So, a while ago, Nigel turned me onto a series of Youtube videos, Tropes Vs Women, by Anita Sarkeesian who runs this blog http://femfreq.tumblr.com which started my reawakened interest in Feminism, along with the Feminism and Prostitution thread. (which incidentally is why I haven't been around here much, I've been soaking up information on Feminism in general, and sexism in pop culture.)
Recently Anita Sarkeesian started a Kickstarter to raise $6,000 on A Tropes Vs Women in Video Games project, and the video on Youtube was absolutely inundated with some real basement dwelling misogyny dudebros. the links to it are in the above blog link, and there have been articles on Kotaku.
Penny Arcade got some criticism over printing their Dickwolves T-shirt, and Courtney Stanton objected She got death threats, threats of rape and people phoning the police to try and prove she was raped. (a massive timeline of that is here- http://debacle.tumblr.com/post/3041940865/the-pratfall-of-penny-arcade-a-timeline.
The blog Fat, Ugly or Slutty was set up to document harassment of women who play online games. http://fatuglyorslutty.com/
So, i'm wondering how much of these attitudes professed online leak into RL? I mean we've trolled the living shit out of people,but I'm pretty sure most of the posters on PeeDee can recognise their own privilege as it stands with their own sex/race/sexuality and so on, but then again we don't tend to troll in racist or sexist ways, so... yea.
Truthfully, PD is hands-down the forum with the least misogynistic, least racist, most self-aware, and most willing to self-examine populace I've ever been on. It is an instant go-to for both men and women on both forums to take the "She's ugly and needs to get laid" route with any woman they dislike/disagree with, or, alternately, "She's obviously a slut". I HAVE encountered both of those here, but they didn't gain any support from the general forum population and in most cases ended up leaving. Recently the closest thing I've observed to that here are men who attempt to delegitimize womens' arguments by ignoring them on the basis of "I don't like you/you have it out for me", which IMO is just another version of "your arguments are invalid because you're ugly and need to get laid/uppity/a slut" without saying as much outright. It is a tool which allows them to disregard the argument/data, however sound, on basis that they don't like the person presenting it.
IRL I don't meet many men or women who are OK with either angle, but this is Portland. I bet Stella has radically different results to report.
I have met a few misogynists IRL. I have met a TON of them online.
I think it's the "audience + anonymity = douchebag" thing, plus a little "I have to be edgier than the next guy" Totse2 kind of thing.
Misogyny and sexism in general are pretty rampant in the town I am in. it ranges from basically what is being mentioned (slut shaming and she needs to get laid) to assumptions about the capability of the sexes (women can't drive, men can't control their anger, men can't clean, women can't understand computers) a lot of it comes from people using the stereotypes as an excuse for their own gender, presumably as a way to avoid accepting fault for their own personal shortcomings.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on June 14, 2012, 04:40:21 PM
Truthfully, PD is hands-down the forum with the least misogynistic, least racist, most self-aware, and most willing to self-examine populace I've ever been on. It is an instant go-to for both men and women on both forums to take the "She's ugly and needs to get laid" route with any woman they dislike/disagree with, or, alternately, "She's obviously a slut". I HAVE encountered both of those here, but they didn't gain any support from the general forum population and in most cases ended up leaving. Recently the closest thing I've observed to that here are men who attempt to delegitimize womens' arguments by ignoring them on the basis of "I don't like you/you have it out for me", which IMO is just another version of "your arguments are invalid because you're ugly and need to get laid/uppity/a slut" without saying as much outright. It is a tool which allows them to disregard the argument/data, however sound, on basis that they don't like the person presenting it.
IRL I don't meet many men or women who are OK with either angle, but this is Portland. I bet Stella has radically different results to report.
This place is pretty utopian, as forums go, and I've seen the guys do the delegitimisation thing to each other. (admittedly I've been all up in the feminist blogosphere lately.) The other forums that I really spent a lot of time on were pretty good also. (fan-site for a pagan webcomic written by a gay guy, so yea.) so I think I have been spared the worst excesses of the internet.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 14, 2012, 05:17:35 PM
I have met a few misogynists IRL. I have met a TON of them online.
I think it's the "audience + anonymity = douchebag" thing, plus a little "I have to be edgier than the next guy" Totse2 kind of thing.
the edgier than the next guy thing is so fucking dull. I mean, if everyone is doing it, doesn't it disqualify it from being edgy? Isn't it more edgy to have empathy and respect?
One of the problems is as I think it stands is that movements for equality in all areas are seen as not needed by people who just aren't very aware of how society works for people who are not themselves, (the notion of having privilege.) but on the other hand, people IN the movements for equality are pretty sick of holding these guy hands and talking them through it, so there's no dialogue after the knee jerk reactions (as was the case in the whole Dickwolves thing) because were seemingly speaking in a different language. It's classic BIP stuff, really.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 14, 2012, 05:30:38 PM
Misogyny and sexism in general are pretty rampant in the town I am in. it ranges from basically what is being mentioned (slut shaming and she needs to get laid) to assumptions about the capability of the sexes (women can't drive, men can't control their anger, men can't clean, women can't understand computers) a lot of it comes from people using the stereotypes as an excuse for their own gender, presumably as a way to avoid accepting fault for their own personal shortcomings.
As much as BH is the Master Of Squick, I think he has a valid point on this.
Quote from: Pixie on June 14, 2012, 05:38:26 PM
the edgier than the next guy thing is so fucking dull. I mean, if everyone is doing it, doesn't it disqualify it from being edgy? Isn't it more edgy to have empathy and respect?
We're not talking about brain surgeons, Pixie. We're talking about people who still think screaming the word "NIGGER" is the absolute height of rebellion and stickin' it to the man. You want ORIGINALITY, too? Hell, these poor little bastards finally found a way to piss off their hippie parents, and here you are spoiling all the fun.
You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
The "Edgier than the next guy" thing is, indeed, stale and overdone. But as Roger notes, these people are the lowest-common-denominator types, so they probably think they're Sticking It To The Man by shitting on people who are weaker than them.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 14, 2012, 05:43:37 PM
Quote from: Pixie on June 14, 2012, 05:38:26 PM
the edgier than the next guy thing is so fucking dull. I mean, if everyone is doing it, doesn't it disqualify it from being edgy? Isn't it more edgy to have empathy and respect?
We're not talking about brain surgeons, Pixie. We're talking about people who still think screaming the word "NIGGER" is the absolute height of rebellion and stickin' it to the man. You want ORIGINALITY, too? Hell, these poor little bastards finally found a way to piss off their hippie parents, and here you are spoiling all the fun.
You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
I enjoy pissing in their cereal, it amuses me.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on June 14, 2012, 05:50:25 PM
The "Edgier than the next guy" thing is, indeed, stale and overdone. But as Roger notes, these people are the lowest-common-denominator types, so they probably think they're Sticking It To The Man by shitting on people who are weaker than them.
I never liked the lowest common denominator thing either. Does this make me an intellectual snob?
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on June 14, 2012, 05:50:25 PM
The "Edgier than the next guy" thing is, indeed, stale and overdone. But as Roger notes, these people are the lowest-common-denominator types, so they probably think they're Sticking It To The Man by shitting on people who are weaker than them.
HA! I'm ACTING OUT! I'm QUESTIONING AUTHORITY! And by "questioning", I mean, "Doing the exact opposite, no matter how STUPID IT IS". If anyone doesn't like it, they should GET TUFF because we all know that things like RESPECT and DECENCY are for GIRLY MEN. I am for some reason of the opinion that talking like this on the interbutt soopermarket will somehow make me an alpha, and I'll get laid. I am unsure of the MECHANISM of how this will happen, but I cannot take chances, because all my socks are as stiff as steel yardsticks, and it's beginning to hurt.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 14, 2012, 05:54:04 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on June 14, 2012, 05:50:25 PM
The "Edgier than the next guy" thing is, indeed, stale and overdone. But as Roger notes, these people are the lowest-common-denominator types, so they probably think they're Sticking It To The Man by shitting on people who are weaker than them.
HA! I'm ACTING OUT! I'm QUESTIONING AUTHORITY! And by "questioning", I mean, "Doing the exact opposite, no matter how STUPID IT IS". If anyone doesn't like it, they should GET TUFF because we all know that things like RESPECT and DECENCY are for GIRLY MEN. I am for some reason of the opinion that talking like this on the interbutt soopermarket will somehow make me an alpha, and I'll get laid. I am unsure of the MECHANISM of how this will happen, but I cannot take chances, because all my socks are as stiff as steel yardsticks, and it's beginning to hurt.
hehe they didn't get the memo that in the Information age it's the smart beta types who are where the ability to provide and innovate lies. I've never found the Alpha male bullshit attractive. I love me a girly man, preferably with a beard and occasionally in a dress. :fap:
Quote from: Pixie on June 14, 2012, 06:13:49 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 14, 2012, 05:54:04 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on June 14, 2012, 05:50:25 PM
The "Edgier than the next guy" thing is, indeed, stale and overdone. But as Roger notes, these people are the lowest-common-denominator types, so they probably think they're Sticking It To The Man by shitting on people who are weaker than them.
HA! I'm ACTING OUT! I'm QUESTIONING AUTHORITY! And by "questioning", I mean, "Doing the exact opposite, no matter how STUPID IT IS". If anyone doesn't like it, they should GET TUFF because we all know that things like RESPECT and DECENCY are for GIRLY MEN. I am for some reason of the opinion that talking like this on the interbutt soopermarket will somehow make me an alpha, and I'll get laid. I am unsure of the MECHANISM of how this will happen, but I cannot take chances, because all my socks are as stiff as steel yardsticks, and it's beginning to hurt.
hehe they didn't get the memo that in the Information age it's the smart beta types who are where the ability to provide and innovate lies. I've never found the Alpha male bullshit attractive. I love me a girly man, preferably with a beard and occasionally in a dress. :fap:
That's just a different beta. The yutzes which we are discussing are ALSO betas, but a BAD kind of beta, because they slavishly follow the most odious among them. Different tribe, same wiring.
I don't think most of these people even know what "alpha" and "beta" personality types are. They're just using them as some tidy little bite-sized buzzwords into which to pigeonhole all their insecurities.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on June 14, 2012, 04:40:21 PM
Truthfully, PD is hands-down the forum with the least misogynistic, least racist, most self-aware, and most willing to self-examine populace I've ever been on. It is an instant go-to for both men and women on both forums to take the "She's ugly and needs to get laid" route with any woman they dislike/disagree with, or, alternately, "She's obviously a slut". I HAVE encountered both of those here, but they didn't gain any support from the general forum population and in most cases ended up leaving. Recently the closest thing I've observed to that here are men who attempt to delegitimize womens' arguments by ignoring them on the basis of "I don't like you/you have it out for me", which IMO is just another version of "your arguments are invalid because you're ugly and need to get laid/uppity/a slut" without saying as much outright. It is a tool which allows them to disregard the argument/data, however sound, on basis that they don't like the person presenting it.
IRL I don't meet many men or women who are OK with either angle, but this is Portland. I bet Stella has radically different results to report.
Oooooh yeah. A few of them have Bible quotes to back it up, because the man is SUPPOSED to be the head of everything and GOD SAID SO.
The kids tend not to be religious zealots, it's more of a hip-hop culture with gems like "You need some dick in your life".
Saying somebody needs to get laid isn't socially acceptable in certain situations, but only because it ALLUDES TO SEX.
It's a small town, so hanging the slut jacket on people is
encouraged. Even if they're just passing by. No actual debate ever takes place here. If you express a view they don't agree with, you get either silence or "YOU FUCKING WHORE". :horrormirth:
We have a lot of pro-lifers, of course. If you scratch a pro-lifer deep enough, you always find misogyny. Even the women here are pro-life, I don't think they ever HEAR anything else. Except from me, but they probably think I'm some lunatic fringe aberration.
You have to go all the way to Austin or at least San Marcos to find people who aren't like this. Srs.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 14, 2012, 05:54:04 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on June 14, 2012, 05:50:25 PM
The "Edgier than the next guy" thing is, indeed, stale and overdone. But as Roger notes, these people are the lowest-common-denominator types, so they probably think they're Sticking It To The Man by shitting on people who are weaker than them.
HA! I'm ACTING OUT! I'm QUESTIONING AUTHORITY! And by "questioning", I mean, "Doing the exact opposite, no matter how STUPID IT IS". If anyone doesn't like it, they should GET TUFF because we all know that things like RESPECT and DECENCY are for GIRLY MEN. I am for some reason of the opinion that talking like this on the interbutt soopermarket will somehow make me an alpha, and I'll get laid. I am unsure of the MECHANISM of how this will happen, but I cannot take chances, because all my socks are as stiff as steel yardsticks, and it's beginning to hurt.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
A thing that puts my hackles up right away is guys who say that they're sadistic and/or very dominant and/or, and most especially, that they have a rape fetish or fantasy. Those are A) an attempt to be a bad boy, B) they think they're being edgy, or C) they don't want to treat an SO as their equal. It's fucking disturbing how many people will say they have rape fantasies, women too.
I've taken to saying that I'm willing to try it, but I've never used a strap on before.
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on June 14, 2012, 07:21:10 PM
A thing that puts my hackles up right away is guys who say that they're sadistic and/or very dominant and/or, and most especially, that they have a rape fetish or fantasy. Those are A) an attempt to be a bad boy, B) they think they're being edgy, or C) they don't want to treat an SO as their equal. It's fucking disturbing how many people will say they have rape fantasies, women too.
I've taken to saying that I'm willing to try it, but I've never used a strap on before.
A mention of a rape fantasy would clam up my girl-parts instantly and have me running for the door. I don't mind a little pain, kink or a bit dom, but only in the bedroom. Elsewhere I am not to be dominated in any way.
Exactly, and I don't understand why it's become so desirable and attractive.
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on June 14, 2012, 07:48:54 PM
Exactly, and I don't understand why it's become so desirable and attractive.
I think the problem may be that Tuscon eats decent people.
Quote from: Net on June 14, 2012, 07:58:25 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on June 14, 2012, 07:48:54 PM
Exactly, and I don't understand why it's become so desirable and attractive.
I think the problem may be that Tuscon eats decent people.
I already knew that, but it never occurred to me that this isn't a thing that happens other places in such a high percentage of people as it does here.
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on June 14, 2012, 08:03:03 PM
Quote from: Net on June 14, 2012, 07:58:25 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on June 14, 2012, 07:48:54 PM
Exactly, and I don't understand why it's become so desirable and attractive.
