what about using terms in a positive light?  As in "This new reverse F wrench design is the tits"?

This whole line of conversation makes me so motherfucking angry that I'm not even going to read the rest of the thread (posting from page 20 here). Anybody who expects me to stop using any swear word or obscene phrase for any reason can just get bent in half at the asshole.

Not like they're getting bent over in half so that their asshole ends up folding IN on itself. Oh no.

The OTHER way.

Your usage of "bent" and "asshole" in the above passage is offensive to the gay community.

Please contact the LGBTWTFROFLBBQ committee for more details about the nature and severity of your sanction.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Placid Dingo on August 18, 2012, 09:34:38 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 18, 2012, 04:24:58 AM
Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 18, 2012, 04:11:43 AM
Quote from: Pixie on August 18, 2012, 04:05:06 AM

VERBL has a point about the term cis. I don't object to it because I know a few transgender and genderqueer folks IRL and cis is better than "normal" for me and them to use, when being trans is opposite to normal rather than an intellectual word like cis it kinda can make people feel like freaks, and those cats and kittens have it pretty tough already.  I don't see it as a restriction on me, just that it makes my (already marginalised and often misunderstood) friends that I hang out with more comfortable.

I can see how labels could make someone feel more comfortable.

I'm just not sure that comfortable is a good thing.

In fact I think that is an even worse reason for a label.

"I'ma label those people so I feel better about me"

WTF?

In honestly, wouldn't it bother you if the standard way to describe people who weren't like you in some way "normal?" I would imagine it would frustrate me.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Johnny on August 18, 2012, 11:17:31 AM
WAIT so... "cis" and "trans" are both in reference to "gender role"...

This entails no deconstruction of gender roles?

Shouldnt trans and cis both be thrown out the window?

ETA: like, i think the idea of "bigender" is a step forward; although it has a baseline assuming what roles are for each gender, it acknowledges the possibility of acting different roles in different situations!
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Johnny on August 18, 2012, 11:25:32 AM

And its opposite isnt demeaning, it being "monogender".

I really like the idea of "bigender", i mean, who actually acts in ways only characteristic of one gender anyways?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Faust on August 18, 2012, 12:28:20 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 18, 2012, 11:17:31 AM
WAIT so... "cis" and "trans" are both in reference to "gender role"...

ETA: like, i think the idea of "bigender" is a step forward; although it has a baseline assuming what roles are for each gender, it acknowledges the possibility of acting different roles in different situations!
Yes it should.
Also I like the idea of using bigender, but only if you also use littleender because the pointless classification reminds me of the war from Gulliver's travels over which end of the boiled egg should be cracked.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on August 19, 2012, 07:40:56 PM
This thread has inspired me to become an Enlightened Male.

To that end, I have decided to promote my wife to "Director of Kitchen Operations."

Now, be proud of me.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 19, 2012, 08:05:51 PM
Vex, this thread makes me want to get a string of pearls and wear them when I vaccuum so I can be a rebel like June Cleaver.

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on August 19, 2012, 08:09:17 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 19, 2012, 08:05:51 PM
Vex, this thread makes me want to get a string of pearls and wear them when I vaccuum so I can be a rebel like June Cleaver.



PEARL NECKLACE HUH?

:fap:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 19, 2012, 08:16:43 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 19, 2012, 08:09:17 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 19, 2012, 08:05:51 PM
Vex, this thread makes me want to get a string of pearls and wear them when I vaccuum so I can be a rebel like June Cleaver.



PEARL NECKLACE HUH?

:fap:

That's why Ward never punished the kids.  :lulz:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 20, 2012, 05:04:49 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on August 18, 2012, 04:49:17 AM
Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 14, 2012, 09:17:58 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 14, 2012, 09:15:41 PM
So, we need to invent a new catalog of swear words. Resolved, then.

We still have

Shit
Fuck
Damn
Cocksucker
Motherfucker (assuming strapons are available)

Now, what about using terms in a positive light?  As in "This new reverse F wrench design is the tits"?

This whole line of conversation makes me so motherfucking angry that I'm not even going to read the rest of the thread (posting from page 20 here). Anybody who expects me to stop using any swear word or obscene phrase for any reason can just get bent in half at the asshole.

Not like they're getting bent over in half so that their asshole ends up folding IN on itself. Oh no.

The OTHER way.
I see why Roger got mad, if this was left unresponded to.
Does this mean you casually throw around "fag" and the N-word, then?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 20, 2012, 05:10:31 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 20, 2012, 05:04:49 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on August 18, 2012, 04:49:17 AM
Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 14, 2012, 09:17:58 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 14, 2012, 09:15:41 PM
So, we need to invent a new catalog of swear words. Resolved, then.

We still have

Shit
Fuck
Damn
Cocksucker
Motherfucker (assuming strapons are available)

Now, what about using terms in a positive light?  As in "This new reverse F wrench design is the tits"?

This whole line of conversation makes me so motherfucking angry that I'm not even going to read the rest of the thread (posting from page 20 here). Anybody who expects me to stop using any swear word or obscene phrase for any reason can just get bent in half at the asshole.

Not like they're getting bent over in half so that their asshole ends up folding IN on itself. Oh no.

The OTHER way.
I see why Roger got mad, if this was left unresponded to.
Does this mean you casually throw around "fag" and the N-word, then?

I specifically didn't respond because it was a non-sequitur considering the rest of the conversation. It's someone who came late and picked up one partially-heard part of the conversation, and it's not my job to fill them in.

Knock yourself out, though. Better yet, tell him to read the rest of the thread so he actually understands the disussion.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 20, 2012, 05:22:58 AM
Which will be shouting into the wind, let's be real.

I still need to catch up on the rest of this, though.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 20, 2012, 06:04:08 AM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 18, 2012, 11:17:31 AM
WAIT so... "cis" and "trans" are both in reference to "gender role"...

This entails no deconstruction of gender roles?

Shouldnt trans and cis both be thrown out the window?

ETA: like, i think the idea of "bigender" is a step forward; although it has a baseline assuming what roles are for each gender, it acknowledges the possibility of acting different roles in different situations!
They have nothing to do with gender roles. Gender roles are "women cook and clean, and men bring home the bacon and mow the lawn." "Cis" and "trans*" are over-arching umbrella terms regarding gender identity. They have nothing to do with societal expectations of a gender or how you live them out.
Also, "bigender" is a gender. They're people who identify as both a man and a woman at the same time (and there are more than two genders, Joh!).
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 20, 2012, 06:20:25 AM
Quote from: VERBL on August 18, 2012, 01:07:18 AM
Took me a bit long to catch up...

I just have a couple of thoughts I thought I'd share.

First, on the OP subject, there's one point I forgot to mention that I've thought about a lot and talked about with people. Basically, patriarchal patterns of courting dictate that the man typically make the first move. Aside from the fact that this leads many men to be overly aggressive in their advances, it also seriously bites for Nice Guys, i.e. men who aren't predisposed to advance courting. You're expected to do something you find difficult or odd and women will not typically actively advance on you if you don't. The whole way the two normative genders relate with one another - within a position of relative privilege compared to other gender/sexual identities – is totally out of whack and it sucks for everyone.

Second, even after all the shit here, I'm still glad I learned the "cis" terminology. It will allow me to refer to non-trans people as a group of our own rather than have to clumsily take trans people out of the equation. Sometimes a dichotomy is something you want to use in a discussion, and using it does not in any way preclude being aware of the more fine-grained reality. And better a lofty, detached-sounding intellectual word than one already laden with cultural connotations. What matters is how a word affects people, and most people haven't even heard this "cis" thing used once so it's not likely to offend or oppress people.

Third, I talked with a friend earlier about this a little, and I think an important distinction has been missing in some of this thread. I seem to recall someone already more or less pointing it out, might have been Rat. But anyway, the distinction is between culturally-conditioned self-oppression and interpersonal oppression. I.e., limiting/harming yourself because of ingrained cultural norms you are programmed to stick to, and limiting/harming others because of said programs.
I like where Roger was going with privilege only meaning you haven't been harmed in this and that way just yet. But isn't "privilege" as used in this context simply the difference between groups that are interpersonally oppressed more and groups that are interpersonally oppressed less? All groups self-oppress, some groups just also have other people oppressing them more. Privilege is about getting a bit less shit from others than some other group does.

Ultimately, it seems to me that self-oppression and interpersonal oppression are two sides of the same coin, and this is maybe something that goes right back to the heart of this thread's original topic. If you're busy stuffing your own life into a neat standard-issue box, you're likelier to expect others to do the same, and hence likely to oppress them for not acting like a standard-issue box resident. You can't truly stop being part of oppressing others while you are busy oppressing yourself in that same way. By following your White Man programming, you are both limiting yourself to a tiny box and taking part in policing literally all other people (your White Man peers included) to keep them in some box as well. If you see a box as the space in which life takes place, you're pretty likely to apply that principle to other individuals and to yourself at the same time.

Am I making sense here?
I gotcha! Excellent points. :D
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Placid Dingo on August 20, 2012, 08:45:57 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 20, 2012, 05:04:49 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on August 18, 2012, 04:49:17 AM
Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 14, 2012, 09:17:58 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 14, 2012, 09:15:41 PM
So, we need to invent a new catalog of swear words. Resolved, then.

We still have

Shit
Fuck
Damn
Cocksucker
Motherfucker (assuming strapons are available)

Now, what about using terms in a positive light?  As in "This new reverse F wrench design is the tits"?

This whole line of conversation makes me so motherfucking angry that I'm not even going to read the rest of the thread (posting from page 20 here). Anybody who expects me to stop using any swear word or obscene phrase for any reason can just get bent in half at the asshole.

Not like they're getting bent over in half so that their asshole ends up folding IN on itself. Oh no.

The OTHER way.
I see why Roger got mad, if this was left unresponded to.
Does this mean you casually throw around "fag" and the N-word, then?

Glass houses here, you have 'retard' in your signature.

I know that that's been dismissed before on this site as 'something something, it doesn't actually mean intellectual impairment on the internet', but that kind of feels like we've going back to 'nigger means lazy ass motherfucker, not black person'.

I generally don't care too much about profanity, but I do watch myself when I know terms will upset people. But it seems to me we can't have a moral imperative to stop using some terms with connotations of prejudice, while embracing others.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 20, 2012, 08:59:04 AM
Uh, Roger wrote the sig for me, actually. I dithered on whether to use it because of that (seemed kind of rude not to, in the end, so I went with it). But "retard" is a word I've used in the past but have pretty much stopped for that reason.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Sita on August 20, 2012, 12:05:22 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 20, 2012, 06:04:08 AM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 18, 2012, 11:17:31 AM
WAIT so... "cis" and "trans" are both in reference to "gender role"...

This entails no deconstruction of gender roles?

Shouldnt trans and cis both be thrown out the window?

ETA: like, i think the idea of "bigender" is a step forward; although it has a baseline assuming what roles are for each gender, it acknowledges the possibility of acting different roles in different situations!
They have nothing to do with gender roles. Gender roles are "women cook and clean, and men bring home the bacon and mow the lawn." "Cis" and "trans*" are over-arching umbrella terms regarding gender identity. They have nothing to do with societal expectations of a gender or how you live them out.
Also, "bigender" is a gender. They're people who identify as both a man and a woman at the same time (and there are more than two genders, Joh!).
I'm still not understanding this whole gender identity thing (when it doesn't pertain to if you have a penis or not).
If you don't come to the conclusion based on roles and what society expects of male or female, then how is it you feel like one or the other? How do you know that this feeling isn't just human?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 21, 2012, 12:41:10 AM
Sex is what style of junk nature handed you at birth. Gender is what's between your ears. (Modern) Western culture only identifies "man" and "woman", which are explicitly associated with what junk you got (even though there are people who don't identify within those boundaries in our culture). Parts of Southeast Asia have "man", "woman", and "hijra". There's a culture somewhere with twenty-six distinct gender identities.

That's a more complex answer than PD seems to be interested in discussing (because oh god, SOCIETAL CRITIQUING! WHAT DO?), but I'll answer the best I can. Some people argue it's a societal construct (and indeed, the roles a gender is expected to fill *are* a construct) in that they're identities totally made by the society in which they live. I personally disagree and think that in some ways it's just how you feel. I don't feel like a woman (feminine pronouns are jarring) even though that's the construct I was raised to be. I don't feel like a man (although it's probably closer to how I feel right now).
Also, gender is part of the way you feel human.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: East Coast Hustle on August 21, 2012, 01:02:45 AM
I'm not sure I understand the usefulness of "gender" as a concept. It seems superfluous, given that physical sex and sexual orientation (in all of its myriad forms) covers most of what people need to figure out about their own sexual identity.