I think the problem may be that Tuscon eats decent people.
I already knew that, but it never occurred to me that this isn't a thing that happens other places in such a high percentage of people as it does here.
Most guys I meet are super NOT into rape fantasies or being dominant. And the bigger and more confident they are, the more (IME) they want the girl to be the boss in bed.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on June 14, 2012, 08:19:41 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on June 14, 2012, 08:03:03 PM
Quote from: Net on June 14, 2012, 07:58:25 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on June 14, 2012, 07:48:54 PM
Exactly, and I don't understand why it's become so desirable and attractive.
I think the problem may be that Tuscon eats decent people.
I already knew that, but it never occurred to me that this isn't a thing that happens other places in such a high percentage of people as it does here.
Most guys I meet are super NOT into rape fantasies or being dominant. And the bigger and more confident they are, the more (IME) they want the girl to be the boss in bed.
A lot of the time, anyway. It makes you feel like your partner WANTS to be there, know what I mean?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 14, 2012, 08:21:59 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on June 14, 2012, 08:19:41 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on June 14, 2012, 08:03:03 PM
Quote from: Net on June 14, 2012, 07:58:25 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on June 14, 2012, 07:48:54 PM
Exactly, and I don't understand why it's become so desirable and attractive.
I think the problem may be that Tuscon eats decent people.
I already knew that, but it never occurred to me that this isn't a thing that happens other places in such a high percentage of people as it does here.
Most guys I meet are super NOT into rape fantasies or being dominant. And the bigger and more confident they are, the more (IME) they want the girl to be the boss in bed.
A lot of the time, anyway. It makes you feel like your partner WANTS to be there, know what I mean?
Yeah, little details like that help make the difference.
I don't know, maybe the rape fantasies are a perverted form of nostalgic longing for the days when men were Real Men and women were kept inside? It's hard for some to carve out an identity in this strange, complex world, so maybe they decide to jump back a few centuries to some age when life was predictable and pretty much predetermined. That makes sense to me, if it's right that rape is mostly about power.
Quote from: Lenin/McCarthy on June 14, 2012, 08:39:59 PM
That makes sense to me, if it's right that rape is mostly about power.
I've always heard it was. It makes sense, then, that most rapists are fairly stupid.
The most interesting thing to me about that possibility is that the guys who can't hack it now, and feel overwhelmed and/or intimidated by women, are exactly the kind of guys who would have had the shit and the life stomped right out of them back then.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 14, 2012, 08:52:24 PM
Quote from: Lenin/McCarthy on June 14, 2012, 08:39:59 PM
That makes sense to me, if it's right that rape is mostly about power.
I've always heard it was. It makes sense, then, that most rapists are fairly stupid.
The studies I've seen show that most rapists are serial rapists, and have a hypermasculine thing going on when it comes to their attitudes. If you consider that about 1 in 6 women in the US has been raped, most of these don't get reported, there is a minority of these assholes raping a lot of women.
Feminism became a dirty word around the time when the militant lesbian man hater stereotype was established. For guys who are down on women it's an easy target, just like athiests latch on to radical fundamentalists and racists latch on to terrurists and gangstas and whatever the fuck else.
From my pov, speaking as one of the lucky ones who is a white, male, heterosexual heathen I do not question for one minute the validity of things like the feminist movement and it's ilk in race or sexual orientation spheres but I do quite clearly see that for every person who's opinion is turned by them there are X amount who it causes to dig their fucked up attitude's heels in deeper.
The more I look at it it's not something that I think lends itself to a cause like Feminismtm It's more about destroying fuckheads. Maybe if women got together with blacks and gays and wasps like me and formed an anti-fuckhead movement it'd have a greater effect. I mean, other than the target of their dumb, what exactly is the difference between racism, sexism, homophobia and whatever the hell else? Is there any real advantage in fragmenting the counter attack?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on June 14, 2012, 10:12:58 PM
Feminism became a dirty word around the time when the militant lesbian man hater stereotype was established. For guys who are down on women it's an easy target, just like athiests latch on to radical fundamentalists and racists latch on to terrurists and gangstas and whatever the fuck else.
From my pov, speaking as one of the lucky ones who is a white, male, heterosexual heathen I do not question for one minute the validity of things like the feminist movement and it's ilk in race or sexual orientation spheres but I do quite clearly see that for every person who's opinion is turned by them there are X amount who it causes to dig their fucked up attitude's heels in deeper.
The more I look at it it's not something that I think lends itself to a cause like Feminismtm It's more about destroying fuckheads. Maybe if women got together with blacks and gays and wasps like me and formed an anti-fuckhead movement it'd have a greater effect. I mean, other than the target of their dumb, what exactly is the difference between racism, sexism, homophobia and whatever the hell else? Is there any real advantage in fragmenting the counter attack?
The Straw Feminist trope has a lot to answer for.
Intersectionality in fighting inequality is very important to most of the feminists I know, especially myself, and to some extent fragmentation isn't helpful, however, I as a white, straight mostly hetero woman have no real personal experience of racism, apart from some minor anti-Irish shit, but the internet is wonderful thing and myself, personally, keep an equal eye on all kinds of reports on prejudice.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on June 14, 2012, 10:12:58 PM
Feminism became a dirty word around the time when the militant lesbian man hater stereotype was established. For guys who are down on women it's an easy target, just like athiests latch on to radical fundamentalists and racists latch on to terrurists and gangstas and whatever the fuck else.
From my pov, speaking as one of the lucky ones who is a white, male, heterosexual heathen I do not question for one minute the validity of things like the feminist movement and it's ilk in race or sexual orientation spheres but I do quite clearly see that for every person who's opinion is turned by them there are X amount who it causes to dig their fucked up attitude's heels in deeper.
The more I look at it it's not something that I think lends itself to a cause like Feminismtm It's more about destroying fuckheads. Maybe if women got together with blacks and gays and wasps like me and formed an anti-fuckhead movement it'd have a greater effect. I mean, other than the target of their dumb, what exactly is the difference between racism, sexism, homophobia and whatever the hell else? Is there any real advantage in fragmenting the counter attack?
I thought we were ALREADY anti-fuckhead movement. Look what we do to pagan forums. :lulz:
As far as feminism goes, any time people start organizing - for ANY reason - IMHO they get a bunch of people trying to derail them. This means anything from FBI COINTELPRO shit, to Rush yammering about feminazis, to Shit Yahoos Talk. :x
On the upside, you get hilarity like this old Pat Robertson quote: "The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."
Oh hell yeah. :lol:
(Pixie posted exactly this while I was off making snacks, but I'ma post it anyway.)
Yeah, what Pent said. Feminism became a dirty word when the straw feminist character gained popularity because "stop talking, wimminz" is easier than using yer brain.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on June 14, 2012, 10:12:58 PM
The more I look at it it's not something that I think lends itself to a cause like Feminismtm It's more about destroying fuckheads. Maybe if women got together with blacks and gays and wasps like me and formed an anti-fuckhead movement it'd have a greater effect. I mean, other than the target of their dumb, what exactly is the difference between racism, sexism, homophobia and whatever the hell else? Is there any real advantage in fragmenting the counter attack?
Most of the feminists I know do incorporate all of the anti-fuckheadedness as part of their emphasis on intersectionality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality). See also: kyriarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyriarchy).
Quote from: Pixie on June 14, 2012, 10:23:17 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on June 14, 2012, 10:12:58 PM
Feminism became a dirty word around the time when the militant lesbian man hater stereotype was established. For guys who are down on women it's an easy target, just like athiests latch on to radical fundamentalists and racists latch on to terrurists and gangstas and whatever the fuck else.
From my pov, speaking as one of the lucky ones who is a white, male, heterosexual heathen I do not question for one minute the validity of things like the feminist movement and it's ilk in race or sexual orientation spheres but I do quite clearly see that for every person who's opinion is turned by them there are X amount who it causes to dig their fucked up attitude's heels in deeper.
The more I look at it it's not something that I think lends itself to a cause like Feminismtm It's more about destroying fuckheads. Maybe if women got together with blacks and gays and wasps like me and formed an anti-fuckhead movement it'd have a greater effect. I mean, other than the target of their dumb, what exactly is the difference between racism, sexism, homophobia and whatever the hell else? Is there any real advantage in fragmenting the counter attack?
The Straw Feminist trope has a lot to answer for.
Intersectionality in fighting inequality is very important to most of the feminists I know, especially myself, and to some extent fragmentation isn't helpful, however, I as a white, straight mostly hetero woman have no real personal experience of racism, apart from some minor anti-Irish shit, but the internet is wonderful thing and myself, personally, keep an equal eye on all kinds of reports on prejudice.
This is my point. You think that, unless you're a minority, you know nowt about racism or without being gay you know nowt about homophobia so you fight your own corner, at best half the population of the planet. All the blacks do the same, significantly less than half the planet. And the gays (even less than that?) And the rest of the planet? The ones who don't get racisted or sexisted? We know fuck all. We can't possibly understand what it's like, right?
Well, don't take this personally but that's bullshit. I know everything I need to know about sexism, racism, homophobia and everything else. Wan't to know what I know? Simple - there's some dumb shits making a whole bunch of people's lives a fucking misery. There's no difference in principle between a woman getting told she was asking to be raped cos she had a little short skirt on and a brown guy with a funny hat getting beaten up on a street corner cos his type flew planes into the world trade center. The only difference is the superficial shit - colour of skin, genital arrangement.
So the feminists are fighting for shit with an army yay big and the blacks are fighting for shit with an army yay big and the chinese and the gays and they're basically all fighting exactly the same shit, save for a different haircut and none of them have a chance in hell. Time to try a different approach methinks. Bigger army might be a place to start.
Kyriachy is a great word. It solidifies some ideas I as having about privilege as a fluid shifting concept- eg men have the privlage over women of not being blamed for being the victim of sexual
Assault, but women have the privilege over men of being openly homosexual or bi without threat of violence or social rejection.
Im not sure where I fit in thinking 'does challenging all prejudice fit into feminism? Or does it all need it's own catorgory. Does breaking free of male gender roles actually fit in the feminism umbrella, or is it just women for whom this brand of liberation falls under feminist philosophy. I'm not widely read up on it enough to really have a strong view.
I know a good female friends who doesn't consider herself feminist, because she thinks it's part of an older time. Now, women are equal, can vote, cand do the same jobs etc, so the jobs done.
She thinks the job is done? Does she know she's legally pregnant in Arizona? :horrormirth:
Well Australia's no Arizona, even where I am.
Anyway, I was going to make another point, tangentially which is that men (or women) who identify as sadistic or dominant don't necessarily believe those things politically (ie, enjoy spanking a pretty lady but don't think a woman belongs in the kitchen). What turns you on isn't by default connected to what you believe.
That said, if I hear someone calling themself a dominant/sadist I do suspect they're a deuce until proven otherwise.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on June 15, 2012, 04:42:34 AM
Kyriachy is a great word. It solidifies some ideas I as having about privilege as a fluid shifting concept- eg men have the privlage over women of not being blamed for being the victim of sexual
Assault, but women have the privilege over men of being openly homosexual or bi without threat of violence or social rejection.
Im not sure where I fit in thinking 'does challenging all prejudice fit into feminism? Or does it all need it's own catorgory. Does breaking free of male gender roles actually fit in the feminism umbrella, or is it just women for whom this brand of liberation falls under feminist philosophy. I'm not widely read up on it enough to really have a strong view.
I know a good female friends who doesn't consider herself feminist, because she thinks it's part of an older time. Now, women are equal, can vote, cand do the same jobs etc, so the jobs done.
Women are equal under law, but in practice, that is debatable. The gap in pay for people doing the same jobs hasn't been eradicated. the shame and blame game when it comes to sexuality and sexual assault is far from over. Women are still being genitally mutilated and interestingly women who transition to men get their performance in the workplace rated higher than when they presented as women.
I would consider breaking free of the gender binary for men and women to be a goal of feminists. We are about as post-sexist as we are post-racist!
The aim of feminism in the 21st century is working to enable a cultural shift, not necessarily a legal one by and large, which is arguably a bigger task than getting the legal rights that were won by the first and second wave of feminism. Legal battles such as laws against marital rape were only enacted within the last half century, and as late as 1997 in Germany, and 1991 in the UK, and are not an international concept. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape.
Men showing what ate socially considered feminine traits are still ridiculed, and whereas being a tomboy is considered not that abberant, boys doing things "like a girl" are still ridiculed by a good portion of western society.
I'll be going into some of the sexist attitudes in science in a different thread, so I'm not going to expound on that here, but as someone who obviously IS a feminist, and completely anti-fuckhead.
Kyriarchy imho is a better concept than patriarchy, (thanks Peas!) as it describes all kinds of privilege as they stand, and is a lot less alienating in its terminology.
Bang on Pixie. Ftw, I tend to call myself a feminist.
This is a great conversation... thanks Pixie!
If feminism means that all people, of any gender, race, or orientation, etc, should have the same rights as human beings, then I am a feminist.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 15, 2012, 06:26:23 PM
If feminism means that all people, of any gender, race, or orientation, etc, should have the same rights as human beings, then I am a feminist.
Nailed it!
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 15, 2012, 06:26:23 PM
If feminism means that all people, of any gender, race, or orientation, etc, should have the same rights as human beings, then I am a feminist.
WOO! Now we just need to womp Roger's head onto Patrick Stewart's while he wears his "this is what a feminist looks like" t-shirt.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on June 15, 2012, 06:12:00 PM
This is a great conversation... thanks Pixie!
eh, just bringing my new line of thought/BIP back to share with PeeDee. I think this may just have been the most successful thread I have ever started.
Took me 3 years hahaha!
Quote from: Pixie on June 15, 2012, 08:27:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 15, 2012, 06:26:23 PM
If feminism means that all people, of any gender, race, or orientation, etc, should have the same rights as human beings, then I am a feminist.
WOO! Now we just need to womp Roger's head onto Patrick Stewart's while he wears his "this is what a feminist looks like" t-shirt.
:lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 15, 2012, 08:29:43 PM
Quote from: Pixie on June 15, 2012, 08:27:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 15, 2012, 06:26:23 PM
If feminism means that all people, of any gender, race, or orientation, etc, should have the same rights as human beings, then I am a feminist.
WOO! Now we just need to womp Roger's head onto Patrick Stewart's while he wears his "this is what a feminist looks like" t-shirt.
:lulz:
PeeDee- All a bunch of cranky Angry Feminists, even the menz. (I can has newsfeed nao?)