I'm completely open to the idea that I only think this because I have a penis and feel like a man so it's not something that's ever been an issue for me personally. But from an outsider's perspective, it's sorta like "OK, you have these genitals and are attracted to this type of person" and what else do you really need? Isn't the idea of gender as a social construct somewhat antithetical to the idea of sexual equality in the first place? how do you "feel like a man" if you reject society's traditional sexual roles in the first place?

I hope I'm not coming off as antagonistic, this is just a subject I really lack a clear understanding of.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞ on August 21, 2012, 01:09:54 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on August 21, 2012, 01:02:45 AM
I'm not sure I understand the usefulness of "gender" as a concept. It seems superfluous, given that physical sex and sexual orientation (in all of its myriad forms) covers most of what people need to figure out about their own sexual identity.

I'm completely open to the idea that I only think this because I have a penis and feel like a man so it's not something that's ever been an issue for me personally. But from an outsider's perspective, it's sorta like "OK, you have these genitals and are attracted to this type of person" and what else do you really need? Isn't the idea of gender as a social construct somewhat antithetical to the idea of sexual equality in the first place? how do you "feel like a man" if you reject society's traditional sexual roles in the first place?

I hope I'm not coming off as antagonistic, this is just a subject I really lack a clear understanding of.

It's helpful for some people to finally have words to describe things they have struggled with and faced massive amounts of ridicule for.

How are gender roles antithetical to sexual equality?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 21, 2012, 01:11:35 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on August 21, 2012, 01:02:45 AM
I'm not sure I understand the usefulness of "gender" as a concept. It seems superfluous, given that physical sex and sexual orientation (in all of its myriad forms) covers most of what people need to figure out about their own sexual identity.

I'm completely open to the idea that I only think this because I have a penis and feel like a man so it's not something that's ever been an issue for me personally. But from an outsider's perspective, it's sorta like "OK, you have these genitals and are attracted to this type of person" and what else do you really need? Isn't the idea of gender as a social construct somewhat antithetical to the idea of sexual equality in the first place? how do you "feel like a man" if you reject society's traditional sexual roles in the first place?

I hope I'm not coming off as antagonistic, this is just a subject I really lack a clear understanding of. It's possible that at some point we will come to a cultural understanding of gender as something that is part of a very broad and complex spectrum like personality, and the whole gender issue will become a non-issue.

It's really complex and I don't have all the answers for that. I've asked many of the same questions myself.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Salty on August 21, 2012, 01:12:28 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on August 21, 2012, 01:02:45 AM
I'm not sure I understand the usefulness of "gender" as a concept. It seems superfluous, given that physical sex and sexual orientation (in all of its myriad forms) covers most of what people need to figure out about their own sexual identity.

I'm completely open to the idea that I only think this because I have a penis and feel like a man so it's not something that's ever been an issue for me personally. But from an outsider's perspective, it's sorta like "OK, you have these genitals and are attracted to this type of person" and what else do you really need? Isn't the idea of gender as a social construct somewhat antithetical to the idea of sexual equality in the first place? how do you "feel like a man" if you reject society's traditional sexual roles in the first place?

I hope I'm not coming off as antagonistic, this is just a subject I really lack a clear understanding of.

The reason why it's an issue is that so many people don't take that into consideration. It is a social construct that is imposed, for the most part, to illustrate a sharp divide so that property is distributed to one side of it. The five books of Moses, for better or worse, include detailed plans for asserting behavior and morality that, in the end, determines how property is passed on.

Imagine you've just started being able to hoard food because you've figured out how to cultivate it, and no longer have to go out into the wild and find it. Who gets your hoard? Why, your son naturally. But what if he doesn't cut the muster? What if he is a weakling who can't provide for a family in the way you have? What determines your offsprings ability to carry on your legacy?

Is it prowess in what are considered male acts (hunting, fishing, fighting off enemies)?

Eventually in our development there was a line that was drawn saying: Men are in charge. Men are on THIS side of the line. Women are on the other side. What about women who don't know which side to stand on? What about men who go over to the other side of that line?

Kai has posted that he was found of destroying gender roles.

But now that we are stuck with these gender roles I think, rather than do away with them (they are our heritage and unavoidable now) I think we merely need to celebrate and encourage diversity in this expression of self.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 21, 2012, 01:13:24 AM
Possibly someday our culture will come to view gender as a broad spectrum much like personality, and the issue of gender will become a non-issue. It seems unlikely though.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞ on August 21, 2012, 01:16:13 AM
Quote from: Alty on August 21, 2012, 01:12:28 AM
I think we merely need to celebrate and encourage diversity in this expression of self.

For me it boils down to that ^.

And if that means annihilating the concept of gender roles in your worldview or embracing an unusual mix of them, more power to you.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 21, 2012, 01:24:52 AM
Quote from: Net on August 21, 2012, 01:16:13 AM
Quote from: Alty on August 21, 2012, 01:12:28 AM
I think we merely need to celebrate and encourage diversity in this expression of self.

For me it boils down to that ^.

And if that means annihilating the concept of gender roles in your worldview or embracing an unusual mix of them, more power to you.

Yes. And I think a large part of that means accepting whatever it is that works for other people, and not trying to enforce our idea of "right" on their lives, as long as they aren't enforcing their idea of "right" on anyone else's.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 21, 2012, 01:50:23 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 21, 2012, 01:13:24 AM
Possibly someday our culture will come to view gender as a broad spectrum much like personality, and the issue of gender will become a non-issue. It seems unlikely though.
As someone who is nearly 100% in the closet on this, I agree. Monkeys don't deal well with things that don't belong.

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on August 21, 2012, 01:02:45 AM
I'm not sure I understand the usefulness of "gender" as a concept. It seems superfluous, given that physical sex and sexual orientation (in all of its myriad forms) covers most of what people need to figure out about their own sexual identity.

I'm completely open to the idea that I only think this because I have a penis and feel like a man so it's not something that's ever been an issue for me personally. But from an outsider's perspective, it's sorta like "OK, you have these genitals and are attracted to this type of person" and what else do you really need? Isn't the idea of gender as a social construct somewhat antithetical to the idea of sexual equality in the first place? how do you "feel like a man" if you reject society's traditional sexual roles in the first place?

I hope I'm not coming off as antagonistic, this is just a subject I really lack a clear understanding of.
No, you're good. :)

Gender and sexuality are not linked.

It has nothing to do with the fact that you have a dick (because there are transwomen who have not had genital surgery for whatever reason and therefore still own their own dick) and more to do with the fact that your identity (at a fundamental level) does not seem to have gone beyond the bounds of what society expects you to be.

I need to go play chauffeur for a bit, so I'll come back with hopefully the rest of my answer.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 21, 2012, 02:37:01 AM
Quote from: Sita on August 20, 2012, 12:05:22 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 20, 2012, 06:04:08 AM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 18, 2012, 11:17:31 AM
WAIT so... "cis" and "trans" are both in reference to "gender role"...

This entails no deconstruction of gender roles?

Shouldnt trans and cis both be thrown out the window?

ETA: like, i think the idea of "bigender" is a step forward; although it has a baseline assuming what roles are for each gender, it acknowledges the possibility of acting different roles in different situations!
They have nothing to do with gender roles. Gender roles are "women cook and clean, and men bring home the bacon and mow the lawn." "Cis" and "trans*" are over-arching umbrella terms regarding gender identity. They have nothing to do with societal expectations of a gender or how you live them out.
Also, "bigender" is a gender. They're people who identify as both a man and a woman at the same time (and there are more than two genders, Joh!).
I'm still not understanding this whole gender identity thing (when it doesn't pertain to if you have a penis or not).
If you don't come to the conclusion based on roles and what society expects of male or female, then how is it you feel like one or the other? How do you know that this feeling isn't just human?

Sita, I tried to google something to clarify it for myself as much as you, and I found this hash of test questions that asks everything from whether you like stuff like math and Star Trek to whether you get aroused fantasizing that you have a wang.

Not sure what to make of it. http://www.hemingways.org/GIDinfo/sage/test.htm
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 21, 2012, 03:05:12 AM
That is a fucking awful test.

TBH, it's really hard to explain. For me, it was an innate sense of not being what I was supposed to be. I don't know how it worked for other queers or how to explain it better than that.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞ on August 21, 2012, 03:07:08 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 21, 2012, 01:24:52 AM
Quote from: Net on August 21, 2012, 01:16:13 AM
Quote from: Alty on August 21, 2012, 01:12:28 AM
I think we merely need to celebrate and encourage diversity in this expression of self.

For me it boils down to that ^.

And if that means annihilating the concept of gender roles in your worldview or embracing an unusual mix of them, more power to you.

Yes. And I think a large part of that means accepting whatever it is that works for other people, and not trying to enforce our idea of "right" on their lives, as long as they aren't enforcing their idea of "right" on anyone else's.

Totally.

That actually ties in with why I think it's now imperative for me to not use gendered slurs at all—there is an insidiously coercive quality to them that is unspoken. As a straight cis male such words don't have a cluster of traumatic memories anchored to them that, statistically, would quietly get dredged up (not always to a conscious degree) had I been born with any other sexual identity.

Connotations can be very powerful and affect people outside of awareness. With repetition as value judgments, even if not explicitly intended or understood on a denotative level, gendered slurs have a normative effect. They implicitly reinforce the idea that if you're not a hetro male you're inferior and that it's okay for people to verbally abuse you, even if that's only immediately experienced as subtle emotional pain. Putting the impetus on a traumatized person to say, "Hey that bothers me quite a lot when you say things like that," seems like an exploitation of my privilege.

So yeah, I'm jumping the gendered slurs ship.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 21, 2012, 03:42:00 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 21, 2012, 03:05:12 AM
That is a fucking awful test.

Good, it's not just me.  :lulz:

QuoteTBH, it's really hard to explain. For me, it was an innate sense of not being what I was supposed to be. I don't know how it worked for other queers or how to explain it better than that.

Not trying to troll or act a dumbfuck here, but I'm totally confused at this point.

Sometimes when I watch old movies, I get off into a thing where I'm thinking how cool it would be to look like the female lead. Not a sexual thing, I just wish I could BE that for awhile, if I had those eyes, that shape, moved like that, etc. I feel like my shit's all fucked up...body image thing. Is it kind of like that, but opposite sexed?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pope Pixie Pickle on August 21, 2012, 03:50:28 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 21, 2012, 03:42:00 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 21, 2012, 03:05:12 AM
That is a fucking awful test.

Good, it's not just me.  :lulz:

QuoteTBH, it's really hard to explain. For me, it was an innate sense of not being what I was supposed to be. I don't know how it worked for other queers or how to explain it better than that.

Not trying to troll or act a dumbfuck here, but I'm totally confused at this point.

Sometimes when I watch old movies, I get off into a thing where I'm thinking how cool it would be to look like the female lead. Not a sexual thing, I just wish I could BE that for awhile, if I had those eyes, that shape, moved like that, etc. I feel like my shit's all fucked up...body image thing. Is it kind of like that, but opposite sexed?

Kind of, but think more on a daily basis and that you don't fit the usual gender roles that you were born with.

Awful test was awful, reckoned I was mentally androgynous, and a female to male crossdresser, (I just like wearing suits and ties, and trousers a lot..)and that I'm weird because bisexuals don't usually do that, but I socialise in a feminine manner.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 21, 2012, 03:53:16 AM
Quote from: Pixie on August 21, 2012, 03:50:28 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 21, 2012, 03:42:00 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 21, 2012, 03:05:12 AM
That is a fucking awful test.

Good, it's not just me.  :lulz:

QuoteTBH, it's really hard to explain. For me, it was an innate sense of not being what I was supposed to be. I don't know how it worked for other queers or how to explain it better than that.

Not trying to troll or act a dumbfuck here, but I'm totally confused at this point.

Sometimes when I watch old movies, I get off into a thing where I'm thinking how cool it would be to look like the female lead. Not a sexual thing, I just wish I could BE that for awhile, if I had those eyes, that shape, moved like that, etc. I feel like my shit's all fucked up...body image thing. Is it kind of like that, but opposite sexed?

Kind of, but think more on a daily basis and that you don't fit the usual gender roles that you were born with.

Awful test was awful, reckoned I was mentally androgynous, and a female to male crossdresser, (I just like wearing suits and ties, and trousers a lot..)and that I'm weird because bisexuals don't usually do that, but I socialise in a feminine manner.

A lot of the "feminine" responses to that test reminded be of "barbie".  :horrormirth:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 21, 2012, 04:01:47 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 21, 2012, 03:42:00 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 21, 2012, 03:05:12 AM
That is a fucking awful test.

Good, it's not just me.  :lulz:

QuoteTBH, it's really hard to explain. For me, it was an innate sense of not being what I was supposed to be. I don't know how it worked for other queers or how to explain it better than that.

Not trying to troll or act a dumbfuck here, but I'm totally confused at this point.

Sometimes when I watch old movies, I get off into a thing where I'm thinking how cool it would be to look like the female lead. Not a sexual thing, I just wish I could BE that for awhile, if I had those eyes, that shape, moved like that, etc. I feel like my shit's all fucked up...body image thing. Is it kind of like that, but opposite sexed?
I suppose it can be, if you're transsexual. Dysmorphia is a bit like that, except it involves feeling alienated from your body and THIS DOES NOT BELONG HERE (ime, anyway; ask ten queers what being queer is like and you'll get a hundred answers).

Quote from: Pixie on August 21, 2012, 03:50:28 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 21, 2012, 03:42:00 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 21, 2012, 03:05:12 AM
That is a fucking awful test.

Good, it's not just me.  :lulz:

QuoteTBH, it's really hard to explain. For me, it was an innate sense of not being what I was supposed to be. I don't know how it worked for other queers or how to explain it better than that.

Not trying to troll or act a dumbfuck here, but I'm totally confused at this point.

Sometimes when I watch old movies, I get off into a thing where I'm thinking how cool it would be to look like the female lead. Not a sexual thing, I just wish I could BE that for awhile, if I had those eyes, that shape, moved like that, etc. I feel like my shit's all fucked up...body image thing. Is it kind of like that, but opposite sexed?

Kind of, but think more on a daily basis and that you don't fit the usual gender roles that you were born with.

Awful test was awful, reckoned I was mentally androgynous, and a female to male crossdresser, (I just like wearing suits and ties, and trousers a lot..)and that I'm weird because bisexuals don't usually do that, but I socialise in a feminine manner.
^^ Yes. I do a lot of man-drag when I'm...masculine or whatever you want to call it. This end of the gender spectrum for me (which involves a whole set of different subconscious behaviors than the other end).
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pope Pixie Pickle on August 21, 2012, 04:31:01 AM
eh, I wear feminine cut clothes mostly, but I like a tie with a collared shirt sometimes. I sometimes wear a collared shirt and tie with a skirt.

I'm usually femme-y presentation mode more often than the occasional dudely attire just for the yuks, although day-to day I'm a jeans and tee-shirt or more femme top, with boots or converse, and hair plaited because IDK what the fuck to do with it.

I totally wanted to be a boy when I was 3 though, and was always a tomboy who hated skirts and dresses, I only got the dresses and skirts thing at about 14.

I'd never consider being seen outwardly as androgynous as something that would ever happen to me because BOOBS and mine aren't small, although I hated having large boobs as a teen and totally wanted a reduction, because unwanted attention and creepyness, as well as not being able to find pretty and comfy and cheap bras. It's only got worse since then on the buying bras front, although I'm not wanting a reduction anymore.

I'm pretty comfortable with my body these days, including being slightly overweight, but I'm a lifelong tomboy type who likes to rock a dress or a girl-suit with trousers (I don't feel comfortable in skirt suits.) and maybe a tie. I think I'd feel more comfortable in a skirt suit shirt and tie than a traditionally feminine office/interview get up.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 21, 2012, 04:38:08 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 21, 2012, 04:01:47 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 21, 2012, 03:42:00 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 21, 2012, 03:05:12 AM
That is a fucking awful test.

Good, it's not just me.  :lulz:

QuoteTBH, it's really hard to explain. For me, it was an innate sense of not being what I was supposed to be. I don't know how it worked for other queers or how to explain it better than that.

Not trying to troll or act a dumbfuck here, but I'm totally confused at this point.

Sometimes when I watch old movies, I get off into a thing where I'm thinking how cool it would be to look like the female lead. Not a sexual thing, I just wish I could BE that for awhile, if I had those eyes, that shape, moved like that, etc. I feel like my shit's all fucked up...body image thing. Is it kind of like that, but opposite sexed?
I suppose it can be, if you're transsexual. Dysmorphia is a bit like that, except it involves feeling alienated from your body and THIS DOES NOT BELONG HERE (ime, anyway; ask ten queers what being queer is like and you'll get a hundred answers).

Quote from: Pixie on August 21, 2012, 03:50:28 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 21, 2012, 03:42:00 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 21, 2012, 03:05:12 AM
That is a fucking awful test.

Good, it's not just me.  :lulz:

QuoteTBH, it's really hard to explain. For me, it was an innate sense of not being what I was supposed to be. I don't know how it worked for other queers or how to explain it better than that.

Not trying to troll or act a dumbfuck here, but I'm totally confused at this point.

Sometimes when I watch old movies, I get off into a thing where I'm thinking how cool it would be to look like the female lead. Not a sexual thing, I just wish I could BE that for awhile, if I had those eyes, that shape, moved like that, etc. I feel like my shit's all fucked up...body image thing. Is it kind of like that, but opposite sexed?

Kind of, but think more on a daily basis and that you don't fit the usual gender roles that you were born with.

Awful test was awful, reckoned I was mentally androgynous, and a female to male crossdresser, (I just like wearing suits and ties, and trousers a lot..)and that I'm weird because bisexuals don't usually do that, but I socialise in a feminine manner.
^^ Yes. I do a lot of man-drag when I'm...masculine or whatever you want to call it. This end of the gender spectrum for me (which involves a whole set of different subconscious behaviors than the other end).

Thanks, I think I'm starting to see it a little.  :)

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: East Coast Hustle on August 21, 2012, 05:46:57 AM
I admit, I still don't understand it, not that my understanding is necessary. But I appreciate everyone who has taken the time to try to explain it to me.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 21, 2012, 06:45:05 PM
OK...

So I think we've established that women in our culture get shafted. I think we've established that our current culture focuses on white males from an advertising/consumer perspective.

So, what can men do that would help women in this situation?

We've discussed considering the sort of swear words used.
We've discussed how we as individuals behave/treat women and not ignoring guys in our social group that act like asshats toward women.

What else can guys do to help the situation?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 21, 2012, 06:56:21 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 21, 2012, 03:05:12 AM
That is a fucking awful test.

TBH, it's really hard to explain. For me, it was an innate sense of not being what I was supposed to be. I don't know how it worked for other queers or how to explain it better than that.

:lulz: My guess is that it was written by a child.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Verbal Mike on August 21, 2012, 07:13:39 PM
ECH, I'm very far from being able to explain this from personal experience, but maybe that can actually be advantageous, assuming my (intellectual) understanding of the concept is similar to that of people who have had to deal with it more seriously... Basically, I think of it like this: society provides a set of templates, mainly focussed on behavior, which people are grouped into. People are subtly trained as children to (a) categorize people by these templates (in our culture, "boy/man" and "girl/woman") and (b) adjust their behavior to fit the template expected of them (in our culture, based purely on their junk.) While there may be some overlap between natural predispositions of male and female and expectations of boy/man and girl/woman, the gender templates are socially constructed and not really biologically anchored. And while heterosexual attraction patterns are part of the template, they seem to be autonomous, to some degree, from both biological sex and social gender. Hence, you can have a person whose junk made their parents train them to be a boy/man, but for some reason they identify with the girl/woman template more and don't suppress behavior that matches it – maybe to the degree that they don't see themselves, and don't act, like a boy/man. That person might still happen to be attracted to women, or they may be attracted to men; this isn't necessarily part of having a gender that doesn't match society's expectations. (I know a transguy who went through a sex-change operation but kept at least the womb, married a cis guy who apparently isn't attracted exclusively to women, and recently had his child.)

Hope this perspective helps somehow, and I heartily invite the LGBTQ and otherwise better-informed than myself to correct me where I'm wrong. Actually, I beg you to, since I really want to make sure I get this right.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 21, 2012, 07:17:36 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 21, 2012, 06:45:05 PM
OK...

So I think we've established that women in our culture get shafted. I think we've established that our current culture focuses on white males from an advertising/consumer perspective.

So, what can men do that would help women in this situation?

We've discussed considering the sort of swear words used.
We've discussed how we as individuals behave/treat women and not ignoring guys in our social group that act like asshats toward women.

What else can guys do to help the situation?
Listen. Don't try to take control of a conversation about women or women's experiences. If another guy tries to do either of the latter two, tell them to sit down and shut the fuck up (because your voice is louder than ours; why do you think guys get kudos when they say they're feminists?)

Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 21, 2012, 06:56:21 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 21, 2012, 03:05:12 AM
That is a fucking awful test.

TBH, it's really hard to explain. For me, it was an innate sense of not being what I was supposed to be. I don't know how it worked for other queers or how to explain it better than that.

:lulz: My guess is that it was written by a child.
:lulz: For sure.

Quote from: VERBL on August 21, 2012, 07:13:39 PM
ECH, I'm very far from being able to explain this from personal experience, but maybe that can actually be advantageous, assuming my (intellectual) understanding of the concept is similar to that of people who have had to deal with it more seriously... Basically, I think of it like this: society provides a set of templates, mainly focussed on behavior, which people are grouped into. People are subtly trained as children to (a) categorize people by these templates (in our culture, "boy/man" and "girl/woman") and (b) adjust their behavior to fit the template expected of them (in our culture, based purely on their junk.) While there may be some overlap between natural predispositions of male and female and expectations of boy/man and girl/woman, the gender templates are socially constructed and not really biologically anchored. And while heterosexual attraction patterns are part of the template, they seem to be autonomous, to some degree, from both biological sex and social gender. Hence, you can have a person whose junk made their parents train them to be a boy/man, but for some reason they identify with the girl/woman template more and don't suppress behavior that matches it – maybe to the degree that they don't see themselves, and don't act, like a boy/man. That person might still happen to be attracted to women, or they may be attracted to men; this isn't necessarily part of having a gender that doesn't match society's expectations. (I know a transguy who went through a sex-change operation but kept at least the womb, married a cis guy who apparently isn't attracted exclusively to women, and recently had his child.)

Hope this perspective helps somehow, and I heartily invite the LGBTQ and otherwise better-informed than myself to correct me where I'm wrong. Actually, I beg you to, since I really want to make sure I get this right.
That sounds about right, actually.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: LMNO on August 21, 2012, 07:22:08 PM
Incidentally, at what point did Transvestites drop off of the "trans*" label?

That is, people like Ed Wood and Eddie Izzard--  Heterosexual (in this case, white also) male-identifying males who have a need to wear women's clothes. 

To be more blunt, straight guys in drag who aren't trying to be women.  Calling them "cishetero" doesn't seem to apply... however: They identify with their biological gender, and are attracted to the opposite gender.

WHAT DO?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Salty on August 21, 2012, 07:26:32 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 21, 2012, 07:17:36 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 21, 2012, 06:45:05 PM
OK...

So I think we've established that women in our culture get shafted. I think we've established that our current culture focuses on white males from an advertising/consumer perspective.

So, what can men do that would help women in this situation?

We've discussed considering the sort of swear words used.
We've discussed how we as individuals behave/treat women and not ignoring guys in our social group that act like asshats toward women.

What else can guys do to help the situation?
Listen. Don't try to take control of a conversation about women or women's experiences. If another guy tries to do either of the latter two, tell them to sit down and shut the fuck up (because your voice is louder than ours; why do you think guys get kudos when they say they're feminists?)

You will have to forgive my ignorance, but I thought Rat was just asking questions to further the conversation. How is he trying to take control. I feel theres a large aspect to this whole thing I'm just not getting.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 21, 2012, 07:27:28 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 21, 2012, 07:22:08 PM
Incidentally, at what point did Transvestites drop off of the "trans*" label?

That is, people like Ed Wood and Eddie Izzard--  Heterosexual (in this case, white also) male-identifying males who have a need to wear women's clothes. 