Quote from: Pixie on June 15, 2012, 08:34:01 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 15, 2012, 08:29:43 PM
Quote from: Pixie on June 15, 2012, 08:27:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 15, 2012, 06:26:23 PM
If feminism means that all people, of any gender, race, or orientation, etc, should have the same rights as human beings, then I am a feminist.
WOO! Now we just need to womp Roger's head onto Patrick Stewart's while he wears his "this is what a feminist looks like" t-shirt.
:lulz:
PeeDee- All a bunch of cranky Angry Feminists, even the menz. (I can has newsfeed nao?)
Actually, IIRC, I'm an ANGRY BLACK WOMAN.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 15, 2012, 08:34:58 PM
Quote from: Pixie on June 15, 2012, 08:34:01 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 15, 2012, 08:29:43 PM
Quote from: Pixie on June 15, 2012, 08:27:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 15, 2012, 06:26:23 PM
If feminism means that all people, of any gender, race, or orientation, etc, should have the same rights as human beings, then I am a feminist.
WOO! Now we just need to womp Roger's head onto Patrick Stewart's while he wears his "this is what a feminist looks like" t-shirt.
:lulz:
PeeDee- All a bunch of cranky Angry Feminists, even the menz. (I can has newsfeed nao?)
Actually, IIRC, I'm an ANGRY BLACK WOMAN.
And a very beautiful fairy princess ANGRY BLACK WOMAN.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on June 15, 2012, 04:42:34 AM
...but women have the privilege over men of being openly homosexual or bi without threat of violence or social rejection.
No we don't. Bisexual female = heterosexual faking it for male attention (so far as the gay community is concerned). Bisexual or lesbian female = sex object or (too often) a bitch who needs to be fucked by a real man to turn her back.
Which is why I am very, very careful about who I talk to about this/allow to know.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on June 15, 2012, 04:42:34 AM
Im not sure where I fit in thinking 'does challenging all prejudice fit into feminism? Or does it all need it's own catorgory. Does breaking free of male gender roles actually fit in the feminism umbrella, or is it just women for whom this brand of liberation falls under feminist philosophy. I'm not widely read up on it enough to really have a strong view.
I know a good female friends who doesn't consider herself feminist, because she thinks it's part of an older time. Now, women are equal, can vote, cand do the same jobs etc, so the jobs done.
Intersectionality and to quote bell hooks: "Feminism is for everyone" (although there is some disagreement in the community, I agree with hooks - if you think a female is actually a person, just like a male, then you're a feminist imo)
Also, I have a link to a
lot of books you can download and read which talk about this subject(s).
And your friend is blind.
Also, feminism has always been a dirty word. Feminists tend to make men uncomfortable and while they (cis men*) have been successful in making the movement be apologetic about that (we have to be polite and polite = not making them uncomfortable/like they might possibly have to work for the privileges they get when they're born even though the very basis of feminism is fighting that), I think the tide is turning a bit.
*Not accusing all cis men. Like Nig said, this is one of the most egalitarian places I've found on the interbutts.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on June 15, 2012, 08:57:14 PM
Also, feminism has always been a dirty word. Feminists tend to make men uncomfortable and while they (cis men*) have been successful in making the movement be apologetic about that (we have to be polite and polite = not making them uncomfortable/like they might possibly have to work for the privileges they get when they're born even though the very basis of feminism is fighting that), I think the tide is turning a bit.
*Not accusing all cis men. Like Nig said, this is one of the most egalitarian places I've found on the interbutts.
What is "cis"?
Men who are born in male bodies and women who are born in female bodies. The rest of us are transgender.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on June 15, 2012, 09:07:12 PM
Men who are born in male bodies and women who are born in female bodies. The rest of us are transgender.
I don't like having a label.
I'm TGRR. That's the only label or classification I want or need.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on June 15, 2012, 08:52:30 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on June 15, 2012, 04:42:34 AM
...but women have the privilege over men of being openly homosexual or bi without threat of violence or social rejection.
No we don't. Bisexual female = heterosexual faking it for male attention (so far as the gay community is concerned). Bisexual or lesbian female = sex object or (too often) a bitch who needs to be fucked by a real man to turn her back.
Which is why I am very, very careful about who I talk to about this/allow to know.
THIS. so much this!
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on June 15, 2012, 08:57:14 PM
Also, feminism has always been a dirty word. Feminists tend to make men uncomfortable and while they (cis men*) have been successful in making the movement be apologetic about that (we have to be polite and polite = not making them uncomfortable/like they might possibly have to work for the privileges they get when they're born even though the very basis of feminism is fighting that), I think the tide is turning a bit.
*Not accusing all cis men. Like Nig said, this is one of the most egalitarian places I've found on the interbutts.
Unlike MRA's and certain corners of Reddit and 4chan.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 15, 2012, 09:08:10 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on June 15, 2012, 09:07:12 PM
Men who are born in male bodies and women who are born in female bodies. The rest of us are transgender.
I don't like having a label.
I'm TGRR. That's the only label or classification I want or need.
While I generally agree, knowing there was a word (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genderqueer) was reassuring. I did what felt right anyway, but it was good to know there were other people like me.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on June 15, 2012, 09:17:30 PM
While I generally agree, knowing there was a word (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genderqueer) was reassuring. I did what felt right anyway, but it was good to know there were other people like me.
TGG seemed to need a word at first. Now she's just "I DO WHAT I WANT". Which is as it should be.
Which I do, and always have done. Like I said, it was good to know. Finding something reassuring =/= needing it.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on June 15, 2012, 09:26:09 PM
Which I do, and always have done. Like I said, it was good to know. Finding something reassuring =/= needing it.
Oh, I know.
MY problem is that - not only is there apparently a word for my orientation, which irks me - but there are in fact other people on my planet that makes all this terminology necessary. If everyone else was flung off into space, things would be much nicer.
Quote from: Pixie on June 15, 2012, 11:13:52 AM
Men showing what ate socially considered feminine traits are still ridiculed, and whereas being a tomboy is considered not that abberant, boys doing things "like a girl" are still ridiculed by a good portion of western society.
Could you expand?
I dont even know if its related to, but i feel it does in a way, ive learned of some feminists that essentialize what a woman is (essentialization is a type of typology, characterization, universalization or cliche-ing), and from that angle defend women.
The problem with that is that it presumes that women are a certain way, and with that view theres no deconstruction or critique to what a woman is.
Or maybe that's just the essencialization realized by some males themselves?
One of the infightings in history of feminism i learned, was that between white middle-high class women that spoke of gender prejudice, and that caused certain resentment from lower class or from other races women, that thought of their adressing of issues as incomplete, or from a whole different set of priorities as themselves.
Its a whole set of different problems for someone living as a trophy wife than say, living in a ghetto or being an immigrant.
Im not sure how they came around it, or how it was resolved, but i think it had to do with making a common front in the social fight, while in the theoretical part being more specialized.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on June 15, 2012, 09:32:54 PM
Quote from: Pixie on June 15, 2012, 11:13:52 AM
Men showing what ate socially considered feminine traits are still ridiculed, and whereas being a tomboy is considered not that abberant, boys doing things "like a girl" are still ridiculed by a good portion of western society.
Could you expand?
Gender roles are a liiiittle bit more fluid for women than they used to be (eg, the tom boy trope is well loved and there are many a scrappy girl in media who is the hero or the side kick, and "she's not like the other girls" is a compliment, etc.) but not so for men. This is because things that are feminine are lesser because women are still "weak" (making the only way a woman can be less weak is for her to be less feminine - you see this, too, in feminist movement, sadly). Here's an excellent video on femmephobia, which is what that is. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77lPjNhL5X4)
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on June 15, 2012, 09:32:54 PMI dont even know if its related to, but i feel it does in a way, ive learned of some feminists that essentialize what a woman is (essentialization is a type of typology, characterization, universalization or cliche-ing), and from that angle defend women.
The problem with that is that it presumes that women are a certain way, and with that view theres no deconstruction or critique to what a woman is.
Or maybe that's just the essencialization realized by some males themselves?
I tend to be involved with and more aware of third wave feminism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-wave_feminism), which argues against that very fundamentally (although theory and practice are not always the same), so I don't know.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 15, 2012, 09:28:33 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on June 15, 2012, 09:26:09 PM
Which I do, and always have done. Like I said, it was good to know. Finding something reassuring =/= needing it.
Oh, I know.
MY problem is that - not only is there apparently a word for my orientation, which irks me - but there are in fact other people on my planet that makes all this terminology necessary. If everyone else was flung off into space, things would be much nicer.
:lulz: Ok, that I can see.
I still use "like a girl", because it's fun when dealing with people (guys) who are bothered or insulted by that sort of thing.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on June 15, 2012, 09:52:06 PM
Gender roles are a liiiittle bit more fluid for women than they used to be (eg, the tom boy trope is well loved and there are many a scrappy girl in media who is the hero or the side kick, and "she's not like the other girls" is a compliment, etc.) but not so for men. This is because things that are feminine are lesser because women are still "weak" (making the only way a woman can be less weak is for her to be less feminine - you see this, too, in feminist movement, sadly). Here's an excellent video on femmephobia, which is what that is. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77lPjNhL5X4)
Oh yeah, regarding the video, in occasions just because im not interested in a given woman that makes approaches towards me, then im a fag, or because im tall, have a light build and have certain refinement that contrasts to the Mexican Macho stereotype, then im a lesser being (being gay IS in this culture being less, and the ties between misogyny and gay-hating seem to be related to this said femmephobia too)
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on June 15, 2012, 09:52:06 PM
I tend to be involved with and more aware of third wave feminism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-wave_feminism), which argues against that very fundamentally (although theory and practice are not always the same), so I don't know.
Ok, that also relates to my other post regarding the different kinds of feminists and their infighting... yeah, i cant say im too sharp with feminist history, and that third wave movement adressess it.
Although i still think specialized theorization regarding certain minorities is good (and that it is done by members that belong to those minorities, so they can adress important issues that others might turn a blind eye to, because of not experiencing it in their "own shoes")
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on June 15, 2012, 10:10:35 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on June 15, 2012, 09:52:06 PM
Gender roles are a liiiittle bit more fluid for women than they used to be (eg, the tom boy trope is well loved and there are many a scrappy girl in media who is the hero or the side kick, and "she's not like the other girls" is a compliment, etc.) but not so for men. This is because things that are feminine are lesser because women are still "weak" (making the only way a woman can be less weak is for her to be less feminine - you see this, too, in feminist movement, sadly). Here's an excellent video on femmephobia, which is what that is. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77lPjNhL5X4)
Oh yeah, regarding the video, in occasions just because im not interested in a given woman that makes approaches towards me, then im a fag, or because im tall, have a light build and have certain refinement that contrasts to the Mexican Macho stereotype, then im a lesser being (being gay IS in this culture being less, and the ties between misogyny and gay-hating seem to be related to this said femmephobia too)
Yeah. It's one of those things that hits us all, in one way or another.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on June 15, 2012, 10:10:35 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on June 15, 2012, 09:52:06 PM
I tend to be involved with and more aware of third wave feminism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-wave_feminism), which argues against that very fundamentally (although theory and practice are not always the same), so I don't know.
Ok, that also relates to my other post regarding the different kinds of feminists and their infighting... yeah, i cant say im too sharp with feminist history, and that third wave movement adressess it.
Although i still think specialized theorization regarding certain minorities is good (and that it is done by members that belong to those minorities, so they can adress important issues that others might turn a blind eye to, because of not experiencing it in their "own shoes")
I missed that post, somehow. And yes it does.
And TWF doesn't negate that. You'll find a lot of overlap, ime, both as people who are TWF and TWF who aren't a gender, romantic, or sexual minority (GRSM) but are allies.
Romantic minority? How is that conceptualized or how does it pertain to feminism?
I have speculation, but i dont really know.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on June 15, 2012, 08:52:30 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on June 15, 2012, 04:42:34 AM
...but women have the privilege over men of being openly homosexual or bi without threat of violence or social rejection.
No we don't. Bisexual female = heterosexual faking it for male attention (so far as the gay community is concerned). Bisexual or lesbian female = sex object or (too often) a bitch who needs to be fucked by a real man to turn her back.
Which is why I am very, very careful about who I talk to about this/allow to know.
Yes, the whole "The slut just needs a good hard dicking" sentiment is probably why lesbian porn is so popular, otherwise why would guys watch it? Also, I might be thinking of something else, but isn't raping a lesbian considered some sort of cure in Africa? I might be thinking of virgins and AIDs, though.
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on June 15, 2012, 10:45:07 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on June 15, 2012, 08:52:30 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on June 15, 2012, 04:42:34 AM
...but women have the privilege over men of being openly homosexual or bi without threat of violence or social rejection.
No we don't. Bisexual female = heterosexual faking it for male attention (so far as the gay community is concerned). Bisexual or lesbian female = sex object or (too often) a bitch who needs to be fucked by a real man to turn her back.
Which is why I am very, very careful about who I talk to about this/allow to know.
Yes, the whole "The slut just needs a good hard dicking" sentiment is probably why lesbian porn is so popular, otherwise why would guys watch it? Also, I might be thinking of something else, but isn't raping a lesbian considered some sort of cure in Africa? I might be thinking of virgins and AIDs, though.
I think you are thinking of so called "corrective" rape, where they are just punished for being lesbians, and the sex with virgins thing has also been reported.
^^^^ That.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on June 15, 2012, 10:41:24 PM
Romantic minority? How is that conceptualized or how does it pertain to feminism?
I have speculation, but i dont really know.
For some people, romance is not necessarily attached to sexuality, yes? (eg, people who are romantically attracted to men and woman but only heterosexual, or people who are asexual but still want a romantic partner, etc.)
Women can and do have these orientations, and that /needs/ to be respected just as much as a heteroromantic heterosexual woman's.
And then there's intersectionality, too, of course.
Quote from: Pixie on June 15, 2012, 10:51:14 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on June 15, 2012, 10:45:07 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on June 15, 2012, 08:52:30 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on June 15, 2012, 04:42:34 AM
...but women have the privilege over men of being openly homosexual or bi without threat of violence or social rejection.
No we don't. Bisexual female = heterosexual faking it for male attention (so far as the gay community is concerned). Bisexual or lesbian female = sex object or (too often) a bitch who needs to be fucked by a real man to turn her back.
Which is why I am very, very careful about who I talk to about this/allow to know.
Yes, the whole "The slut just needs a good hard dicking" sentiment is probably why lesbian porn is so popular, otherwise why would guys watch it? Also, I might be thinking of something else, but isn't raping a lesbian considered some sort of cure in Africa? I might be thinking of virgins and AIDs, though.