To be more blunt, straight guys in drag who aren't trying to be women.  Calling them "cishetero" doesn't seem to apply... however: They identify with their biological gender, and are attracted to the opposite gender.

WHAT DO?

:lulz: I think that's when you have a "fuck it!" moment.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 21, 2012, 07:28:34 PM
Also, this is what that stupid fucking test had to say about me (I do not recommend wasting your time taking it)

QuoteS.A.G.E. Test Results

Your Raw Score is: -640, which indicates that overall you are Masculine

Your appearance is Androgynous

Your brain processes are mostly that of a Male person.

You appear to socialize in a masculine manner.

You believe you have mild conflicts about your gender identity.

You indicated your were born Female.

ANALYSIS:
Female to Male Transsexual, who is a serious candidate for Gender Reassignment Surgery

Riiiight.  :lol:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 21, 2012, 07:30:14 PM
I don't know that I would have ever included transvestites under the trans* label. It's really short for transgender, which comes in a lot of different flavors because it's about transcending the gender binary (transsexuals, genderqueers etc. although there's a lot of intracommunity discussion as to whether people who aren't actually transsexuals should be included as trans*. I personally feel uncomfortable claiming "trans*" because I primarily associate it with transsexuals, which I am not, and transsexuals fall into a whole different category than people like me).
If you are a male-assigned-a-birth man, who happens to cross dress (regardless of who you're attracted to), then I wouldn't call you trans*.


Quote from: Alty on August 21, 2012, 07:26:32 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 21, 2012, 07:17:36 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 21, 2012, 06:45:05 PM
OK...

So I think we've established that women in our culture get shafted. I think we've established that our current culture focuses on white males from an advertising/consumer perspective.

So, what can men do that would help women in this situation?

We've discussed considering the sort of swear words used.
We've discussed how we as individuals behave/treat women and not ignoring guys in our social group that act like asshats toward women.

What else can guys do to help the situation?
Listen. Don't try to take control of a conversation about women or women's experiences. If another guy tries to do either of the latter two, tell them to sit down and shut the fuck up (because your voice is louder than ours; why do you think guys get kudos when they say they're feminists?)

You will have to forgive my ignorance, but I thought Rat was just asking questions to further the conversation. How is he trying to take control. I feel theres a large aspect to this whole thing I'm just not getting.
:? Rat asked "what do we do here besides not be assholes?". That was my advice (eta) and he's not trying to take over the discussion.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Salty on August 21, 2012, 07:37:22 PM
Oh! Ha! I get it now. Thanks.

These threads make me go  :?

I LIKE IT.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Dark Monk on August 21, 2012, 08:07:51 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 21, 2012, 02:37:01 AM
Quote from: Sita on August 20, 2012, 12:05:22 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 20, 2012, 06:04:08 AM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 18, 2012, 11:17:31 AM
WAIT so... "cis" and "trans" are both in reference to "gender role"...

This entails no deconstruction of gender roles?

Shouldnt trans and cis both be thrown out the window?

ETA: like, i think the idea of "bigender" is a step forward; although it has a baseline assuming what roles are for each gender, it acknowledges the possibility of acting different roles in different situations!
They have nothing to do with gender roles. Gender roles are "women cook and clean, and men bring home the bacon and mow the lawn." "Cis" and "trans*" are over-arching umbrella terms regarding gender identity. They have nothing to do with societal expectations of a gender or how you live them out.
Also, "bigender" is a gender. They're people who identify as both a man and a woman at the same time (and there are more than two genders, Joh!).
I'm still not understanding this whole gender identity thing (when it doesn't pertain to if you have a penis or not).
If you don't come to the conclusion based on roles and what society expects of male or female, then how is it you feel like one or the other? How do you know that this feeling isn't just human?

Sita, I tried to google something to clarify it for myself as much as you, and I found this hash of test questions that asks everything from whether you like stuff like math and Star Trek to whether you get aroused fantasizing that you have a wang.

Not sure what to make of it. http://www.hemingways.org/GIDinfo/sage/test.htm

This was fun! I was extremely bored and the pictures didn't work for the image part, but it killed time.

Your Raw Score is: 430, which indicates that overall you are Androgynous

Your appearance is Masculine

Your brain processes are mostly that of a Female person.

You appear to socialize in a androgynous manner.

You believe you have mild conflicts about your gender identity.

You indicated your were born Male.

ANALYSIS:
Male to Female Crossdresser
NOTES:

    Your Answers indicate your psychological state has likely prevailed since you were quite young.
    You are in a statistical minority as a anallophilic crossdresser. Most crossdressers are heterosexual. Your motivation for crossdressing may be driven by the undirected nature of your sexuality, as a way to more fully explore the Female gender role.

The amount of grammatical error was amazing.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Salty on August 21, 2012, 08:34:31 PM
So in regard to the, uh, OP...

I just got rejected for a massage that my buddy passed my way. I called the dude and he eventually stammered that they were looking for female therapists. What's troubling about this isn't sexism that prevents me from making sweet sweet money. It's that he could barely talk to me. He sounded like a lost puppy. He sounded like a really sheltered frat boy type who wandered into a lively gay bar by mistake. He was in fact a little terrified to clarify this situation.

I've encountered this before. There is an element of intense fear to be in the wrong place with regard to ones sex. I think this has directly to do with the sharp lines that seeks to divide what is male and what is female. This guys was so frightened to find himself potentially in the wrong side of that line. It causes confusion and lack of empathy and understanding.

That's how patriarchy hurts men. It forces us all to live by a certain standard. Even when it is absurd.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 21, 2012, 08:35:40 PM
Quote from: Alty on August 21, 2012, 08:34:31 PM
So in regard to the, uh, OP...

I just got rejected for a massage that my buddy passed my way. I called the dude and he eventually stammered that they were looking for female therapists. What's troubling about this isn't sexism that prevents me from making sweet sweet money. It's that he could barely talk to me. He sounded like a lost puppy. He sounded like a really sheltered frat boy type who wandered into a lively gay bar by mistake. He was in fact a little terrified to clarify this situation.

I've encountered this before. There is an element of intense fear to be in the wrong place with regard to ones sex. I think this has directly to do with the sharp lines that seeks to divide what is male and what is female. This guys was so frightened to find himself potentially in the wrong side of that line. It causes confusion and lack of empathy and understanding.

That's how patriarchy hurts men. It forces us all to live by a certain standard. Even when it is absurd.
Yes. Which is very sad.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Dark Monk on August 21, 2012, 08:37:17 PM
Quote from: Alty on August 21, 2012, 08:34:31 PM
So in regard to the, uh, OP...

I just got rejected for a massage that my buddy passed my way. I called the dude and he eventually stammered that they were looking for female therapists. What's troubling about this isn't sexism that prevents me from making sweet sweet money. It's that he could barely talk to me. He sounded like a lost puppy. He sounded like a really sheltered frat boy type who wandered into a lively gay bar by mistake. He was in fact a little terrified to clarify this situation.

I've encountered this before. There is an element of intense fear to be in the wrong place with regard to ones sex. I think this has directly to do with the sharp lines that seeks to divide what is male and what is female. This guys was so frightened to find himself potentially in the wrong side of that line. It causes confusion and lack of empathy and understanding.

That's how patriarchy hurts men. It forces us all to live by a certain standard. Even when it is absurd.

Just to clarify: A dude gave you a free massage, and the dude that was supposed to give the massage didn't want to give it to you because you're a dude?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: LMNO on August 21, 2012, 08:38:18 PM
Dude's a masseuse who got a referral from a dude to massage a dude, who acted like a total dude.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Dark Monk on August 21, 2012, 08:39:35 PM
Ahhh! Makes sense!
A serious shame really.

TDM: Apologies for maybe oversimplifying but it makes life more fun and clear from time to time.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 21, 2012, 08:41:39 PM
Quote from: Alty on August 21, 2012, 08:34:31 PM
So in regard to the, uh, OP...

I just got rejected for a massage that my buddy passed my way. I called the dude and he eventually stammered that they were looking for female therapists. What's troubling about this isn't sexism that prevents me from making sweet sweet money. It's that he could barely talk to me. He sounded like a lost puppy. He sounded like a really sheltered frat boy type who wandered into a lively gay bar by mistake. He was in fact a little terrified to clarify this situation.

I've encountered this before. There is an element of intense fear to be in the wrong place with regard to ones sex. I think this has directly to do with the sharp lines that seeks to divide what is male and what is female. This guys was so frightened to find himself potentially in the wrong side of that line. It causes confusion and lack of empathy and understanding.

That's how patriarchy hurts men. It forces us all to live by a certain standard. Even when it is absurd.

That sucks. It sucks for you, and it sucks more... way more... for him. Patriarchy hurts men every time a man is afraid to give his buddy a hug, every time a man doesn't tell his friends he's hurting because he doesn't want to seem weak, every time a man doesn't get the care he needs because he's worried, even subconsciously, about seeming too "gay". It hurts little boys who want to play with dolls instead of guns, and it hurts little boys who are into sports and "boy stuff" and suppress their feelings instead of being open with them. Every mom who has a son knows that there may very well be a time... hopefully one that will pass... that their little boy will stop being cuddly and stop talking to them about their personal stuff because it's not cool, in this society, for a boy to be close to their mom. "Mama's boy" is an insult, in this society.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Salty on August 21, 2012, 08:45:00 PM
Nigel: yep.

LMNO: lol

Alty: You need to proofreads your posts so you don'ts sounds so much like Toki.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Dark Monk on August 21, 2012, 08:58:34 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 21, 2012, 08:41:39 PM
Quote from: Alty on August 21, 2012, 08:34:31 PM
So in regard to the, uh, OP...

I just got rejected for a massage that my buddy passed my way. I called the dude and he eventually stammered that they were looking for female therapists. What's troubling about this isn't sexism that prevents me from making sweet sweet money. It's that he could barely talk to me. He sounded like a lost puppy. He sounded like a really sheltered frat boy type who wandered into a lively gay bar by mistake. He was in fact a little terrified to clarify this situation.

I've encountered this before. There is an element of intense fear to be in the wrong place with regard to ones sex. I think this has directly to do with the sharp lines that seeks to divide what is male and what is female. This guys was so frightened to find himself potentially in the wrong side of that line. It causes confusion and lack of empathy and understanding.

That's how patriarchy hurts men. It forces us all to live by a certain standard. Even when it is absurd.

That sucks. It sucks for you, and it sucks more... way more... for him. Patriarchy hurts men every time a man is afraid to give his buddy a hug, every time a man doesn't tell his friends he's hurting because he doesn't want to seem weak, every time a man doesn't get the care he needs because he's worried, even subconsciously, about seeming too "gay". It hurts little boys who want to play with dolls instead of guns, and it hurts little boys who are into sports and "boy stuff" and suppress their feelings instead of being open with them. Every mom who has a son knows that there may very well be a time... hopefully one that will pass... that their little boy will stop being cuddly and stop talking to them about their personal stuff because it's not cool, in this society, for a boy to be close to their mom. "Mama's boy" is an insult, in this society.

I wanted to address this in particular. This is something that has many reasons for it, I think as a child to call someone and mock them for being a Mama's Boy is to mock them for being childish and not growing up. It's another expectation from a different area I believe. It's almost, and these are COMPLETELY situational and conditional, kids trying to be independent from their parents and mocking those who are not. Comes with the territory of "Cut the Umbilical Cord". Odd that it is seen as a weakness even in small children to other children, which almost brings up the Breakfast Club argument of "WIN YOU HAVE TO WIN OR YOU'RE NOTHING!" It hurts, as someone who has experienced it when I was younger even when it was voiced to a mother who couldn't give less of a shit.

Adults however, it's kind of depressing really when someone feels they need to talk to someone and their mother who has been there their whole life and is the only stable one should be ridiculed.

I have mixed feelings about this, because at a certain age striving for independence is a good thing for development and solving issues on one's own for the most part and only going back for dire need is in itself growth. What that particular age is would be again, varied from situation to situation. "Momma I stubbed my toe kiss it" at 16 is an issue. However "Momma I can't pay for this all by myself, college is expensive can I borrow some money?" is different.

I know this is a bit of a derailment but would be a good topic to discuss on. As a new father lately I have been running what my parents have done around in my head, what others have done, what I think I would do and if it's an emulation I don't agree with. On top of beginning college this week, I again fear I will have no time.