I think you are thinking of so called "corrective" rape, where they are just punished for being lesbians, and the sex with virgins thing has also been reported.
Ah.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on June 15, 2012, 10:56:33 PM
^^^^ That.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on June 15, 2012, 10:41:24 PM
Romantic minority? How is that conceptualized or how does it pertain to feminism?
I have speculation, but i dont really know.
For some people, romance is not necessarily attached to sexuality, yes? (eg, people who are romantically attracted to men and woman but only heterosexual, or people who are asexual but still want a romantic partner, etc.)
Women can and do have these orientations, and that /needs/ to be respected just as much as a heteroromantic heterosexual woman's.
And then there's intersectionality, too, of course.
Yeah. Human sexuality and gender is this super fluid thing. Which is why I just use queer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer) and skip all the rest of the labels unless I have intent to sleep with someone.
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on June 15, 2012, 10:45:07 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on June 15, 2012, 08:52:30 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on June 15, 2012, 04:42:34 AM
...but women have the privilege over men of being openly homosexual or bi without threat of violence or social rejection.
No we don't. Bisexual female = heterosexual faking it for male attention (so far as the gay community is concerned). Bisexual or lesbian female = sex object or (too often) a bitch who needs to be fucked by a real man to turn her back.
Which is why I am very, very careful about who I talk to about this/allow to know.
Yes, the whole "The slut just needs a good hard dicking" sentiment is probably why lesbian porn is so popular, otherwise why would guys watch it? Also, I might be thinking of something else, but isn't raping a lesbian considered some sort of cure in Africa? I might be thinking of virgins and AIDs, though.
Or you know, men just like watching pretty girls doing sex things and don't need to have a misogynist hateful attitude to like watching it?
Garbo, the point I'm making is that, like the kyriachy concept seems to imply, privilege is fluid and men and women both have privilege over eachother in different situations (contexts, locations, situations etc). I'm not interested in going 'my man-problems are worse than your woman problems' but I am interested in the idea that both genders have it easier than the other in some contexts. In the example I gave I don't really think its easy for women to be gay but I'm pretty confident that where I live, being an openly gay male is more likely to get you bashed than openly being a lesbian.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on June 16, 2012, 01:21:59 AM
Garbo, the point I'm making is that, like the kyriachy concept seems to imply, privilege is fluid and men and women both have privilege over eachother in different situations (contexts, locations, situations etc). I'm not interested in going 'my man-problems are worse than your woman problems' but I am interested in the idea that both genders have it easier than the other in some contexts. In the example I gave I don't really think its easy for women to be gay but I'm pretty confident that where I live, being an openly gay male is more likely to get you bashed than openly being a lesbian.
You stealth-edited your post, but I was already responding to what you had said so I'm leaving it here.
Most things, most places, are worse for women.
I am not sure why this is so hard for you to believe. What kind of information would you like to help you to believe that is true?
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on June 16, 2012, 01:26:01 AM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on June 16, 2012, 01:21:59 AM
Garbo, the point I'm making is that, like the kyriachy concept seems to imply, privilege is fluid and men and women both have privilege over eachother in different situations (contexts, locations, situations etc). I'm not interested in going 'my man-problems are worse than your woman problems' but I am interested in the idea that both genders have it easier than the other in some contexts. In the example I gave I don't really think its easy for women to be gay but I'm pretty confident that where I live, being an openly gay male is more likely to get you bashed than openly being a lesbian.
You stealth-edited your post, but I was already responding to what you had said so I'm leaving it here.
Most things, most places, are worse for women.
I am not sure why this is so hard for you to believe. What kind of information would you like to help you to believe that is true?
It's not. I suspect it is true.
I realized that my post was kind of reading like I didn't believe that hence the ninja edit.
But Im saying that I think all social groups, genders, ethnicities have some situations where they're better off than others, even if they're not exactly overwhelmingly meaningful advantages.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on June 16, 2012, 01:34:12 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on June 16, 2012, 01:26:01 AM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on June 16, 2012, 01:21:59 AM
Garbo, the point I'm making is that, like the kyriachy concept seems to imply, privilege is fluid and men and women both have privilege over eachother in different situations (contexts, locations, situations etc). I'm not interested in going 'my man-problems are worse than your woman problems' but I am interested in the idea that both genders have it easier than the other in some contexts. In the example I gave I don't really think its easy for women to be gay but I'm pretty confident that where I live, being an openly gay male is more likely to get you bashed than openly being a lesbian.
You stealth-edited your post, but I was already responding to what you had said so I'm leaving it here.
Most things, most places, are worse for women.
I am not sure why this is so hard for you to believe. What kind of information would you like to help you to believe that is true?
It's not. I suspect it is true.
I realized that my post was kind of reading like I didn't believe that hence the ninja edit.
But Im saying that I think all social groups, genders, ethnicities have some situations where they're better off than others, even if they're not exactly overwhelmingly meaningful advantages.
Sure, absolutely. I'm not exactly sure what the relevance of that is, though, in relation to this thread. Can you explain it?
Someone bought up the word Kyriachy and I got all excited because it was consistent with some ideas I have going on (basically I was developing the idea of Kyriachy myself without knowing it was already a thing). I started talking about the other thing that had been on my mind; to what extent do things like male liberation from gender roles fall under the 'juristiction' of feminism? Is feminism (or should it continue to be) stricty and exclusively about womens rights, or is it a big enough concept to deal with other forms of prejudice?
That was the point of what I was saying. Garbo challenged the example I gave to I was elaborating to try to make sure what I was trying to say was coming through clear.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on June 16, 2012, 01:14:54 AM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on June 15, 2012, 10:45:07 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on June 15, 2012, 08:52:30 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on June 15, 2012, 04:42:34 AM
...but women have the privilege over men of being openly homosexual or bi without threat of violence or social rejection.
No we don't. Bisexual female = heterosexual faking it for male attention (so far as the gay community is concerned). Bisexual or lesbian female = sex object or (too often) a bitch who needs to be fucked by a real man to turn her back.
Which is why I am very, very careful about who I talk to about this/allow to know.
Yes, the whole "The slut just needs a good hard dicking" sentiment is probably why lesbian porn is so popular, otherwise why would guys watch it? Also, I might be thinking of something else, but isn't raping a lesbian considered some sort of cure in Africa? I might be thinking of virgins and AIDs, though.
Or you know, men just like watching pretty girls doing sex things and don't need to have a misogynist hateful attitude to like watching it?
Then I will amend my thinking to put "most" in front of that. Or even just "some."
Have I excluded you enough from the statement, or would you like me to say that no man has ever thought that a bitch just needed a real hard dicking to be put right?
ILU FREEKY.
Please provide me with a situation where "female privilege" would exist, Dingo (I'm looking for stats on your assertion regarding the "bi/homosexual females are less likely to be assaulted for being queer" and I gotta tell you, the results are not supporting it. And that's not even including the rape statistics).
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on June 16, 2012, 02:06:57 AM
ILU FREEKY.
<3
Quote
Please provide me with a situation where "female privilege" would exist, Dingo (I'm looking for stats on your assertion regarding the "bi/homosexual females are less likely to be assaulted for being queer" and I gotta tell you, the results are not supporting it. And that's not even including the rape statistics).
The
only thing I can think of here is with regard to there being any kind of female privilege is not related at all to this discussion, and one usually hears more about it from jilted scumbag exes, and I don't have statistics for it.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on June 16, 2012, 01:48:35 AM
Someone bought up the word Kyriachy and I got all excited because it was consistent with some ideas I have going on (basically I was developing the idea of Kyriachy myself without knowing it was already a thing). I started talking about the other thing that had been on my mind; to what extent do things like male liberation from gender roles fall under the 'juristiction' of feminism? Is feminism (or should it continue to be) stricty and exclusively about womens rights, or is it a big enough concept to deal with other forms of prejudice?
That was the point of what I was saying. Garbo challenged the example I gave to I was elaborating to try to make sure what I was trying to say was coming through clear.
Feminism, as it's most commonly defined today, is about egalitarianism, not about women's rights. That means that part of feminism is, indeed, liberating men from gender roles and from macho expectations/shaming.
Also, statistics indicate that lesbians are very frequently targeted for violence or rape because of their sexual orientation. It's not a contest about who is victimized more often, but it is still a fallacy to assume that being female is a protective factor against homophobic violence.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 15, 2012, 09:28:33 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on June 15, 2012, 09:26:09 PM
Which I do, and always have done. Like I said, it was good to know. Finding something reassuring =/= needing it.
Oh, I know.
MY problem is that - not only is there apparently a word for my orientation, which irks me - but there are in fact other people on my planet that makes all this terminology necessary. If everyone else was flung off into space, things would be much nicer.
I agree with you, Roger. Peoples is peoples.
In regards to the rest of the discussion, I don't think I have much to add that Pix, Garbo, and Nigel didn't already cover. I would suggest that one be very careful in trying to categorize feminists, though, because there are political feminists, traditional feminists, radical feminists, and so on. I've often argued with my roommate that one section of the many groups that identify as such should not be how you judge the mas a whole, but I think that, as was discussed earlier in this thread, the man-hating, bra-burning lesbian-feminist trope (which many radical feminists I have met seem to purposefully embody), has alienated a number of people from using the word feminist. I suppose I overestimate humanity's collective intelligence when I expect them not to do stupid shit like that, but damnit, I'm an optimist. :lulz:
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on June 16, 2012, 02:19:29 AM
Also, statistics indicate that lesbians are very frequently targeted for violence or rape because of their sexual orientation. It's not a contest about who is victimized more often, but it is still a fallacy to assume that being female is a protective factor against homophobic violence.
As usual, Nigel cuts to the heart of everything. WHY YOU GOTTA BE SO NIGEL, NIGEL?
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on June 16, 2012, 02:06:57 AM
ILU FREEKY.
Please provide me with a situation where "female privilege" would exist, Dingo (I'm looking for stats on your assertion regarding the "bi/homosexual females are less likely to be assaulted for being queer" and I gotta tell you, the results are not supporting it. And that's not even including the rape statistics).
I want to preface this by saying that
in the general case men have it much, much easier than women. I don't dispute that.
But if you want a specific scenario: primary education teachers in the US. Yes, there are more male dominated professions than female dominated ones, and the male dominated ones pay better. Overall, men do have better employment opportunities than women. You can make the counter argument that the only reason female-dominated professions exist in the first place is that men get first pick of all the good jobs.
This is anecdotal - but the female dominance of primary and secondary education positions is staggering. I didn't meet a male teacher until high school, and I attended 5 different schools, public and private, up to that point. There were about 80 primary / secondary education major students in my college cohort, 3 of which were male. Math, physics, and computer science, while male dominated, were more like 15-30% female. Admittedly not high enough, but until the level where there were only like 5 students in a class, nobody was ever the only person of their gender in their classroom. Those three male education majors had it
awkward.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on June 16, 2012, 05:22:51 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on June 16, 2012, 02:06:57 AM
ILU FREEKY.
Please provide me with a situation where "female privilege" would exist, Dingo (I'm looking for stats on your assertion regarding the "bi/homosexual females are less likely to be assaulted for being queer" and I gotta tell you, the results are not supporting it. And that's not even including the rape statistics).
I want to preface this by saying that in the general case men have it much, much easier than women. I don't dispute that.
But if you want a specific scenario: primary education teachers in the US. Yes, there are more male dominated professions than female dominated ones, and the male dominated ones pay better. Overall, men do have better employment opportunities than women. You can make the counter argument that the only reason female-dominated professions exist in the first place is that men get first pick of all the good jobs.
This is anecdotal - but the female dominance of primary and secondary education positions is staggering. I didn't meet a male teacher until high school, and I attended 5 different schools, public and private, up to that point. There were about 80 primary / secondary education major students in my college cohort, 3 of which were male. Math, physics, and computer science, while male dominated, were more like 15-30% female. Admittedly not high enough, but until the level where there were only like 5 students in a class, nobody was ever the only person of their gender in their classroom. Those three male education majors had it awkward.
Is that a matter of preference and bias of employers?... Or is that personal preferences for jobs that come into play?
Here in Mexico, psychology is still a majority of women studying it, but some decades ago, it was primarily studied by women.
So thats something to take into account, job election and preference.
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on June 15, 2012, 10:45:07 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on June 15, 2012, 08:52:30 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on June 15, 2012, 04:42:34 AM
...but women have the privilege over men of being openly homosexual or bi without threat of violence or social rejection.
No we don't. Bisexual female = heterosexual faking it for male attention (so far as the gay community is concerned). Bisexual or lesbian female = sex object or (too often) a bitch who needs to be fucked by a real man to turn her back.
Which is why I am very, very careful about who I talk to about this/allow to know.
Yes, the whole "The slut just needs a good hard dicking" sentiment is probably why lesbian porn is so popular, otherwise why would guys watch it? Also, I might be thinking of something else, but isn't raping a lesbian considered some sort of cure in Africa? I might be thinking of virgins and AIDs, though.
I think we watch different lesbian porn, because in
my girl-on-girl porn, there are no dicks allowed. TVTropes, the ultimate arbiter of all truth, reasons that it might have something to do with there being twice as many naked and sexual females as straight porn, with no gross hairy dudes. If there is homophobia in straight men watching lesbian porn, I suspect it has more to do with the idea that masturbating to another man having sex makes you gay or something.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on June 16, 2012, 05:25:59 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on June 16, 2012, 05:22:51 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on June 16, 2012, 02:06:57 AM
ILU FREEKY.
Please provide me with a situation where "female privilege" would exist, Dingo (I'm looking for stats on your assertion regarding the "bi/homosexual females are less likely to be assaulted for being queer" and I gotta tell you, the results are not supporting it. And that's not even including the rape statistics).
I want to preface this by saying that in the general case men have it much, much easier than women. I don't dispute that.
But if you want a specific scenario: primary education teachers in the US. Yes, there are more male dominated professions than female dominated ones, and the male dominated ones pay better. Overall, men do have better employment opportunities than women. You can make the counter argument that the only reason female-dominated professions exist in the first place is that men get first pick of all the good jobs.
This is anecdotal - but the female dominance of primary and secondary education positions is staggering. I didn't meet a male teacher until high school, and I attended 5 different schools, public and private, up to that point. There were about 80 primary / secondary education major students in my college cohort, 3 of which were male. Math, physics, and computer science, while male dominated, were more like 15-30% female. Admittedly not high enough, but until the level where there were only like 5 students in a class, nobody was ever the only person of their gender in their classroom. Those three male education majors had it awkward.
Is that a matter of preference and bias of employers?... Or is that personal preferences for jobs that come into play?
Here in Mexico, psychology is still a majority of women studying it, but some decades ago, it was primarily studied by women.
So thats something to take into account, job election and preference.
Preference is almost certainly a factor, but I don't see how that makes it any better? It still can't be easy to be the only male 1st grade teacher in your school.
In some ways I think it's due to this attitude in the US that primary education teachers are basically supposed to be surrogate mothers or something, and that that isn't a fit job for a normal healthy man - or rather, that a healthy man should have no interest in having that kind of a relationship with small children. Like - is he a pedophile or something?
I think that the "Men aren't good at being nurturing" myth is of comparable harm to the myth that "Women aren't good at math."
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on June 16, 2012, 05:22:51 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on June 16, 2012, 02:06:57 AM
ILU FREEKY.
Please provide me with a situation where "female privilege" would exist, Dingo (I'm looking for stats on your assertion regarding the "bi/homosexual females are less likely to be assaulted for being queer" and I gotta tell you, the results are not supporting it. And that's not even including the rape statistics).
I want to preface this by saying that in the general case men have it much, much easier than women. I don't dispute that.
But if you want a specific scenario: primary education teachers in the US. Yes, there are more male dominated professions than female dominated ones, and the male dominated ones pay better. Overall, men do have better employment opportunities than women. You can make the counter argument that the only reason female-dominated professions exist in the first place is that men get first pick of all the good jobs.
This is anecdotal - but the female dominance of primary and secondary education positions is staggering. I didn't meet a male teacher until high school, and I attended 5 different schools, public and private, up to that point. There were about 80 primary / secondary education major students in my college cohort, 3 of which were male. Math, physics, and computer science, while male dominated, were more like 15-30% female. Admittedly not high enough, but until the level where there were only like 5 students in a class, nobody was ever the only person of their gender in their classroom. Those three male education majors had it awkward.
While I'm sort of willing to concede that point, I do want to point out that teaching is a "pink collar job" - one that has been historically one of the few jobs women were
allowed to have.
And it is, nevertheless, not representative of women in the workforce by any means.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on June 16, 2012, 05:44:27 AM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on June 16, 2012, 05:25:59 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on June 16, 2012, 05:22:51 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on June 16, 2012, 02:06:57 AM
ILU FREEKY.
Please provide me with a situation where "female privilege" would exist, Dingo (I'm looking for stats on your assertion regarding the "bi/homosexual females are less likely to be assaulted for being queer" and I gotta tell you, the results are not supporting it. And that's not even including the rape statistics).
I want to preface this by saying that in the general case men have it much, much easier than women. I don't dispute that.
But if you want a specific scenario: primary education teachers in the US. Yes, there are more male dominated professions than female dominated ones, and the male dominated ones pay better. Overall, men do have better employment opportunities than women. You can make the counter argument that the only reason female-dominated professions exist in the first place is that men get first pick of all the good jobs.
This is anecdotal - but the female dominance of primary and secondary education positions is staggering. I didn't meet a male teacher until high school, and I attended 5 different schools, public and private, up to that point. There were about 80 primary / secondary education major students in my college cohort, 3 of which were male. Math, physics, and computer science, while male dominated, were more like 15-30% female. Admittedly not high enough, but until the level where there were only like 5 students in a class, nobody was ever the only person of their gender in their classroom. Those three male education majors had it awkward.
Is that a matter of preference and bias of employers?... Or is that personal preferences for jobs that come into play?
Here in Mexico, psychology is still a majority of women studying it, but some decades ago, it was primarily studied by women.
So thats something to take into account, job election and preference.
Preference is almost certainly a factor, but I don't see how that makes it any better? It still can't be easy to be the only male 1st grade teacher in your school.
In some ways I think it's due to this attitude in the US that primary education teachers are basically supposed to be surrogate mothers or something, and that that isn't a fit job for a normal healthy man - or rather, that a healthy man should have no interest in having that kind of a relationship with small children. Like - is he a pedophile or something?
I think that the "Men aren't good at being nurturing" myth is of comparable harm to the myth that "Women aren't good at math."
My point was that preference and exclusion take place in this case, and i dont really have a way to express evidence that its one rather than the other.
Say, ive heard the IT field or some engineerings are mostly populated by men... is that because more men want to be it rather than women (here would come into play cultural roles/ideals), or should we infer that "OMG, women are prohibited from entering this kind of schooling!"
To be clear, i think excluding certain gender from a job is wrong.
I have been discussing the point of causality of gender population/percentage in a given field.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on June 16, 2012, 05:22:51 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on June 16, 2012, 02:06:57 AM
ILU FREEKY.
Please provide me with a situation where "female privilege" would exist, Dingo (I'm looking for stats on your assertion regarding the "bi/homosexual females are less likely to be assaulted for being queer" and I gotta tell you, the results are not supporting it. And that's not even including the rape statistics).
I want to preface this by saying that in the general case men have it much, much easier than women. I don't dispute that.
But if you want a specific scenario: primary education teachers in the US. Yes, there are more male dominated professions than female dominated ones, and the male dominated ones pay better. Overall, men do have better employment opportunities than women. You can make the counter argument that the only reason female-dominated professions exist in the first place is that men get first pick of all the good jobs.
This is anecdotal - but the female dominance of primary and secondary education positions is staggering. I didn't meet a male teacher until high school, and I attended 5 different schools, public and private, up to that point. There were about 80 primary / secondary education major students in my college cohort, 3 of which were male. Math, physics, and computer science, while male dominated, were more like 15-30% female. Admittedly not high enough, but until the level where there were only like 5 students in a class, nobody was ever the only person of their gender in their classroom. Those three male education majors had it awkward.
Why? Why is it awkward to be the only person of your gender in a class?
Did their female classmates make fun of them? Ask them why they were in the class? Insinuate things about their body parts or sexual orientation? Treat them poorly in social situations?
Did this treatment translate to the work place?
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on June 16, 2012, 05:55:00 AM
My point was that preference and exclusion take place in this case, and i dont really have a way to express evidence that its one rather than the other.
Say, ive heard the IT field or some engineerings are mostly populated by men... is that because more men want to be it rather than women (here would come into play cultural roles/ideals), or should we infer that "OMG, women are prohibited from entering this kind of schooling!"
Okay - this one I actually do know about. My mother and I in the general math / computer science field, and we both work as software developers, which is a hugely male dominated profession. (For reference, I am male. I just tend to use female avatars.)
"Computer" used to be a profession, and a "pink collar" one at that - before computing machines were widely used in industry & the lab, you had rooms full of women* doing differential equations and summing Taylor series and whatnot with a slide rule. The reason was more or less that mathematically gifted men could go on to be physicists and engineers, while similarly gifted women were persuaded against it - they were allowed into science and engineering in a strictly support capacity. The heavy theoretical lifting is the domain of great men like Feynman, but women were deemed sufficient for the "easy" part of solving the quantum equations needed to actually build a working atom bomb. Which meant that in the early days of computing machines, a lot of women were in the position to transfer from "computer" to "computer technician/operator/programmer". Computer programmer is one of the few (only?) technical professions where the current percentage of females is drastically
lower than it was in the 50s. There are a number of reasons why**, but I think that a big reason is that the more computer science was accepted as a serious hard subject in its own right, the less women were encouraged to enter the field.
<more to follow when I'm more awake>
*I know that atom bomb project did, probably few other projects needed needed that many people doing calculus.
**A lot of people have been saying stuff about male-oriented video games getting boys interested in computers, and there might be some truth to that - but right now in the 21st century, women log more hours than men on recreational computer use, largely due to more time on social media and games like Farmville and Words With Friends. A big reason that Angry Birds is/was so much more popular than all the other games in it's genre is that all the
other games concepted the same scenario as throwing grenades at people in bunkers instead of the friendly cartoon birds at cartoon pigs.
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on June 16, 2012, 04:54:49 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on June 16, 2012, 02:19:29 AM
Also, statistics indicate that lesbians are very frequently targeted for violence or rape because of their sexual orientation. It's not a contest about who is victimized more often, but it is still a fallacy to assume that being female is a protective factor against homophobic violence.
As usual, Nigel cuts to the heart of everything. WHY YOU GOTTA BE SO NIGEL, NIGEL?
I gotta be me.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on June 16, 2012, 05:22:51 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on June 16, 2012, 02:06:57 AM
ILU FREEKY.
Please provide me with a situation where "female privilege" would exist, Dingo (I'm looking for stats on your assertion regarding the "bi/homosexual females are less likely to be assaulted for being queer" and I gotta tell you, the results are not supporting it. And that's not even including the rape statistics).
I want to preface this by saying that in the general case men have it much, much easier than women. I don't dispute that.
But if you want a specific scenario: primary education teachers in the US. Yes, there are more male dominated professions than female dominated ones, and the male dominated ones pay better. Overall, men do have better employment opportunities than women. You can make the counter argument that the only reason female-dominated professions exist in the first place is that men get first pick of all the good jobs.
This is anecdotal - but the female dominance of primary and secondary education positions is staggering. I didn't meet a male teacher until high school, and I attended 5 different schools, public and private, up to that point. There were about 80 primary / secondary education major students in my college cohort, 3 of which were male. Math, physics, and computer science, while male dominated, were more like 15-30% female. Admittedly not high enough, but until the level where there were only like 5 students in a class, nobody was ever the only person of their gender in their classroom. Those three male education majors had it awkward.
I think you need to be more critical in your analysis. There are a number of professions which are heavily female-dominated, largely for reasons pertaining to gender-role differentiation. It might not surprise you to find that most nannies are female. However, that has mostly to do with the fact that for many years, these were the only professions that were open to women, and in fact, males wishing to enter these professions faced a stigma (also highly unfair, and a fantastic example of how restricting women's endeavors also oppresses men). Even so, sadly, on average males earn more in these female-dominated jobs than females do, when averaged for experience and skill.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^That, said much better than I did.
Wow, this thread moved some while I was sleeping, and Garbo and Nigel have left me with nothing to answer!
I hereby dub thee both PeeDee's Femininjas. :kiss:
Ok hopefully Nigel's post said what I was trying to say. I'm not interested in a my life is harder than yours competition (I'd lose, I think my worst problem is oops I forgot to shop and it's Sunday). I was just wanting to look at the ways feminism can cover both male and female issues.
Also I realise I worded my previosu post like only men are threatened by violence for being openly gay. I don't think that. I meant to say that in towns like mine I think there would be worse backlash for a man being openly gay than a woman, or at least a lesser threat of violence. Though that could be inaccurate.
I still think the idea that men liking lesbian porn is about entranced sexist loathing and subconscious anti-homosexual prejudice as opposed to 'omg boobs and pussy' is fucking stupid.
I like boobs. I like vaginas. Lesbian porn has that in abundance. By the way I like lesbian porn. :lulz:
Quote from: Guru Quixote on June 16, 2012, 11:04:20 AM
I like boobs. I like vaginas. Lesbian porn has that in abundance. By the way I like lesbian porn. :lulz:
I don't like lesbian porn made for a straight audience. I'm not keen on fake tits and long fingernails (owch!)
But then again I don't watch porn because of the negative impact on pornstar's lives, like addiction and basically burning out.
If I could find the Unicorn of Non-Exploitative Porn, I'd stop fapping to Literotica.
Quote from: Pixie on June 16, 2012, 10:56:43 AM
Wow, this thread moved some while I was sleeping, and Garbo and Nigel have left me with nothing to answer!
I hereby dub thee both PeeDee's Femininjas. :kiss:
8)
Quote from: Pixie on June 16, 2012, 11:23:59 AM
Quote from: Guru Quixote on June 16, 2012, 11:04:20 AM
I like boobs. I like vaginas. Lesbian porn has that in abundance. By the way I like lesbian porn. :lulz:
I don't like lesbian porn made for a straight audience. I'm not keen on fake tits and long fingernails (owch!)
But then again I don't watch porn because of the negative impact on pornstar's lives, like addiction and basically burning out.
If I could find the Unicorn of Non-Exploitative Porn, I'd stop fapping to Literotica.
My own personal porn unicorn of late has been amateur masturbation videos on Youporn. There's definitely no exploitation going on there; these guys just get off on showing off.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/196043_10150991098271737_1354711297_n.jpg)
(snagged from Facebook)
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on June 16, 2012, 08:22:22 AM
I think you need to be more critical in your analysis. There are a number of professions which are heavily female-dominated, largely for reasons pertaining to gender-role differentiation. It might not surprise you to find that most nannies are female. However, that has mostly to do with the fact that for many years, these were the only professions that were open to women, and in fact, males wishing to enter these professions faced a stigma (also highly unfair, and a fantastic example of how restricting women's endeavors also oppresses men). Even so, sadly, on average males earn more in these female-dominated jobs than females do, when averaged for experience and skill.
I agree with everything you said, including that the historical reason for this is the oppression of women - Garbo just asked for an example of a situation where men faced a stigma that women did not. (And as she pointed out, this specific scenario is not at all representative of women in the workforce.)
The INF tumblr is fucking amazing, Waffles. There are some crappy submissions, but a lot of them are really excellent. That one's a good summary of rape culture. Thanks for bringing it up!
Quote from: Placid Dingo on June 16, 2012, 11:00:23 AM
I still think the idea that men liking lesbian porn is about entranced sexist loathing and subconscious anti-homosexual prejudice as opposed to 'omg boobs and pussy' is fucking stupid.
Oh no, I get that. I'm kind of a fan of gay porn myself (of both kinds, although I really do not like actual video porn (though regular dude-on-dude porn is less like that FMO - I think they know they have a wider audience than just gay men and take that into account). The leering that seems to be universal amongst the ladies in commercial/semi-amateur is a serious turn off for me and I find it creepy. And I generally read my smut anyway).
But OTHO, a lot of lesbian porn (though this is particularly common for porn intended for male audiences, as Pix said) is kind of exploitative and suffers the same reason I dislike commercial and semi-amateur porn.
Quote from: Pixie on June 16, 2012, 10:56:43 AM
Wow, this thread moved some while I was sleeping, and Garbo and Nigel have left me with nothing to answer!