Apologies for derailment and out of context.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 21, 2012, 08:59:38 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 21, 2012, 07:28:34 PM
Also, this is what that stupid fucking test had to say about me (I do not recommend wasting your time taking it)

QuoteS.A.G.E. Test Results

Your Raw Score is: -640, which indicates that overall you are Masculine

Your appearance is Androgynous

Your brain processes are mostly that of a Male person.

You appear to socialize in a masculine manner.

You believe you have mild conflicts about your gender identity.

You indicated your were born Female.

ANALYSIS:
Female to Male Transsexual, who is a serious candidate for Gender Reassignment Surgery

Riiiight.  :lol:

WHAT. THE. FUCK???

OK, I had to take it.

Quote from: Al Falfa, Gendar Expirt
S.A.G.E. Test Results

Your Raw Score is: 485, which indicates that overall you are Androgynous

Your appearance is Feminine

Your brain processes are mostly that of a Androgynous person.

You appear to socialize in a feminine manner.

You believe you have normal doubts about your gender identity.

You indicated your were born Female.

ANALYSIS:
Normal doubts/curiosities about life as the opposite sex, but you generally accept your physical sex and gender identity.
NOTES:
•Your Answers indicate your psychological state has likely prevailed since you were quite young.

Androgynous brain trapped in a grrl. I think that was because I didn't go "OMG MATH AND TOOLS NO WAI" :lol:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: EK WAFFLR on August 21, 2012, 09:03:59 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 21, 2012, 08:59:38 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 21, 2012, 07:28:34 PM
Also, this is what that stupid fucking test had to say about me (I do not recommend wasting your time taking it)

QuoteS.A.G.E. Test Results

Your Raw Score is: -640, which indicates that overall you are Masculine

Your appearance is Androgynous

Your brain processes are mostly that of a Male person.

You appear to socialize in a masculine manner.

You believe you have mild conflicts about your gender identity.

You indicated your were born Female.

ANALYSIS:
Female to Male Transsexual, who is a serious candidate for Gender Reassignment Surgery

Riiiight.  :lol:

WHAT. THE. FUCK???

OK, I had to take it.

Quote from: Al Falfa, Gendar Expirt
S.A.G.E. Test Results

Your Raw Score is: 485, which indicates that overall you are Androgynous

Your appearance is Feminine

Your brain processes are mostly that of a Androgynous person.

You appear to socialize in a feminine manner.

You believe you have normal doubts about your gender identity.

You indicated your were born Female.

ANALYSIS:
Normal doubts/curiosities about life as the opposite sex, but you generally accept your physical sex and gender identity.
NOTES:
•Your Answers indicate your psychological state has likely prevailed since you were quite young.

Androgynous brain trapped in a grrl. I think that was because I didn't go "OMG MATH AND TOOLS NO WAI" :lol:


QuoteYour Raw Score is: -445, which indicates that overall you are Androgynous

Your appearance is Quite Masculine

Your brain processes are mostly that of a Androgynous person.

You appear to socialize in a androgynous manner.

You believe you have normal doubts about your gender identity.

You indicated your were born Male.

ANALYSIS:
Male to Female Crossdresser
NOTES:

You are in a statistical minority as a anallophilic crossdresser. Most crossdressers are heterosexual. Your motivation for crossdressing may be driven by the undirected nature of your sexuality, as a way to more fully explore the Female gender role.

See, I don't care about cars, huntin' or sports. I must be a crossdresser.  :lulz:



....wait, what?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 21, 2012, 09:06:12 PM
TEH SKIRT WUZ NOT JOAK
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 21, 2012, 09:11:21 PM
Quote from: The Dark Monk on August 21, 2012, 08:58:34 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 21, 2012, 08:41:39 PM
Quote from: Alty on August 21, 2012, 08:34:31 PM
So in regard to the, uh, OP...

I just got rejected for a massage that my buddy passed my way. I called the dude and he eventually stammered that they were looking for female therapists. What's troubling about this isn't sexism that prevents me from making sweet sweet money. It's that he could barely talk to me. He sounded like a lost puppy. He sounded like a really sheltered frat boy type who wandered into a lively gay bar by mistake. He was in fact a little terrified to clarify this situation.

I've encountered this before. There is an element of intense fear to be in the wrong place with regard to ones sex. I think this has directly to do with the sharp lines that seeks to divide what is male and what is female. This guys was so frightened to find himself potentially in the wrong side of that line. It causes confusion and lack of empathy and understanding.

That's how patriarchy hurts men. It forces us all to live by a certain standard. Even when it is absurd.

That sucks. It sucks for you, and it sucks more... way more... for him. Patriarchy hurts men every time a man is afraid to give his buddy a hug, every time a man doesn't tell his friends he's hurting because he doesn't want to seem weak, every time a man doesn't get the care he needs because he's worried, even subconsciously, about seeming too "gay". It hurts little boys who want to play with dolls instead of guns, and it hurts little boys who are into sports and "boy stuff" and suppress their feelings instead of being open with them. Every mom who has a son knows that there may very well be a time... hopefully one that will pass... that their little boy will stop being cuddly and stop talking to them about their personal stuff because it's not cool, in this society, for a boy to be close to their mom. "Mama's boy" is an insult, in this society.

I wanted to address this in particular. This is something that has many reasons for it, I think as a child to call someone and mock them for being a Mama's Boy is to mock them for being childish and not growing up. It's another expectation from a different area I believe. It's almost, and these are COMPLETELY situational and conditional, kids trying to be independent from their parents and mocking those who are not. Comes with the territory of "Cut the Umbilical Cord". Odd that it is seen as a weakness even in small children to other children, which almost brings up the Breakfast Club argument of "WIN YOU HAVE TO WIN OR YOU'RE NOTHING!" It hurts, as someone who has experienced it when I was younger even when it was voiced to a mother who couldn't give less of a shit.

Adults however, it's kind of depressing really when someone feels they need to talk to someone and their mother who has been there their whole life and is the only stable one should be ridiculed.

I have mixed feelings about this, because at a certain age striving for independence is a good thing for development and solving issues on one's own for the most part and only going back for dire need is in itself growth. What that particular age is would be again, varied from situation to situation. "Momma I stubbed my toe kiss it" at 16 is an issue. However "Momma I can't pay for this all by myself, college is expensive can I borrow some money?" is different.

I know this is a bit of a derailment but would be a good topic to discuss on. As a new father lately I have been running what my parents have done around in my head, what others have done, what I think I would do and if it's an emulation I don't agree with. On top of beginning college this week, I again fear I will have no time.

Apologies for derailment and out of context.

Yes, it totally has that connotation, and you can really see the contrast with its female corollary; in this society the term "Daddy's girl" doesn't have the same stigma because it's OK for girls and women to be childlike and dependent. That's changing, fortunately, but it's still true. At the same time, the not-specifically-gendered but typically used for males term "chip off the old block" has highly positive connotations, because it implies that the boy is like his father.

It's really sad when a boy feels like he can't be close with his mom for fear of being a mama's boy, and can't have deeply personal conversations with his father or friends for fear of being seen as weak. A pussy.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 21, 2012, 09:12:47 PM
 :lulz: You guys' test results are hilarious.

I love that you and I have an "androgynous" appearance, Stella. That's fucking ripe. :lol:

Also, apparently I'm a dude.

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Johnny on August 21, 2012, 09:15:21 PM
TEST, HERE I COME, FOR THE LULZ!

ETA: 160 questions FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: EK WAFFLR on August 21, 2012, 09:16:51 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 21, 2012, 09:06:12 PM
TEH SKIRT WUZ NOT JOAK

MA SKIRT IS TEH SRS
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 21, 2012, 09:25:09 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 21, 2012, 09:12:47 PM
:lulz: You guys' test results are hilarious.

I love that you and I have an "androgynous" appearance, Stella. That's fucking ripe. :lol:

Also, apparently I'm a dude.

Thank Bob for that test or WE MIGHT NEVER HAVE KNOWN.

Going out to buy BVD's nao.  :lol:

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 21, 2012, 09:25:13 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 21, 2012, 09:15:21 PM
TEST, HERE I COME, FOR THE LULZ!

ETA: 160 questions FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

DO IT FOR SCIENCE!
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 21, 2012, 09:37:56 PM
I like how bipolarism is somehow a determinant in which gender it categorizes you. :lulz:

QuoteYour Raw Score is: 1120, which indicates that overall you are Very Feminine

Your appearance is Quite Female

Your brain processes are mostly that of a Androgynous person.

You appear to socialize in a androgynous manner.

You believe you have major conflicts about your gender identity.

You indicated your were born Female.

ANALYSIS:
Female to Male Crossdresser
NOTES:

    You are in a statistical minority as a bisexual crossdresser. Most crossdressers are heterosexual. Your motivation for crossdressing may be driven by the binary nature of your sexuality, as a way to more fully explore the Male gender role.
What.
I'm presuming the "very feminine" thing comes from the fact that I look about as physically female as it possible to be.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Sita on August 21, 2012, 10:53:11 PM
Seeing everyone elses results I gave in and took the test (damn that took a long time!)
Quote355, which indicates that overall you are Androgynous

Your appearance is Androgynous

Your brain processes are mostly that of a Male person.

You appear to socialize in a androgynous manner.

You believe you have mild conflicts about your gender identity.

You indicated your were born Female.

ANALYSIS:
Female to Male Transsexual in doubt about your ability to successfully transition.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on August 21, 2012, 10:59:22 PM
Just out of interest has there ever been a multiple choice personality test that wasn't complete bullshit? Can't help thinking there might have been but I'm fucked if I can think of any
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 21, 2012, 11:03:40 PM
Probably not, although this one is extra hilariously bad.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Salty on August 21, 2012, 11:04:46 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 21, 2012, 10:59:22 PM
Just out of interest has there ever been a multiple choice personality test that wasn't complete bullshit? Can't help thinking there might have been but I'm fucked if I can think of any

Yeah, even those Meyers-Briggs tests are pretty much shit as far as I can see. And they're supposed to be something like scientific.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Faust on August 21, 2012, 11:10:31 PM
hrmmmm.....

Quote
S.A.G.E. Test Results

Your Raw Score is: 0, which indicates that overall you are Androgynous

Your appearance is Androgynous

Your brain processes are mostly that of a Androgynous person.

You appear to socialize in a androgynous manner.

You believe you have mild conflicts about your gender identity.

You indicated your were born Male.

ANALYSIS:
Male to Female Crossdresser

The only answer I ticked was Male and left everything else blank. I didn't think I was a cross dresser but I guess I better do as the test says. I hope bra's aren't expensive.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 21, 2012, 11:12:33 PM
:lulz: You're out of luck, there.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Placid Dingo on August 21, 2012, 11:15:19 PM
Quote from: Alty on August 21, 2012, 11:04:46 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 21, 2012, 10:59:22 PM
Just out of interest has there ever been a multiple choice personality test that wasn't complete bullshit? Can't help thinking there might have been but I'm fucked if I can think of any

Yeah, even those Meyers-Briggs tests are pretty much shit as far as I can see. And they're supposed to be something like scientific.

They can be good. Helped me a lot. But also, there's a few things that go on. One is to do it proberly, you need to understand the eight letters and be able to disagree with the written test where appropriate. Also every person is in some way atypical of their personality type.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Salty on August 21, 2012, 11:18:57 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 21, 2012, 11:15:19 PM
Quote from: Alty on August 21, 2012, 11:04:46 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 21, 2012, 10:59:22 PM
Just out of interest has there ever been a multiple choice personality test that wasn't complete bullshit? Can't help thinking there might have been but I'm fucked if I can think of any

Yeah, even those Meyers-Briggs tests are pretty much shit as far as I can see. And they're supposed to be something like scientific.

They can be good. Helped me a lot. But also, there's a few things that go on. One is to do it proberly, you need to understand the eight letters and be able to disagree with the written test where appropriate. Also every person is in some way atypical of their personality type.

I can see how they can assist with introspection, perhaps assist with seeing parts of your personality that are unclear to you. I can not see how to apply that IRL. Much like Astrology.