I hereby dub thee both PeeDee's Femininjas. :kiss:
:thanks:
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on June 16, 2012, 06:56:20 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on June 16, 2012, 08:22:22 AM
I think you need to be more critical in your analysis. There are a number of professions which are heavily female-dominated, largely for reasons pertaining to gender-role differentiation. It might not surprise you to find that most nannies are female. However, that has mostly to do with the fact that for many years, these were the only professions that were open to women, and in fact, males wishing to enter these professions faced a stigma (also highly unfair, and a fantastic example of how restricting women's endeavors also oppresses men). Even so, sadly, on average males earn more in these female-dominated jobs than females do, when averaged for experience and skill.
I agree with everything you said, including that the historical reason for this is the oppression of women - Garbo just asked for an example of a situation where men faced a stigma that women did not. (And as she pointed out, this specific scenario is not at all representative of women in the workforce.)
I feel compelled to add that I have not personally observed or heard about that stigma and had a lot of male teachers all through school, including elementary (and I also come from a very long line of elementary school educators, going back to the nineteenth century so I figure I would have heard about it by now). Both my fifth and sixth grade teachers (one of whom swapped out to teach second grade afterward) were dudes and were well respected.
Also also men are becoming increasingly common in pink collar jobs anyway (of course, these jobs are also less likely to be part of the pink ghetto, where they have no opportunity for upward mobility after the reach a certain level)
Quote from: Phox, Mistress of Many Names on June 16, 2012, 06:11:21 AM
Why? Why is it awkward to be the only person of your gender in a class?
Did their female classmates make fun of them? Ask them why they were in the class? Insinuate things about their body parts or sexual orientation? Treat them poorly in social situations?
Did this treatment translate to the work place?
There doesn't need to be explicit harassment to make minorities feel unwelcome. To the extent that we are socialized in gender-specific ways, there are real differences in the shared experiences that a person would expect to have with another person of the same vs. a different gender. It's always easier to strike up a conversation with someone feel you'll have more in common with. And then there are topics and conversations that are more comfortable to have when it's "just the guys" or "just the girls." People of both genders moderate themselves more or differently in mixed company - and someone of the minority gender picks up on that and feel less included. It might just be that the one guy in the class gets fewer opportunities to bond at a deeper level with his female classmates, or maybe they come to think of him as just one of the girls. Then at least he's included, but the group's acceptance is implicitly conditioned on his not reminding them that he isn't a girl. Even when no one's trying to be sexist, that kind of thing happens.
I'd like to say something about "Lesbian" porn. It's a misnomer. A more accurate way to put it would be Woman on Woman porn. I mean, have you ever watched that stuff and seen anything but the same exact type of women who are in all the other "normal" porn out there? Have you ever seen a slim, short-haired, androgynous or male-expressive woman on one end? I'm not saying all lesbian couples have this gender expression, I'm just saying that the term Lesbian Porn is just a marketing term. They just leave the dudes out and use the same women, and it is very much a part of same cycle.
We can't pretend the porn industry, generally, has any interest in pushing feminist interests, and I think we can agree that that most lesbians are at least somewhat concerned with those very interests. It sets yet another ridiculous standard for women, it is just another Candybar Wrapper for people to chew them up and spit them out, and brings the issue of gender expression and all its complexity down to something well and truly stupid or ignores it completely. It's a little thing, but it bugs the fuck out of me.
***
As for workplace stigma, being a male LMT is extremely difficult.
The reason most people want a massage from a woman is because A)they're male and do not want a man touching them for, well, I'm guessing a heap of sexual repression and/or projection (saying to themselves "I would want to do something inappropriate, so he must".) or B) they're female and they don't want a man to touch them. The latter I understand more, but is still frustrating. I do not, however, blame them. I blame a prudish society that obviously doesn't take care of itself enough to take steps to prevent the things that happen to women that make them afraid that someone who is paid to make them feel good is going to take advantage of them.
I've tried to focus a practice working with gay men only, but you can imagine how that turned out...which was a shame.
Also: I got into it with one of Garbo's FB people RE: the giant fucking parasite that is the Women's Image Industry.
I was flabbergasted that any woman would feel that men are held to the same standard of appearances that women are because "Men are expected to be in-shape in out society" or similar garbage.
How? How could a woman think that? You go to any newsstand in the US, or most places I imagine, the amount of magazine covers with picture perfect bodies and hair featuring women is staggering compared to...well, say, car magazines? They're about even there. Those with men with 200 million abs and pecs that reach the sun exist, of course, but the simple numbers are, well, beyond debate, really.
Not to mention men are expected to be fit and muscular. Women are expected to be skinny. This expectation seems to come from other women. The expectation from men, generally, seems to be a certain kind of proportion with Sumptuous Hourglass at the top of the list. Either way, they do not allow for the myriad of bodytypes hardwired into your average human.
What I want to know is why in the hell would a woman, in the 21st Century, who is NOT a Fundamentalist not realize this? Why would you want to assume that this is an equal expectation between genders.
Porn is no different from any other entertainment medium - most of it is complete shit. Most music sucks. Most movies suck. Most books suck. Most porn doesn't swallow.
:rimshot:
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on June 16, 2012, 02:06:57 AM
ILU FREEKY.
Please provide me with a situation where "female privilege" would exist, Dingo (I'm looking for stats on your assertion regarding the "bi/homosexual females are less likely to be assaulted for being queer" and I gotta tell you, the results are not supporting it. And that's not even including the rape statistics).
In Ohio women are FAR more likely to get custody of children in divorce cases or breakups of non-marriage relationships.
That's the most stark case of female privilege I have seen. The anecdotal evidence I have that it is not always justified is my co-worker, he works full time, doesn't do drugs or break the law, the only mark against him is that he is heavily tattooed. His ex GF meanwhile is a regular drug user who keeps being arrested for breaking and entering. The only reason my co-worker currently has custody of his daughter is because his ex is actually in jail, and as soon as she gets out she gets her back.
Quote from: Alty on June 16, 2012, 08:35:18 PM
Also: I got into it with one of Garbo's FB people RE: the giant fucking parasite that is the Women's Image Industry.
I was flabbergasted that any woman would feel that men are held to the same standard of appearances that women are because "Men are expected to be in-shape in out society" or similar garbage.
How? How could a woman think that? You go to any newsstand in the US, or most places I imagine, the amount of magazine covers with picture perfect bodies and hair featuring women is staggering compared to...well, say, car magazines? They're about even there. Those with men with 200 million abs and pecs that reach the sun exist, of course, but the simple numbers are, well, beyond debate, really.
Not to mention men are expected to be fit and muscular. Women are expected to be skinny. This expectation seems to come from other women. The expectation from men, generally, seems to be a certain kind of proportion with Sumptuous Hourglass at the top of the list. Either way, they do not allow for the myriad of bodytypes hardwired into your average human.
What I want to know is why in the hell would a woman, in the 21st Century, who is NOT a Fundamentalist not realize this? Why would you want to assume that this is an equal expectation between genders.
I remember that, that chick was special.
Quote from: Waffles, The Iron on June 16, 2012, 05:26:37 PM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/196043_10150991098271737_1354711297_n.jpg)
(snagged from Facebook)
SPOT ON.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on June 16, 2012, 06:56:20 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on June 16, 2012, 08:22:22 AM
I think you need to be more critical in your analysis. There are a number of professions which are heavily female-dominated, largely for reasons pertaining to gender-role differentiation. It might not surprise you to find that most nannies are female. However, that has mostly to do with the fact that for many years, these were the only professions that were open to women, and in fact, males wishing to enter these professions faced a stigma (also highly unfair, and a fantastic example of how restricting women's endeavors also oppresses men). Even so, sadly, on average males earn more in these female-dominated jobs than females do, when averaged for experience and skill.
I agree with everything you said, including that the historical reason for this is the oppression of women - Garbo just asked for an example of a situation where men faced a stigma that women did not. (And as she pointed out, this specific scenario is not at all representative of women in the workforce.)
The place where I want you to be more critical is in your assumption that the fact that a field is female-dominated automatically means that males who enter it face stigma. Unfortunately, the evidence, as I pointed out, indicates that males in female-dominated fields are rewarded above their female counterparts, so your example is in error.
Quote from: Alty on June 16, 2012, 08:25:09 PM
I'd like to say something about "Lesbian" porn. It's a misnomer. A more accurate way to put it would be Woman on Woman porn. I mean, have you ever watched that stuff and seen anything but the same exact type of women who are in all the other "normal" porn out there? Have you ever seen a slim, short-haired, androgynous or male-expressive woman on one end? I'm not saying all lesbian couples have this gender expression, I'm just saying that the term Lesbian Porn is just a marketing term. They just leave the dudes out and use the same women, and it is very much a part of same cycle.
We can't pretend the porn industry, generally, has any interest in pushing feminist interests, and I think we can agree that that most lesbians are at least somewhat concerned with those very interests. It sets yet another ridiculous standard for women, it is just another Candybar Wrapper for people to chew them up and spit them out, and brings the issue of gender expression and all its complexity down to something well and truly stupid or ignores it completely. It's a little thing, but it bugs the fuck out of me.
***
As for workplace stigma, being a male LMT is extremely difficult.
The reason most people want a massage from a woman is because A)they're male and do not want a man touching them for, well, I'm guessing a heap of sexual repression and/or projection (saying to themselves "I would want to do something inappropriate, so he must".) or B) they're female and they don't want a man to touch them. The latter I understand more, but is still frustrating. I do not, however, blame them. I blame a prudish society that obviously doesn't take care of itself enough to take steps to prevent the things that happen to women that make them afraid that someone who is paid to make them feel good is going to take advantage of them.
I've tried to focus a practice working with gay men only, but you can imagine how that turned out...which was a shame.
Now, this is definitely an field in which it seems that women have the advantage... although, I also wonder how heavily that's affected by working in Alaska, and also how closely the experience of female massage therapists in Alaska doing massage on straight men mirrors your experiences doing massage on gay men.
Also I am regretting not asking you for a backrub while you were here, because my back is a mess all the time and I can't afford a damn massage.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on June 16, 2012, 08:58:58 PM
Quote from: Alty on June 16, 2012, 08:25:09 PM
I'd like to say something about "Lesbian" porn. It's a misnomer. A more accurate way to put it would be Woman on Woman porn. I mean, have you ever watched that stuff and seen anything but the same exact type of women who are in all the other "normal" porn out there? Have you ever seen a slim, short-haired, androgynous or male-expressive woman on one end? I'm not saying all lesbian couples have this gender expression, I'm just saying that the term Lesbian Porn is just a marketing term. They just leave the dudes out and use the same women, and it is very much a part of same cycle.
We can't pretend the porn industry, generally, has any interest in pushing feminist interests, and I think we can agree that that most lesbians are at least somewhat concerned with those very interests. It sets yet another ridiculous standard for women, it is just another Candybar Wrapper for people to chew them up and spit them out, and brings the issue of gender expression and all its complexity down to something well and truly stupid or ignores it completely. It's a little thing, but it bugs the fuck out of me.
***
As for workplace stigma, being a male LMT is extremely difficult.
The reason most people want a massage from a woman is because A)they're male and do not want a man touching them for, well, I'm guessing a heap of sexual repression and/or projection (saying to themselves "I would want to do something inappropriate, so he must".) or B) they're female and they don't want a man to touch them. The latter I understand more, but is still frustrating. I do not, however, blame them. I blame a prudish society that obviously doesn't take care of itself enough to take steps to prevent the things that happen to women that make them afraid that someone who is paid to make them feel good is going to take advantage of them.
I've tried to focus a practice working with gay men only, but you can imagine how that turned out...which was a shame.
Now, this is definitely an field in which it seems that women have the advantage... although, I also wonder how heavily that's affected by working in Alaska, and also how closely the experience of female massage therapists in Alaska doing massage on straight men mirrors your experiences doing massage on gay men.
Also I am regretting not asking you for a backrub while you were here, because my back is a mess all the time and I can't afford a damn massage.
From what I've gathered it's not quite the same. Gay men sort of casually expect sexual services because, HEY IT'S JUST US GUYS. Straight men are probably up for that most of the time, but too afraid to make the first move, unless they're real pigs. But women get hired a lot more in places that are obviously strictly therapeutic massage, sometimes regardless of skill level, thus eliminating the inevitbale awkwardness of in-home work. I imagine the experience would be similar inhome with both sexes, but I have yet to encounter a female LMT up here who does in home work. With good reason.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on June 16, 2012, 08:42:53 PM
Porn is no different from any other entertainment medium - most of it is complete shit. Most music sucks. Most movies suck. Most books suck. Most porn doesn't swallow.
:rimshot:
"I'm gonna watch some porn. OOOH, that's hot. Hey, what's that one on the edge of the pile moaning and groaning for? She's not even getting anything. Were those track marks I just saw? This is depressing...EEEEEW, what's the point of giving a blowjob to a strap-on? Hey, here comes a guy! Cool. Oh wait, never mind...FUCK, he's ugly. Why do they always pull it out and jizz all over everybody? Fuck this. Sad world when people have to do that shit. Fuck sex. I guess I'll do the dishes now."
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 16, 2012, 08:47:26 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on June 16, 2012, 02:06:57 AM
ILU FREEKY.
Please provide me with a situation where "female privilege" would exist, Dingo (I'm looking for stats on your assertion regarding the "bi/homosexual females are less likely to be assaulted for being queer" and I gotta tell you, the results are not supporting it. And that's not even including the rape statistics).
In Ohio women are FAR more likely to get custody of children in divorce cases or breakups of non-marriage relationships.
That's the most stark case of female privilege I have seen. The anecdotal evidence I have that it is not always justified is my co-worker, he works full time, doesn't do drugs or break the law, the only mark against him is that he is heavily tattooed. His ex GF meanwhile is a regular drug user who keeps being arrested for breaking and entering. The only reason my co-worker currently has custody of his daughter is because his ex is actually in jail, and as soon as she gets out she gets her back.
There is ample research into this phenomenon and you might be interested to know that the primary reason women are overwhelmingly awarded custody is because men, overwhelmingly, do not contest it. In cases where fathers do petition for custody, they are, statistically speaking, extremely likely to win it.
As in GA's example, I really have to point out that voluntary non-participation does not equal lack of privilege.
Quote from: Pixie on June 16, 2012, 11:23:59 AM
If I could find the Unicorn of Non-Exploitative Porn, I'd stop fapping to Literotica.
This to fifty million.
Quote from: Alty on June 16, 2012, 08:35:18 PM
Also: I got into it with one of Garbo's FB people RE: the giant fucking parasite that is the Women's Image Industry.
I was flabbergasted that any woman would feel that men are held to the same standard of appearances that women are because "Men are expected to be in-shape in out society" or similar garbage.