I used to be INFP, took that test shortly after I started posting here. I took it again a few months back and turned out differently. I can't remember what all changed, but I know the I turned into an E. What this tells me is that external change can contribute to your personality in a positive way. But them why not focus on the sources of external change?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 21, 2012, 11:30:29 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 21, 2012, 11:15:19 PM
Quote from: Alty on August 21, 2012, 11:04:46 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 21, 2012, 10:59:22 PM
Just out of interest has there ever been a multiple choice personality test that wasn't complete bullshit? Can't help thinking there might have been but I'm fucked if I can think of any

Yeah, even those Meyers-Briggs tests are pretty much shit as far as I can see. And they're supposed to be something like scientific.

They can be good. Helped me a lot. But also, there's a few things that go on. One is to do it proberly, you need to understand the eight letters and be able to disagree with the written test where appropriate. Also every person is in some way atypical of their personality type.

Seems to me that it's just another filing system for people.

I'm a SPAG.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Placid Dingo on August 22, 2012, 12:13:22 AM
Quote from: Alty on August 21, 2012, 11:18:57 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 21, 2012, 11:15:19 PM
Quote from: Alty on August 21, 2012, 11:04:46 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 21, 2012, 10:59:22 PM
Just out of interest has there ever been a multiple choice personality test that wasn't complete bullshit? Can't help thinking there might have been but I'm fucked if I can think of any

Yeah, even those Meyers-Briggs tests are pretty much shit as far as I can see. And they're supposed to be something like scientific.

They can be good. Helped me a lot. But also, there's a few things that go on. One is to do it proberly, you need to understand the eight letters and be able to disagree with the written test where appropriate. Also every person is in some way atypical of their personality type.

I can see how they can assist with introspection, perhaps assist with seeing parts of your personality that are unclear to you. I can not see how to apply that IRL. Much like Astrology.

I used to be INFP, took that test shortly after I started posting here. I took it again a few months back and turned out differently. I can't remember what all changed, but I know the I turned into an E. What this tells me is that external change can contribute to your personality in a positive way. But them why not focus on the sources of external change?

So, two practical aspects for me _

I stress less about a sense of feeling inadequate. My personality type lends itself to that sense of not being good enough. Learning that helped a lot.

I make lists. NTJs make lists. NTPs dont. Thats why NTJs get shit done and NTPs often don't.

As a result I test now as J (judging, making decisions) not P (Perceiving wait and see style). Thats what can confuse results as I understand it; to find your type you have to find what you are inclined towards. That often means making judgement calls on the results. People always change, but I think you will rarely see major changes against someones intuitive inclinations. I'm organised and planning now, but I'm still comfortable with no plans in a way that a J type rarely is.

Edit: to be clear, your type should represent your inclination but the questions are about behaviour. If your behaviour and inclination dont totally match (which is typical enough, an introvert pushing themselves to socialise might test as extracted, a thinker making effort to get in touch with their emotional intuition might test as feeling) then your results might not reflect your true intuition.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞ on August 22, 2012, 04:06:58 AM
I'm pretty sure that test Stella linked to is a troll aimed squarely at people's fear of crossdressers and transsexuals.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 22, 2012, 04:17:02 AM
Or written by the kind of guy who fears Alty's massagery. Not for any reasons you ought to be afraid of Alty massagery (I hope he at least got a good deal on my kidney) because letting a man touch you is ghey. Or will give you teh ghey. I'm never entirely certain.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 22, 2012, 06:21:00 AM
Right, here goes. FTR, I am a very femme-presenting cis-woman. Also what the fuck were these questions.

QuoteYour Raw Score is: 415, which indicates that overall you are Androgynous

Your appearance is Feminine

Your brain processes are mostly that of a Androgynous person.

You appear to socialize in a feminine manner.

You believe you have mild conflicts about your gender identity.

You indicated your were born Female.

ANALYSIS:
Female to Male Crossdresser
NOTES:
  • Your Answers indicate your psychological state has likely prevailed since you were quite young.
  • You are in a statistical minority as a bisexual crossdresser. Most crossdressers are heterosexual. Your motivation for crossdressing may be driven by the binary nature of your sexuality, as a way to more fully explore the Male gender role.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 22, 2012, 06:21:22 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 21, 2012, 08:41:39 PM
Quote from: Alty on August 21, 2012, 08:34:31 PM
So in regard to the, uh, OP...

I just got rejected for a massage that my buddy passed my way. I called the dude and he eventually stammered that they were looking for female therapists. What's troubling about this isn't sexism that prevents me from making sweet sweet money. It's that he could barely talk to me. He sounded like a lost puppy. He sounded like a really sheltered frat boy type who wandered into a lively gay bar by mistake. He was in fact a little terrified to clarify this situation.

I've encountered this before. There is an element of intense fear to be in the wrong place with regard to ones sex. I think this has directly to do with the sharp lines that seeks to divide what is male and what is female. This guys was so frightened to find himself potentially in the wrong side of that line. It causes confusion and lack of empathy and understanding.

That's how patriarchy hurts men. It forces us all to live by a certain standard. Even when it is absurd.
That sucks. It sucks for you, and it sucks more... way more... for him. Patriarchy hurts men every time a man is afraid to give his buddy a hug, every time a man doesn't tell his friends he's hurting because he doesn't want to seem weak, every time a man doesn't get the care he needs because he's worried, even subconsciously, about seeming too "gay". It hurts little boys who want to play with dolls instead of guns, and it hurts little boys who are into sports and "boy stuff" and suppress their feelings instead of being open with them. Every mom who has a son knows that there may very well be a time... hopefully one that will pass... that their little boy will stop being cuddly and stop talking to them about their personal stuff because it's not cool, in this society, for a boy to be close to their mom. "Mama's boy" is an insult, in this society.

This is such a terrifying and depressing prospect, I think. NO YUO CANNOT HAZ FEELINGS


Monkey came home and started chasing the dogs. When they fled, he said "Don't be so wussy!" I died a little inside, and chastised him a bit, but how do you combat something that is so thick on tgw ground it soaks in so early as that?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 22, 2012, 07:15:27 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 22, 2012, 06:21:22 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 21, 2012, 08:41:39 PM
Quote from: Alty on August 21, 2012, 08:34:31 PM
So in regard to the, uh, OP...

I just got rejected for a massage that my buddy passed my way. I called the dude and he eventually stammered that they were looking for female therapists. What's troubling about this isn't sexism that prevents me from making sweet sweet money. It's that he could barely talk to me. He sounded like a lost puppy. He sounded like a really sheltered frat boy type who wandered into a lively gay bar by mistake. He was in fact a little terrified to clarify this situation.

I've encountered this before. There is an element of intense fear to be in the wrong place with regard to ones sex. I think this has directly to do with the sharp lines that seeks to divide what is male and what is female. This guys was so frightened to find himself potentially in the wrong side of that line. It causes confusion and lack of empathy and understanding.

That's how patriarchy hurts men. It forces us all to live by a certain standard. Even when it is absurd.
That sucks. It sucks for you, and it sucks more... way more... for him. Patriarchy hurts men every time a man is afraid to give his buddy a hug, every time a man doesn't tell his friends he's hurting because he doesn't want to seem weak, every time a man doesn't get the care he needs because he's worried, even subconsciously, about seeming too "gay". It hurts little boys who want to play with dolls instead of guns, and it hurts little boys who are into sports and "boy stuff" and suppress their feelings instead of being open with them. Every mom who has a son knows that there may very well be a time... hopefully one that will pass... that their little boy will stop being cuddly and stop talking to them about their personal stuff because it's not cool, in this society, for a boy to be close to their mom. "Mama's boy" is an insult, in this society.

This is such a terrifying and depressing prospect, I think. NO YUO CANNOT HAZ FEELINGS


Monkey came home and started chasing the dogs. When they fled, he said "Don't be so wussy!" I died a little inside, and chastised him a bit, but how do you combat something that is so thick on tgw ground it soaks in so early as that?

Aw.

:(
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 22, 2012, 07:27:28 AM
Quote from: Net on August 22, 2012, 04:06:58 AM
I'm pretty sure that test Stella linked to is a troll aimed squarely at people's fear of crossdressers and transsexuals.

:lulz: Gotta be.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Johnny on August 22, 2012, 12:24:16 PM

Wow this test is actually kind of sexist and assumes that your body tells who you are (brow to hairline measurement? really?)
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Johnny on August 22, 2012, 01:04:11 PM


QuoteYour Raw Score is: -420, which indicates that overall you are Androgynous

Your appearance is Quite Masculine

Your brain processes are mostly that of a Androgynous person.

You appear to socialize in a androgynous manner.

You believe you have mild conflicts about your gender identity.

You indicated your were born Male.

ANALYSIS:
Male to Female Crossdresser
NOTES:

    Your answers indicate you have altered your physical appearance to look like the opposite sex.
    You are in a statistical minority as a anallophilic crossdresser. Most crossdressers are heterosexual. Your motivation for crossdressing may be driven by the undirected nature of your sexuality, as a way to more fully explore the Female gender role.

Well gee, just cause i have goth tendencies and sometimes wear makeup cause it looks good on my eyes must mean i have undirected sexuality.

And im not conflicted about my gender, i just do what i think is appropiate in a given situation, not what im "supposed" to just cause i have a dick.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Faust on August 22, 2012, 02:39:59 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 22, 2012, 12:24:16 PM

Wow this test is actually kind of sexist and assumes that your body tells who you are (brow to hairline measurement? really?)
Aren't those are hormonal indicators, like finger length and so on.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Johnny on August 22, 2012, 02:42:31 PM

Maybe if we could include our cranium measurements it would be more accurate.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Faust on August 22, 2012, 03:53:20 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 22, 2012, 02:42:31 PM

Maybe if we could include our cranium measurements it would be more accurate.

Phrenology aside, it isn't a measure of gender but some of these can be a rough indicator of estrogen level?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waist%E2%80%93hip_ratio
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bu🤠ns on August 22, 2012, 04:10:15 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 21, 2012, 08:41:39 PM
Quote from: Alty on August 21, 2012, 08:34:31 PM
So in regard to the, uh, OP...

I just got rejected for a massage that my buddy passed my way. I called the dude and he eventually stammered that they were looking for female therapists. What's troubling about this isn't sexism that prevents me from making sweet sweet money. It's that he could barely talk to me. He sounded like a lost puppy. He sounded like a really sheltered frat boy type who wandered into a lively gay bar by mistake. He was in fact a little terrified to clarify this situation.

I've encountered this before. There is an element of intense fear to be in the wrong place with regard to ones sex. I think this has directly to do with the sharp lines that seeks to divide what is male and what is female. This guys was so frightened to find himself potentially in the wrong side of that line. It causes confusion and lack of empathy and understanding.

That's how patriarchy hurts men. It forces us all to live by a certain standard. Even when it is absurd.
That sucks. It sucks for you, and it sucks more... way more... for him. Patriarchy hurts men every time a man is afraid to give his buddy a hug, every time a man doesn't tell his friends he's hurting because he doesn't want to seem weak, every time a man doesn't get the care he needs because he's worried, even subconsciously, about seeming too "gay". It hurts little boys who want to play with dolls instead of guns, and it hurts little boys who are into sports and "boy stuff" and suppress their feelings instead of being open with them. Every mom who has a son knows that there may very well be a time... hopefully one that will pass... that their little boy will stop being cuddly and stop talking to them about their personal stuff because it's not cool, in this society, for a boy to be close to their mom. "Mama's boy" is an insult, in this society.


This thread has really shedding some additional light on my research into the mythopoetic men's movement I was doing a little while ago. Robert Bly would actually confront these issues in some of his talks but it seems he only went halfway.  The part of where you talk about the mamma's boy would be rejected, iow.  But he did address how it's somehow wrong to tell another man that he has a beautiful cock (for the most "extreme" example) and other sort of patriarchal oppressive attitudes.

The mama's boy thing is interesting because I'm not sure if there really would BE a mama's boy in an ideal society. It, I think, would be a non-issue perhaps replaced with simple respect and open love for one's mother. The mama's boy, from what I understand, is often characterized by the 'nice-guy syndrome' where there was no clean separation from the boy from his mother.  While this act is ritualized in some indigenous societies, it not ours.  So what happens is that a guy becomes a 'nice guy' who is characterized by his neediness, emotional dependency, projecting the role of mother on his lover, lack of drive, secret manipulative "I do all these things for you and never ask for anything in return, but you never do anything for me", etc, attitudes. This also keeps the man from growing into a healthy adult and keeps him under this weird emotional shelter that also affects his romantic relationship as well as his relationship with his children.

Now I'm not really convinced Bly's formula is the correct one, but it does raise some issues--especially on the 'nice guy syndrome' and how it, as it seems to me, is another way that Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: LMNO on August 22, 2012, 04:17:48 PM
Whoever changed the subforum's name, I love you and you have a beautiful cock.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 22, 2012, 04:19:38 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 22, 2012, 12:24:16 PM

Wow this test is actually kind of sexist and assumes that your body tells who you are (brow to hairline measurement? really?)

Also, if you don't like math and are afraid of parallel parking, you must be a girl.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 22, 2012, 04:25:13 PM
Quote from: Faust on August 22, 2012, 03:53:20 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 22, 2012, 02:42:31 PM

Maybe if we could include our cranium measurements it would be more accurate.

Phrenology aside, it isn't a measure of gender but some of these can be a rough indicator of estrogen level?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waist%E2%80%93hip_ratio

Sure... they CAN be. They can also be an indicator of genetic makeup. Native American women, for example, are prone to a low waist to hip ratio and a lower hairline. Considering that the "test" determined that I am androgynous in appearance, highly masculine in behavior, and a strong candidate for FTM surgery, I'm gonna go with "this test is worthless and probably written by college students as part of a first-year class project".
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 22, 2012, 04:25:48 PM
I can't imagine a more fitting name.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Verbal Mike on August 22, 2012, 04:29:16 PM
It actually has a terrific set of connotations that totally make sense (and I don't mean the "penis" sense of "cock" here).
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Faust on August 22, 2012, 04:30:08 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 22, 2012, 04:25:13 PM
Quote from: Faust on August 22, 2012, 03:53:20 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 22, 2012, 02:42:31 PM

Maybe if we could include our cranium measurements it would be more accurate.

Phrenology aside, it isn't a measure of gender but some of these can be a rough indicator of estrogen level?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waist%E2%80%93hip_ratio

Sure... they CAN be. They can also be an indicator of genetic makeup. Native American women, for example, are prone to a low waist to hip ratio and a lower hairline. Considering that the "test" determined that I am androgynous in appearance, highly masculine in behavior, and a strong candidate for FTM surgery, I'm gonna go with "this test is worthless and probably written by college students as part of a first-year class project".
In a rage it told me I was a transvestite when I refused to give it any other information then the fact that I am male.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bu🤠ns on August 22, 2012, 04:52:04 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 22, 2012, 04:17:48 PM
Whoever changed the subforum's name, I love you and you have a beautiful cock.
:lulz::1fap:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 22, 2012, 05:40:13 PM
Quote from: Faust on August 22, 2012, 04:30:08 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 22, 2012, 04:25:13 PM
Quote from: Faust on August 22, 2012, 03:53:20 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 22, 2012, 02:42:31 PM

Maybe if we could include our cranium measurements it would be more accurate.

Phrenology aside, it isn't a measure of gender but some of these can be a rough indicator of estrogen level?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waist%E2%80%93hip_ratio

Sure... they CAN be. They can also be an indicator of genetic makeup. Native American women, for example, are prone to a low waist to hip ratio and a lower hairline. Considering that the "test" determined that I am androgynous in appearance, highly masculine in behavior, and a strong candidate for FTM surgery, I'm gonna go with "this test is worthless and probably written by college students as part of a first-year class project".
In a rage it told me I was a transvestite when I refused to give it any other information then the fact that I am male.

:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Johnny on August 22, 2012, 06:04:53 PM

i used to have a waist to hip ratio that any girl would kill for, now im just below the threshold of "fat"...

gee, must be that ive been taking female hormones! It has nothing to do with being unfit! Maybe if i eat enough twinkies ill turn into a girl!

:lol:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 26, 2012, 05:59:32 PM
Quote"Women under Christianity are kept virgin for the market as Strasbourg geese are nailed to boards till their livers putrefy. The nature of woman has been corrupted, her hope of a soul thwarted,her proper pleasure balked, and her mind poisoned to titillate the jaded palates of senile bankers and ambassadors. Why do men insist on 'innocence' in women?

QuoteWe do not want Her as a slave; we want Her free and royal . . .

QuoteMoreover, there is Mary, a blasphemy against BABALON, for she hath shut herself up; and therefore is she the Queen of all those wicked devils that walk upon the earth . . .

QuoteThe wife must not figure as a sexual being, but solely as a child-bearer. Essentially, the idealization and deification of motherhood, which are so flagrantly at variance with the brutatlity with which the mothers of the toiling masses are actually treated, serve as means of preventing women from gaining a sexual consciousness, of preventing the imposed sexual repression from breaking through and of preventing sexual anxiety and sexual guilt feelings from losing their hold. Sexually awakened women, affirmed and recognized as such, would mean the complete collapse of authoritarian ideology.

Some interesting quotes I ran across in another forum discussing the issue. The first three quotes are from Crowley and the last is form Reich. The last Crowley quote is discussing the pre-christian mythology focusing on a female deity of sexuality. Babalon, was the virgin whore, in Crowley's system. She was virginal spiritually/emotionally because her sexual choices were not from a position of sin. That is, she recognized there was nothing wrong with celebrating sexuality. Babalon is an example of a common early myth. Crowley contrasts this with the divine Woman of Christian mythology... Mary, the Mother... but still a virgin, her sexuality completely removed.

I think the comment that truly free women would mean the collapse of authoritarian ideology may be a bit extreme... but I don't think its wholly wrong. If we presume that this concept is really ingrained that deeply, destroying it could have a striking effect throughout society. Probably a very good effect in the end.



I thought this was an interesting perspective of just how ingrained misogyny is in modern western culture.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Placid Dingo on August 27, 2012, 02:34:17 PM
Thanks Rat, I found the two archetypes fascinating.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Verbal Mike on August 30, 2012, 04:11:46 PM
The leftie Israeli web has been seeing a lot of drama and discussion about privilege, I think basically after a woman posting a picture + details to shame a (mildly, verbally) harassing taxi driver. Maybe also because of some clashes between ethnic groups within the left. Anyway, through a post about privilege I came upon this post which seems very relevant to our own drama and discussion: the dos and donts of being a good ally. http://theangryblackwoman.com/2009/10/01/the-dos-and-donts-of-being-a-good-ally/

Apropos, this past weekend I had an experience that suddenly allowed me to experience about what it must be like for women to explain to men how they are harassed etc. To keep the background to a minimum, let's just say there was a small public event at which amongst other things I, as the invited speaker, told the public about how I was regularly bullied in elementary and middle school. One member of the public, incidentally a woman, first tried to cast doubt on what I was saying by claiming "it's not supposed to be that way in most schools" (duh – and also I went to school on a different continent, you moron) and "bullying is actually rare". She then proceeded to insinuate that the appropriate solution to that would have been for my parents to be more supporting to me. I was pretty stunned, really. I actually had to pause and stare into space for a minute, reflect on the discussions we've had here, and figure out how the hell I answer that in a way that doesn't make me look crazier than her, while also at least insinuating that she's being disrespectful and dismissing my experience of victimization.

Thought I'd share that experience, since it's not one I've often had, and it reminded me so much of what we've discussed here.

Disclaimer: I'm not trying to say that childhood bullying is as bad as sexual assault, and have no interest in such a comparison whatsoever.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 30, 2012, 05:18:50 PM
Good stuff! And yeah, that's what it's like.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Faust on September 18, 2012, 11:23:40 AM
Bump,


Here's a direct one that is pissing me off, the cost of my car insurance is 1800 euro, which equates to 2354.2200 US dollars a year.
Comparatively my fiancées is 200 euro a year. As a man I am a higher risk as a driver and women are a lower risk.

1) This affirms that the driving test here allows people who are considered a risk to drive and
2) rather then judge individuals on the competency of their driving they would rather use the average of their gender roles.

Not to sound like the hated libertarians I am paying more because of other peoples mistakes.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pope Pixie Pickle on September 18, 2012, 01:22:53 PM
Quote from: Faust on September 18, 2012, 11:23:40 AM
Bump,


Here's a direct one that is pissing me off, the cost of my car insurance is 1800 euro, which equates to 2354.2200 US dollars a year.
Comparatively my fiancées is 200 euro a year. As a man I am a higher risk as a driver and women are a lower risk.

1) This affirms that the driving test here allows people who are considered a risk to drive and
2) rather then judge individuals on the competency of their driving they would rather use the average of their gender roles.

Not to sound like the hated libertarians I am paying more because of other peoples mistakes.

That's like £1500! Holy shitcocking Christ on a fuckstick! That would pay my rent for 6 months! Your fiancée's is about £160 which is a third of a yearly bus pass.

It's the boy racer types between 17-25 that are letting the side down dude... Hooning around in their souped up small city cars and behaving like eejits who think they are INVINCIBLE AND IMMORTALZ!  They were probably quite sensible before they passed the driving test but get them and their mates into a car-park and its all sound systems and donuts and going at 100mph in a Subaru in a small village in the New Forest (A guy I used to hang out with once did this... I don't hang out with him any more). Over 50's get similar perks as teh wimmenz, but that's how insurance companies make money.   I vote you slap the shit outta the boy racers and take them to the hospital to see the effects of a serious road traffic incident caused by speeding and or drink driving BEFORE THEY TAKE THE TEST!

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Faust on September 18, 2012, 01:29:07 PM
Quote from: Pixie on September 18, 2012, 01:22:53 PM
Quote from: Faust on September 18, 2012, 11:23:40 AM
Bump,


Here's a direct one that is pissing me off, the cost of my car insurance is 1800 euro, which equates to 2354.2200 US dollars a year.
Comparatively my fiancées is 200 euro a year. As a man I am a higher risk as a driver and women are a lower risk.

1) This affirms that the driving test here allows people who are considered a risk to drive and
2) rather then judge individuals on the competency of their driving they would rather use the average of their gender roles.

Not to sound like the hated libertarians I am paying more because of other peoples mistakes.

That's like £1500! Holy shitcocking Christ on a fuckstick! That would pay my rent for 6 months! Your fiancée's is about £160 which is a third of a yearly bus pass.

It's the boy racer types between 17-25 that are letting the side down dude... Hooning around in their souped up small city cars and behaving like eejits who think they are INVINCIBLE AND IMMORTALZ!  They were probably quite sensible before they passed the driving test but get them and their mates into a car-park and its all sound systems and donuts and going at 100mph in a Subaru in a small village in the New Forest (A guy I used to hang out with once did this... I don't hang out with him any more). Over 50's get similar perks as teh wimmenz, but that's how insurance companies make money.   I vote you slap the shit outta the boy racers and take them to the hospital to see the effects of a serious road traffic incident caused by speeding and or drink driving BEFORE THEY TAKE THE TEST!
It doesn't even seem to keep them off the road, it is close to six months rent for me as well. I don't know where they get the money from for both their insurance and their horrible modded Daihatsu's.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pope Pixie Pickle on September 18, 2012, 01:52:31 PM
Quote from: Faust on September 18, 2012, 01:29:07 PM
Quote from: Pixie on September 18, 2012, 01:22:53 PM
Quote from: Faust on September 18, 2012, 11:23:40 AM
Bump,


Here's a direct one that is pissing me off, the cost of my car insurance is 1800 euro, which equates to 2354.2200 US dollars a year.
Comparatively my fiancées is 200 euro a year. As a man I am a higher risk as a driver and women are a lower risk.

1) This affirms that the driving test here allows people who are considered a risk to drive and
2) rather then judge individuals on the competency of their driving they would rather use the average of their gender roles.

Not to sound like the hated libertarians I am paying more because of other peoples mistakes.

That's like £1500! Holy shitcocking Christ on a fuckstick! That would pay my rent for 6 months! Your fiancée's is about £160 which is a third of a yearly bus pass.

It's the boy racer types between 17-25 that are letting the side down dude... Hooning around in their souped up small city cars and behaving like eejits who think they are INVINCIBLE AND IMMORTALZ!  They were probably quite sensible before they passed the driving test but get them and their mates into a car-park and its all sound systems and donuts and going at 100mph in a Subaru in a small village in the New Forest (A guy I used to hang out with once did this... I don't hang out with him any more). Over 50's get similar perks as teh wimmenz, but that's how insurance companies make money.   I vote you slap the shit outta the boy racers and take them to the hospital to see the effects of a serious road traffic incident caused by speeding and or drink driving BEFORE THEY TAKE THE TEST!
It doesn't even seem to keep them off the road, it is close to six months rent for me as well. I don't know where they get the money from for both their insurance and their horrible modded Daihatsu's.