How? How could a woman think that? You go to any newsstand in the US, or most places I imagine, the amount of magazine covers with picture perfect bodies and hair featuring women is staggering compared to...well, say, car magazines? They're about even there. Those with men with 200 million abs and pecs that reach the sun exist, of course, but the simple numbers are, well, beyond debate, really.
Not to mention men are expected to be fit and muscular. Women are expected to be skinny. This expectation seems to come from other women. The expectation from men, generally, seems to be a certain kind of proportion with Sumptuous Hourglass at the top of the list. Either way, they do not allow for the myriad of bodytypes hardwired into your average human.
What I want to know is why in the hell would a woman, in the 21st Century, who is NOT a Fundamentalist not realize this? Why would you want to assume that this is an equal expectation between genders.
I was quite surprised, too, tbh. IDK if she's classify herself as a feminist (it's not something she and I have ever talked about that I can remember) but she's smart enough that I was pretty confused.
Quote from: Alty on June 16, 2012, 08:25:09 PM
I'd like to say something about "Lesbian" porn. It's a misnomer. A more accurate way to put it would be Woman on Woman porn. I mean, have you ever watched that stuff and seen anything but the same exact type of women who are in all the other "normal" porn out there? Have you ever seen a slim, short-haired, androgynous or male-expressive woman on one end? I'm not saying all lesbian couples have this gender expression, I'm just saying that the term Lesbian Porn is just a marketing term. They just leave the dudes out and use the same women, and it is very much a part of same cycle.
We can't pretend the porn industry, generally, has any interest in pushing feminist interests, and I think we can agree that that most lesbians are at least somewhat concerned with those very interests. It sets yet another ridiculous standard for women, it is just another Candybar Wrapper for people to chew them up and spit them out, and brings the issue of gender expression and all its complexity down to something well and truly stupid or ignores it completely. It's a little thing, but it bugs the fuck out of me.
***
As for workplace stigma, being a male LMT is extremely difficult.
The reason most people want a massage from a woman is because A)they're male and do not want a man touching them for, well, I'm guessing a heap of sexual repression and/or projection (saying to themselves "I would want to do something inappropriate, so he must".) or B) they're female and they don't want a man to touch them. The latter I understand more, but is still frustrating. I do not, however, blame them. I blame a prudish society that obviously doesn't take care of itself enough to take steps to prevent the things that happen to women that make them afraid that someone who is paid to make them feel good is going to take advantage of them.
I've tried to focus a practice working with gay men only, but you can imagine how that turned out...which was a shame.
I'm definitely willing to agree with all of this, although there
are some deliberately feminist porn producers/magazines out there, which is pretty nice. Many of which seeks to include multiple bodies types for all folk involved, although iirc it's still mostly heterosexual porn (and here's a list because I love PeeDee so! (http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/07/23/feminist-porn-sex-consent-and-getting-off/))
Also re: the second part, also I can agree there and would put forth the idea that part of the reluctance to let a dude touch us is due to our training that we're responsible for not being raped (rather than a dude being told "no means no, no matter what or who they are to you" as Waffle's INF pic says).
It's pretty well explained here (http://bigthink.com/focal-point/attention-space-cadets-do-not-proposition-women-in-the-elevator?page=3) (tl;dr we have to vigilant at all times, even when it's sort of at the back of your mind. It's really not the dude in question's fault but we also have to be seen as
being vigilant. Or else, if it happens, it's our fault.)
Also, yeah, that's super not cool of your gay dude clients. :(
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on June 16, 2012, 08:53:32 PM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on June 16, 2012, 06:56:20 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on June 16, 2012, 08:22:22 AM
I think you need to be more critical in your analysis. There are a number of professions which are heavily female-dominated, largely for reasons pertaining to gender-role differentiation. It might not surprise you to find that most nannies are female. However, that has mostly to do with the fact that for many years, these were the only professions that were open to women, and in fact, males wishing to enter these professions faced a stigma (also highly unfair, and a fantastic example of how restricting women's endeavors also oppresses men). Even so, sadly, on average males earn more in these female-dominated jobs than females do, when averaged for experience and skill.
I agree with everything you said, including that the historical reason for this is the oppression of women - Garbo just asked for an example of a situation where men faced a stigma that women did not. (And as she pointed out, this specific scenario is not at all representative of women in the workforce.)
The place where I want you to be more critical is in your assumption that the fact that a field is female-dominated automatically means that males who enter it face stigma. Unfortunately, the evidence, as I pointed out, indicates that males in female-dominated fields are rewarded above their female counterparts, so your example is in error.
Uh-huh. I don't think my dad contested it until I was thirteen or so, and my parents have been divorced since since I was eight.
And he was promptly denied because he's fucking nuts and abusive and was not really capable of supporting three kids at the time anyway, even with child support.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on June 16, 2012, 07:35:47 PM
Quote from: Phox, Mistress of Many Names on June 16, 2012, 06:11:21 AM
Why? Why is it awkward to be the only person of your gender in a class?
Did their female classmates make fun of them? Ask them why they were in the class? Insinuate things about their body parts or sexual orientation? Treat them poorly in social situations?
Did this treatment translate to the work place?
There doesn't need to be explicit harassment to make minorities feel unwelcome. To the extent that we are socialized in gender-specific ways, there are real differences in the shared experiences that a person would expect to have with another person of the same vs. a different gender. It's always easier to strike up a conversation with someone feel you'll have more in common with. And then there are topics and conversations that are more comfortable to have when it's "just the guys" or "just the girls." People of both genders moderate themselves more or differently in mixed company - and someone of the minority gender picks up on that and feel less included. It might just be that the one guy in the class gets fewer opportunities to bond at a deeper level with his female classmates, or maybe they come to think of him as just one of the girls. Then at least he's included, but the group's acceptance is implicitly conditioned on his not reminding them that he isn't a girl. Even when no one's trying to be sexist, that kind of thing happens.
True, but all of my questions were based explicitly on my first-hand observation of the treatment of women in a certain engineering department with which I am quite familiar. So, I suppose what I'm getting at here, is that while you are correct that there is inequality in numbers in the field of primary education, it does not necessitate discrimination. Personally, if someone feels uncomfortable saying certain things or acting a certain way around a certain gender, then that's THEIR problem. Also, I am not a fan of the "just one of the guys/girls" mentality, as it is both outdated and counterproductive categorization.
To be blunt, I have far less sympathy for men who choose to go into education than I do for women who choose to go into Engineering.
Quote from: Phox, Mistress of Many Names on June 17, 2012, 12:20:01 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on June 16, 2012, 07:35:47 PM
Quote from: Phox, Mistress of Many Names on June 16, 2012, 06:11:21 AM
Why? Why is it awkward to be the only person of your gender in a class?
Did their female classmates make fun of them? Ask them why they were in the class? Insinuate things about their body parts or sexual orientation? Treat them poorly in social situations?
Did this treatment translate to the work place?
There doesn't need to be explicit harassment to make minorities feel unwelcome. To the extent that we are socialized in gender-specific ways, there are real differences in the shared experiences that a person would expect to have with another person of the same vs. a different gender. It's always easier to strike up a conversation with someone feel you'll have more in common with. And then there are topics and conversations that are more comfortable to have when it's "just the guys" or "just the girls." People of both genders moderate themselves more or differently in mixed company - and someone of the minority gender picks up on that and feel less included. It might just be that the one guy in the class gets fewer opportunities to bond at a deeper level with his female classmates, or maybe they come to think of him as just one of the girls. Then at least he's included, but the group's acceptance is implicitly conditioned on his not reminding them that he isn't a girl. Even when no one's trying to be sexist, that kind of thing happens.
True, but all of my questions were based explicitly on my first-hand observation of the treatment of women in a certain engineering department with which I am quite familiar. So, I suppose what I'm getting at here, is that while you are correct that there is inequality in numbers in the field of primary education, it does not necessitate discrimination. Personally, if someone feels uncomfortable saying certain things or acting a certain way around a certain gender, then that's THEIR problem. Also, I am not a fan of the "just one of the guys/girls" mentality, as it is both outdated and counterproductive categorization.
To be blunt, I have far less sympathy for men who choose to go into education than I do for women who choose to go into Engineering.
My mom worked in education administration for the majority of my childhood. There were more female than male teachers, especcially at an elementary level, but the male teachers were in no way victimized by the system. They had no trouble achieving seniority or pay raises, or positions within the union, they were not harassed at work as far as I am aware, and my mom tended to share all the drama and gossip with me. Male teachers have nothing to complain about.
Though male lower primary school teachers I think can have a harder time with getting the lower grades; there's a bit of a practice of putting men in higher grades.
Again, to reiterate, I'm not trying to pull a 'mines worse than yours'.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on June 17, 2012, 03:34:56 AM
Though male lower primary school teachers I think can have a harder time with getting the lower grades; there's a bit of a practice of putting men in higher grades.
Again, to reiterate, I'm not trying to pull a 'mines worse than yours'.
What do you mean, "putting" men in higher grades? What are you talking about? Do you work in education, or are you pulling that out of your ass? I know kind of a lot of teachers, both men and women, and it's not like they come out of teacher school and get assigned a grade to teach. They train to teach a certain age range and, if applicable, certain subjects. If a man went to school to become a kindergarten teacher, he wouldn't be arbitrarily forced to teach middle school science classes, nor would a teacher trained to teach high school French be stuck with a bunch of first-graders. At least, that sure as fuck isn't how it works in my state. Teachers here have Masters degrees; they have to. And they specialize. Early childhood education is a specific degree. They aren't interchangeable at the discriminatory whim of administrators.
Maybe things are very very different where you are.
Yes I work in education. Principals assign teachers to grades. You do specialise but its not a legal prerequisite. I'm a good example; Major in Japanese Minor in English as part of a standard Arts/Education high school teaching degree (13 - 17 year olds). I now teach Japanese in lower primary (11, 12 year olds).
So I never went to seek a primrary degree so maybe in the really early years it's more specialized. But even so, once you're a teacher, with the exception of LOTE and Instrumental, legally you can do pretty much anything in schools. But certainly with male teachers they're more likely to get placed in 5, 6, 7, as opposed to 3, 4 or lower (and I'm pretty sure you don't need a different degree to teach lower).
Double degree batchellor is just one way; The other way to do it is via masters; finish a BA and then add a teaching masters.
So there's not huge differences between the experiences that I know of in education, but there's small things.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on June 16, 2012, 05:29:02 AM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on June 15, 2012, 10:45:07 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on June 15, 2012, 08:52:30 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on June 15, 2012, 04:42:34 AM
...but women have the privilege over men of being openly homosexual or bi without threat of violence or social rejection.
No we don't. Bisexual female = heterosexual faking it for male attention (so far as the gay community is concerned). Bisexual or lesbian female = sex object or (too often) a bitch who needs to be fucked by a real man to turn her back.
Which is why I am very, very careful about who I talk to about this/allow to know.
Yes, the whole "The slut just needs a good hard dicking" sentiment is probably why lesbian porn is so popular, otherwise why would guys watch it? Also, I might be thinking of something else, but isn't raping a lesbian considered some sort of cure in Africa? I might be thinking of virgins and AIDs, though.
I think we watch different lesbian porn, because in my girl-on-girl porn, there are no dicks allowed. TVTropes, the ultimate arbiter of all truth, reasons that it might have something to do with there being twice as many naked and sexual females as straight porn, with no gross hairy dudes. If there is homophobia in straight men watching lesbian porn, I suspect it has more to do with the idea that masturbating to another man having sex makes you gay or something.
I accept this line of reasoning, mainly because I watch gay pron for double the amount of naked dudes.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on June 17, 2012, 12:28:58 PM
Yes I work in education. Principals assign teachers to grades. You do specialise but its not a legal prerequisite. I'm a good example; Major in Japanese Minor in English as part of a standard Arts/Education high school teaching degree (13 - 17 year olds). I now teach Japanese in lower primary (11, 12 year olds).
So I never went to seek a primrary degree so maybe in the really early years it's more specialized. But even so, once you're a teacher, with the exception of LOTE and Instrumental, legally you can do pretty much anything in schools. But certainly with male teachers they're more likely to get placed in 5, 6, 7, as opposed to 3, 4 or lower (and I'm pretty sure you don't need a different degree to teach lower).
Double degree batchellor is just one way; The other way to do it is via masters; finish a BA and then add a teaching masters.
So there's not huge differences between the experiences that I know of in education, but there's small things.
That doesn't happen here. I looked a couple times into teaching, and there are separate degrees for different age ranges. And Nigel pretty much said how things work here, so yeah, things happen very differently in upside down land.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on June 17, 2012, 12:28:58 PM
Yes I work in education. Principals assign teachers to grades. You do specialise but its not a legal prerequisite. I'm a good example; Major in Japanese Minor in English as part of a standard Arts/Education high school teaching degree (13 - 17 year olds). I now teach Japanese in lower primary (11, 12 year olds).
So I never went to seek a primrary degree so maybe in the really early years it's more specialized. But even so, once you're a teacher, with the exception of LOTE and Instrumental, legally you can do pretty much anything in schools. But certainly with male teachers they're more likely to get placed in 5, 6, 7, as opposed to 3, 4 or lower (and I'm pretty sure you don't need a different degree to teach lower).
Double degree batchellor is just one way; The other way to do it is via masters; finish a BA and then add a teaching masters.
So there's not huge differences between the experiences that I know of in education, but there's small things.
Ah. Here, a Masters is required by state law, and you have to receive certification for teaching various topics. Most of the teachers I know specialize. Also, here, 11-12 year olds would be in upper primary/middle school, not lower primary, which would be 7-8 year olds. I believe that middle and high school teachers have the same qualifications and can teach either, but need specialized certifications, which they are required to update annually. It's divided into Elementary and Secondary, and I think Elementary requires some kind of early childhood development degree or certificate.
In your experience, in your region, do male teachers have a harder time finding jobs or getting raises?
Here, you have to have a different teaching certificate to work with high schoolers than you do with K-8. 7-12 = must specialize. K-6, no specialization needed.
And in California, you better wait until you've already been teaching for a few years before you go for a masters (because teachers with a masters get paid more and they're not going to hire you at that pay grade if you already came that way - they don't want to pay more than they have to for new teachers)
No, they don't (Edit; reply is to Nigel). It's practically an automated system so there's no difference between the two.
Honestly, Im going to take the question in good faith, but I feel like I have to parrot that I'm not in a competition every single post; I'm just pointing out something interesting about the roles men get assigned in schools as compared to women.