The money comes from the Bank Of Mammy and Da. 
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞ on September 18, 2012, 10:27:40 PM
If it's anything like the US, the added speedracing-chowderbrains insurance cost takes a dive once you hit your late twenties.

I recommend liberating the air trapped in their tires, whenever such opportunities present themselves. Another reason to always carry a pocket knife, you see.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on September 19, 2012, 07:04:12 AM
This is relevant: http://www.upworthy.com/when-women-have-equal-rights-its-amazing-how-many-other-problems-are-resolved?c=bl3
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Verbal Mike on September 19, 2012, 08:13:50 AM
Yes it is. Powerful stuff.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on September 19, 2012, 04:29:42 PM
I knew a girl whose uncle basically sold her st fifteen or sixteen as a child bride to a man twenty-five years her senior. She'd been married for two years by the time I knew her, and I think she'd been pulled from school when she was fourteen or so. That was an ugly thing.


Also, yes, very powerful (and correct) stuff. When women are educated, there seems to be a distinct drop-off in population growth, too, which is very, very good.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on September 19, 2012, 04:32:30 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 19, 2012, 04:29:42 PM
I knew a girl whose uncle basically sold her st fifteen or sixteen as a child bride to a man twenty-five years her senior. She'd been married for two years by the time I knew her, and I think she'd been pulled from school when she was fourteen or so. That was an ugly thing.


Also, yes, very powerful (and correct) stuff. When women are educated, there seems to be a distinct drop-off in population growth, too, which is very, very good.

Yes, it's nice when people understand that they have options other than becoming a baby factory.

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on September 19, 2012, 06:07:02 PM
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 19, 2012, 04:32:30 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 19, 2012, 04:29:42 PM
I knew a girl whose uncle basically sold her st fifteen or sixteen as a child bride to a man twenty-five years her senior. She'd been married for two years by the time I knew her, and I think she'd been pulled from school when she was fourteen or so. That was an ugly thing.


Also, yes, very powerful (and correct) stuff. When women are educated, there seems to be a distinct drop-off in population growth, too, which is very, very good.

Yes, it's nice when people understand that they have options other than becoming a baby factory.

Yep.

And it relates directly to my post in the other thread about how impoverished women, particularly those without reproductive autonomy, give birth to impoverished children, most of whom grow up to repeat the cycle. Keeping women oppressed isn't just about women, it's about class warfare as well. It's about breeding a booming underclass as fodder for the upper class.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pope Pixie Pickle on September 19, 2012, 07:06:37 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 19, 2012, 04:29:42 PM
I knew a girl whose uncle basically sold her st fifteen or sixteen as a child bride to a man twenty-five years her senior. She'd been married for two years by the time I knew her, and I think she'd been pulled from school when she was fourteen or so. That was an ugly thing.


Also, yes, very powerful (and correct) stuff. When women are educated, there seems to be a distinct drop-off in population growth, too, which is very, very good.

When I was 15 or 16 or so one of the girls in the year below mine just disappeared.. It later transpired she was sent to either India or Pakistan and basically was married off..
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Faust on April 02, 2013, 10:46:38 PM
The portrayal of men on television as the leader of a family especially in comedy shows is always as a blundering oaf (Simpsons, Family guy, American dad),  or menacing threatening figure (Primarily when the show is from the point of view of teen child of the family).

Additionally in a lot of UK shows the father often embodies vice, or dodging of responsibility (misfits etc). If a father is shown in a intelligent/gentle/ or sagely fashion, he is almost certainly going to be killed or otherwise brutalised for emotional effect (uncle Ben)
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 02, 2013, 10:52:55 PM
Quote from: Faust on April 02, 2013, 10:46:38 PM
The portrayal of men on television as the leader of a family especially in comedy shows is always as a blundering oaf (Simpsons, Family guy, American dad),  or menacing threatening figure (Primarily when the show is from the point of view of teen child of the family).

Additionally in a lot of UK shows the father often embodies vice, or dodging of responsibility (misfits etc). If a father is shown in a intelligent/gentle/ or sagely fashion, he is almost certainly going to be killed or otherwise brutalised for emotional effect (uncle Ben)

Now you've done it.

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: AFK on April 02, 2013, 11:06:06 PM
He's kinda right, though, in the case of comedies, the laughs have to come from somewhere right?  Basically everyone , men AND women, in an American comedy are just fleshy cartoon characters, because there is rarely a such thing as wit in American comedies.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 02, 2013, 11:07:22 PM
Quote from: Six Feet of Sole on April 02, 2013, 11:06:06 PM
He's kinda right, though, in the case of comedies, the laughs have to come from somewhere right?  Basically everyone , men AND women, in an American comedy are just fleshy cartoon characters, because there is rarely a such thing as wit in American comedies.

I'd argue that.  I'd say there's no wit at all in American comedies.  Just those who inflict humilation, and the humiliated.  That is the sum total of American "comedy" television.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: AFK on April 02, 2013, 11:10:18 PM
I'd say there have been some very brief, short-lived exceptions (Better of Ted (cancelled after one season), the occassional Parks & Rec episode) but otherwise I completely agree.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: East Coast Hustle on April 02, 2013, 11:12:57 PM
Yep. Pratfalls, poop jokes, and cracks about being fat seems to be, for the most part, the height of American comedic sophistication.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Faust on April 02, 2013, 11:14:20 PM
With a small niche for stupid pop culture references.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 02, 2013, 11:14:54 PM
Sienfeld was the perfect example.  Every gag was based on someone being humiliated.  Every single one.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: AFK on April 02, 2013, 11:22:47 PM
Yep, and that's become the gold standard for American comedy.  That, or the Two and a Half Men model.  How many penis jokes can we fit into 22 minutes.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Faust on April 02, 2013, 11:23:27 PM
Seinfeld was also never funny.

Even the shows I do like and think are funny suffer from father hang ups:

The venture brothers was self aware of it. Doctor Venture is a self loathing, neurotic pill popping, amoral failed scientist.

His father is an absent god spoken of only in reverence or resentment at his abandoning us.
Venture Sr embodies the hardworking brilliant rugged genius trope of the 50's. He is supposed to be Dr Quest from Johnny quest but he is really more of a Doc Savage with chest hair like that.

We can identify with the younger venture for all his faults and fragility and frustration, but we are encouraged to resent that trope of the Man's Man 50's icon, for it's simplicity and for it antiquity.

What killed it, that it was incapable of change like a dinosaur and was killed off by the changing culture of the sixties seventies and eighties? I stop there because that is also where culture ended.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on April 02, 2013, 11:28:42 PM
The Bundys were funny the first few seasons, but yeah. Al poses with a toilet. Al staples a centerfold to the headboard so he can fuck Peg. Etc.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Faust on April 02, 2013, 11:38:41 PM
Al's a stupid oaf and his wife is a shrew. Same deal.
Episode two has Al actually say I love you to her in one of the shows only heart warming scenes. It was less then a season that any sense of the Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf volatile but besotted with each other relationship evaporated. Then the show went on for another 250+ episodes...

Love doesn't good comedy make.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on April 02, 2013, 11:45:17 PM
True. Love works for gothic romances and shit. Not comedies.
Try telling the networks that, though.

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Faust on April 02, 2013, 11:52:51 PM
Quote from: stelz on April 02, 2013, 11:45:17 PM
True. Love works for gothic romances and shit. Not comedies.
Try telling the networks that, though.

There are exceptions: Chocolate, 10 things I hate about you to name a couple. The difference is some thought goes into them as opposed to the tick the boxes formula movies using the tried and tested tropes to bring in the cash.

hrm... 10 things I hate about you was a modern retelling of the Taming of the shrew, a Shakespearian comedy, the male lead isn't an oaf but the wife is the epitome of a anti feminist trope: The shrew, If I'm right it's actually where the derogatory use of that word for a woman came from.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on April 03, 2013, 12:05:19 AM
Quote from: Faust on April 02, 2013, 11:52:51 PM
Quote from: stelz on April 02, 2013, 11:45:17 PM
True. Love works for gothic romances and shit. Not comedies.
Try telling the networks that, though.

There are exceptions: Chocolate, 10 things I hate about you to name a couple. The difference is some thought goes into them as opposed to the tick the boxes formula movies using the tried and tested tropes to bring in the cash.

Well yeah, and some of the Jean Harlow stuff. They managed not to make Gable totally oafish, but Gable was NUTS. Pitched fits and insisted on doing his own stunts his whole life. (That's really him getting dragged by a mustang in The Misfits, and he was old. Died soon after.) So maybe it was his own doing.  :lol:

Romantic comedy is a mostly-lost art, though, IMHO.

Quote
hrm... 10 things I hate about you was a modern retelling of the Taming of the shrew, a Shakespearian comedy, the male lead isn't an oaf but the wife is the epitome of a anti feminist trope: The shrew, If I'm right it's actually where the derogatory use of that word for a woman came from.

Haven't seen it, but Shakespeare is pretty good source material. That probably had a lot to do with it not sucking.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 03, 2013, 12:19:23 AM
Also, one more "zany mixup" comedy, and I fire up the chainsaw.

Be warned.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bu🤠ns on April 03, 2013, 04:31:10 AM
ThreadTV needs moar Cosby.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on April 03, 2013, 04:41:01 AM
Quote from: Bu☆ns on April 03, 2013, 04:31:10 AM
ThreadTV needs moar Cosby.

Nah. This. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLT7oJ_5Jr4)
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bu🤠ns on April 03, 2013, 05:16:11 AM
Quote from: stelz on April 03, 2013, 04:41:01 AM
Quote from: Bu☆ns on April 03, 2013, 04:31:10 AM
ThreadTV needs moar Cosby.

Nah. This. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLT7oJ_5Jr4)

Agreed...but he was a father in this series?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Faust on April 03, 2013, 08:39:34 AM
He was and he was a positive role model, he is shown as quirky but never stupid. Part of the humour of the show was how old fashioned he was which was partly the "laugh at the dinosaur" trope, but normally his advice generally paid off for the people who used it.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bu🤠ns on November 27, 2014, 04:47:06 PM
Quote from: Bu☆ns on April 03, 2013, 04:31:10 AM
ThreadTV needs moar Cosby.

Once again, I stand corrected.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Faust on November 27, 2014, 05:50:11 PM
Quote from: 🅵🅰🆄🆂🆃 on April 03, 2013, 08:39:34 AM
He was and he was a positive role model, he is shown as quirky but never stupid. Part of the humour of the show was how old fashioned he was which was partly the "laugh at the dinosaur" trope, but normally his advice generally paid off for the people who used it.

Hi past Faust, don't mean to upset you but, one by one any of the people you have respected as role models will let you down, you should probably stop having any now.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Roly Poly Oly-Garch on November 27, 2014, 05:57:06 PM
Quote from: 🅵🅰🆄🆂🆃 on November 27, 2014, 05:50:11 PM
Quote from: 🅵🅰🆄🆂🆃 on April 03, 2013, 08:39:34 AM
He was and he was a positive role model, he is shown as quirky but never stupid. Part of the humour of the show was how old fashioned he was which was partly the "laugh at the dinosaur" trope, but normally his advice generally paid off for the people who used it.

Hi past Faust, don't mean to upset you but, one by one any of the people you have respected as role models will let you down, you should probably stop having any now.

Yep. Dammit.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bu🤠ns on November 27, 2014, 06:01:18 PM
I was having the exact same thought today.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on December 07, 2014, 03:14:14 PM
Quote from: Faust on April 02, 2013, 10:46:38 PM
The portrayal of men on television as the leader of a family especially in comedy shows is always as a blundering oaf (Simpsons, Family guy, American dad),  or menacing threatening figure (Primarily when the show is from the point of view of teen child of the family).

The father from American Dad really fits both those categories, not just the first one.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Faust on December 07, 2014, 07:09:33 PM
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on December 07, 2014, 03:14:14 PM
Quote from: Faust on April 02, 2013, 10:46:38 PM
The portrayal of men on television as the leader of a family especially in comedy shows is always as a blundering oaf (Simpsons, Family guy, American dad),  or menacing threatening figure (Primarily when the show is from the point of view of teen child of the family).

The father from American Dad really fits both those categories, not just the first one.

Depending on the episode yes, there are plenty of Stan V's family member episodes and those are the only ones he is competent in.