Oh and 6, 7 is upper primary, my mistake. Next year grade 7 is moving to lower high school though.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on June 17, 2012, 10:55:07 PM
No, they don't. It's practically an automated system so there's no difference between the two.
Honestly, Im going to take the question in good faith, but I feel like I have to parrot that I'm not in a competition every single post; I'm just pointing out something interesting about the roles men get assigned in schools as compared to women.
After considering going into education I was very aware of this, it's one of the reasons I chose not to. I can't say just why I felt that way. It feels like an unspoken rule of some kind, I've never actually heard anyone disclose concern about that kind of thing, yet the feeling is there. It is interesting.
The thing about professions dominated by women as a whole, such as childcare, nursing and lower age range education is that generally, as important as these skills are for a functioning society, they are not as well paid on the whole as male-dominated ones. This seems to suggest, to me anyway, that "feminine" traits are not given a high monetary value . I can understand dangerous jobs being highly paid due to the likelihood of accident, but isn't caring for people and teaching kids how to read worth more than we pay for it?
welcome to capitalism.
if something isnt tangibly produced, or it isnt of tactical or strategic advantage over another, it doesnt have value.
modern values arent about quality of life or being humane, its about how much stuff one can hoard while kicking the shit out of others
there is somethings that would be good to value in the devalued stereotypical characteristics of what is supposed to be femmenine.
fuck im about to run out of battery
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on June 18, 2012, 12:43:15 PM
welcome to capitalism.
if something isnt tangibly produced, or it isnt of tactical or strategic advantage over another, it doesnt have value.
What's silly is we KNOW education gives us long term value, but it's not as easy to emphasise that as just continuing business as usual (here that means digging stuff up).
Quote from: Placid Dingo on June 18, 2012, 12:47:26 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on June 18, 2012, 12:43:15 PM
welcome to capitalism.
if something isnt tangibly produced, or it isnt of tactical or strategic advantage over another, it doesnt have value.
What's silly is we KNOW education gives us long term value, but it's not as easy to emphasise that as just continuing business as usual (here that means digging stuff up).
but what about having a servile uneducated population?
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on June 18, 2012, 12:51:08 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on June 18, 2012, 12:47:26 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on June 18, 2012, 12:43:15 PM
welcome to capitalism.
if something isnt tangibly produced, or it isnt of tactical or strategic advantage over another, it doesnt have value.
What's silly is we KNOW education gives us long term value, but it's not as easy to emphasise that as just continuing business as usual (here that means digging stuff up).
but what about having a servile uneducated population?
:dream:
Quote from: Pixie on June 18, 2012, 12:12:14 PM
The thing about professions dominated by women as a whole, such as childcare, nursing and lower age range education is that generally, as important as these skills are for a functioning society, they are not as well paid on the whole as male-dominated ones. This seems to suggest, to me anyway, that "feminine" traits are not given a high monetary value . I can understand dangerous jobs being highly paid due to the likelihood of accident, but isn't caring for people and teaching kids how to read worth more than we pay for it?
Well, readressing this now that i had a good night's sleepThis comes back to the earlier points of women being relegated to what societally is valued as "crap jobs" or what is supposedly by biology/essence where they perform well.
Child-caring: this throughout history has been a job/chore in the "private" sphere of society which was the one where women were supposed to be, while the men were out about in the "public" sphere in contact with society, politics and others... ill leave it at that, because its a complex history...
Nursing: im not even sure how long this profession has existed per-se... but it generally was conceptualized as doing the dirty work that doctors were too busy to do, so it was just an assistantship for doctors... when the general plans of modernization and conceiving the survivavility of the population as important for the economic power of a society, MAYBE thats when it grew in value and men started joining the ranks of nurses "because it is now important".
Or another example, why are there a lot of female secretaries? Because its generally taken as a job that is merely supporting the primary role of the boss, whichever realm it is, and involves revolving around the boss's directive or "looking pretty".
Regarding "looking pretty"... male models are paid way less than female models... is this because modeling is catered to a male perspective? I think so.
Or look, im a psych student, we have a 70%-30% ratio of women to men... the general discourse of why they want to become one i have come to see is "i want to help others" which falls in the category of "caring" or "empathy" and nothing is "created" physically (at most a document, but that generally isnt considered a "creation"), its all about interactions
Im not sure this is all too clearly expressed.
Engineerings are male dominated, because its a "manly job", working with machines and stuff and tinkering with them so they can be more productive, and being productive is "a good thing" in capitalism.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on June 18, 2012, 10:51:41 PM
Quote from: Pixie on June 18, 2012, 12:12:14 PM
The thing about professions dominated by women as a whole, such as childcare, nursing and lower age range education is that generally, as important as these skills are for a functioning society, they are not as well paid on the whole as male-dominated ones. This seems to suggest, to me anyway, that "feminine" traits are not given a high monetary value . I can understand dangerous jobs being highly paid due to the likelihood of accident, but isn't caring for people and teaching kids how to read worth more than we pay for it?
Well, readressing this now that i had a good night's sleep
This comes back to the earlier points of women being relegated to what societally is valued as "crap jobs" or what is supposedly by biology/essence where they perform well.
Child-caring: this throughout history has been a job/chore in the "private" sphere of society which was the one where women were supposed to be, while the men were out about in the "public" sphere in contact with society, politics and others... ill leave it at that, because its a complex history...
Nursing: im not even sure how long this profession has existed per-se... but it generally was conceptualized as doing the dirty work that doctors were too busy to do, so it was just an assistantship for doctors... when the general plans of modernization and conceiving the survivavility of the population as important for the economic power of a society, MAYBE thats when it grew in value and men started joining the ranks of nurses "because it is now important".
Or another example, why are there a lot of female secretaries? Because its generally taken as a job that is merely supporting the primary role of the boss, whichever realm it is, and involves revolving around the boss's directive or "looking pretty".
Regarding "looking pretty"... male models are paid way less than female models... is this because modeling is catered to a male perspective? I think so.
Or look, im a psych student, we have a 70%-30% ratio of women to men... the general discourse of why they want to become one i have come to see is "i want to help others" which falls in the category of "caring" or "empathy" and nothing is "created" physically (at most a document, but that generally isnt considered a "creation"), its all about interactions
Im not sure this is all too clearly expressed.
Engineerings are male dominated, because its a "manly job", working with machines and stuff and tinkering with them so they can be more productive, and being productive is "a good thing" in capitalism.
Fair insights, dude. I'd say you're right on most of it.
Quote from: Pixie on June 18, 2012, 12:12:14 PM
The thing about professions dominated by women as a whole, such as childcare, nursing and lower age range education is that generally, as important as these skills are for a functioning society, they are not as well paid on the whole as male-dominated ones. This seems to suggest, to me anyway, that "feminine" traits are not given a high monetary value . I can understand dangerous jobs being highly paid due to the likelihood of accident, but isn't caring for people and teaching kids how to read worth more than we pay for it?
Yeah, just look at people like Certified Nurse Assists. They maybe get $12 per hour, and i believe that's fairly high on a national average. These people care for and feed, clean and bathe, and basically do all of the dirty work that allows people to maintain their dignity and base-line health while getting medical care. Meanwhile, a doctor, competent or otherwise, rarely every makes any kind of connection with their patients beyond the cursory kind. It seems to me any job that makes a real human connection with the clientele is kept as far below as possible. I mean, you can make the same kind of money, or more!, giving someone a manicure than you will for cleaning up their shitty bed. And people look down on CNAs and LPN here, bottom of the food chain in the healthcare field. Aaaand it is also considered a woman's job.
Childcare providers make shit too.
Huh.
What job for women has the highest, education/effort/access to pay ratio?
Stripping.
And for men?
Drug dealing.
Its dildoes all the way down; this reflects the structure of the system and roles.
up for discussion:
Why Jezebel Has the Wrong Approach to Feminism, Period.
http://tlgmagazine.com/jezebel-wrong-approach-feminism/
thoughts?
I don't read Jezebel enough to comment.
THAT SAID,
reading the article, they seem to be describing what some people are calling the twitterstorm approach to progressive politics, aka clickbait and outrage wrapped in a highly moralistic agenda.
Which I've certainly seen elsewhere. In essence, politics becomes a game about moral perfection, with those at the top encouraging attacks and the anonymous, social media consuming crowd to act as the enforcing mob, putting targets under a barrage of abuse and near-libellous attacks.
Obviously, that's uncomfortable on a number of levels.
I read Jezebel. It's a pro-woman gossip site, with re-blogs and a healthly smear of pop culture.
What it isn't, is anything resembling academic gender studies and feminist philosophy.
It's like complaining that Us Weekly doesn't do hard-hitting journalism.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on March 21, 2014, 05:00:40 PM
I read Jezebel. It's a pro-woman gossip site, with re-blogs and a healthly smear of pop culture.
What it isn't, is anything resembling academic gender studies and feminist philosophy.
It's like complaining that Us Weekly doesn't do hard-hitting journalism.
I read the editorials there, because they're screamingly funny.
Quote from: Cramulus on March 21, 2014, 02:39:47 PM
up for discussion:
Why Jezebel Has the Wrong Approach to Feminism, Period.
http://tlgmagazine.com/jezebel-wrong-approach-feminism/
thoughts?
I was going to say pretty much what LMNO did.
I mean, their tagline is "Celebrity, Sex, Fashion for Women. Without Airbrushing," not "Feminism for Serious Gits".
I think that decrying feminism because you don't like the way some webzine does it makes as much sense as decrying racial equality because someone's dooin' it rong.
Also, I think that webzine is taking Jezebel way too seriously because the editor is 19 and naive; Jezebel is their primary frame of reference because they consider it their competition.
Not that the author of the article is necessarily that young, but I think that attitude is going to be reflected in anything the editor chooses to publish.
Good point!
Quote from: Nigel on March 22, 2014, 06:42:01 PM
I think that decrying feminism because you don't like the way some webzine does it makes as much sense as decrying racial equality because someone's dooin' it rong.
Oh, no doubt.
The biggest problem I have, for example, with tumblr is that it feeds ammunition to reactionaries, by giving them something to point at. Tumblr is not a good example of ANY kind of activism, and it makes things harder on people who are trying to make things better.
But that doesn't mean that the cause they say they support is invalid. It just means that they're assholes.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on March 21, 2014, 05:00:40 PM
I read Jezebel. It's a pro-woman gossip site, with re-blogs and a healthly smear of pop culture.
What it isn't, is anything resembling academic gender studies and feminist philosophy.
It's like complaining that Us Weekly doesn't do hard-hitting journalism.
see, for a lot of people, I think sites like jezebel and thefrisky are their main touchstone to the feminist 'voice' and 'attitude'.
Jezebel is the intersection between feminism and clickbait. You're right that it's not the vanguard of the movement, it's the low branch with the accessible fruit. It's level one. Which why its important despite being essentially a gossip site.
I guess the question is - where do you strike the balance? Activism needs an accessible form, but if it goes too far towards clickbait and appealing to the masses, it also loses its teeth. Which is tough because it needs both its teeth
and the masses.
Right. So the OP article is completely missing the point, is my point.
Quote from: Juana Go? on June 16, 2012, 02:06:57 AM
ILU FREEKY.
Please provide me with a situation where "female privilege" would exist, Dingo (I'm looking for stats on your assertion regarding the "bi/homosexual females are less likely to be assaulted for being queer" and I gotta tell you, the results are not supporting it. And that's not even including the rape statistics).
Well, personally i've noticed this (and again, not saying that because women enjoy this privilege in one domain means women don't face great challenges in other parts of their lives) is that the male gender role makes it hard for men to form the same kind of social ties, or even express themselves emotionally in the same way women can. Male gender roles don't allow for men to do anything that could be misconstrued as "gay" for example, and its still considered unusual for men to express deep emotions and fears, and even if they do, men are more likely than women to be told to just "man up" and take on whatever problems they have without complaining, often by themselves. The expectation for men to be the stoic pillar of resolve in a family cuts us off from a lot of the things that make us human, and as a result, you have a lot of guys with the emotional maturity of toddlers because they literally have no experience handling emotions that aren't smug confidence or anger.
I used to be in a men's organization that was a pretty good example of this. Men of all descriptions would come to have a safe place where they could talk about their problems: divorces, career difficulties, whether or not their family was gonna be out on the street next month. For some of them, this was the only place they could feel they could let the mask down and be vulnerable, the only place they could be honest about what they were feeling in their lives. A lot of these men had wives, some had successful businesses or were happily retired. Even so, in order to get that shit off their chest, they had to drive out to someones secluded garage with a number of semi-strangers who had sworn to secrecy to never speak of it to anyone. Now i dunno about you, but that seems like a lot of shit to go through just so your wife never has to see you be a little bit worried about the finances, dont you think?
I think the female gender role has made a good deal of progress since first and second wave feminism hit, but the male gender role has barely budged an inch. Granted the men have changed, but all that means is you have a larger proportion of men who fall short of society's expectations of them to be super macho breadwinning badasses who are emotionally invulnerable 100% of the time. That probably why it seems like all men are assholes; society rewards men who fit this stereotype, so your wannabe Don Drapers, your pick-up artists, your The Situations, they all have the confidence to venture out and talk to (see bother and/or roofie) women, while men who don't sit off by themselves, feeling like they're barely men to begin with. There needs to be a new standard for what it means to be a man, and i think feminists, male and female, have a part to play in making that happen
Also, some good articles that highlight the experiences i mentioned:
http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/married-to-the-masculine-i-want-a-divorce-slake/
http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2014/02/defining-modern-masculinity/
http://goodmenproject.com/the-good-life/why-we-as-women-need-to-ease-up-on-men/
For the most part, mainstream feminism is also about freedom for men, about freeing men from constrictive gender roles that constrain their expression of emotions and nurturing and the social acceptability of men being free to be homemakers or whatever else they aspire to be. That's kind of the point. In a big way.
What Nigel said.
Also, the best thing about the Good Men Project is that they published my friend's troll post.
http://goodmenproject.com/the-good-life/100-acts-of-male-goodness/47-the-fireman/
Quote#47: The Fireman
It was a typical afternoon in the firehouse. Me, Danny and Pete were sat around playing five card stud, drinking cold soda and dreaming of hot pizza. The alarm went off. We folded and sprung into action.
The next thing you know, we're into the fire truck and out the door. I still get that rumble in my stomach whenever the firetruck goes really fast. I wasn't driving that day, so as we sped down the streets, I made sure to give the thumbs-up to any young boys who saw us. I was trying to catch a glimpse of the fireman dream in a boy's eyes, wondering what sort of men he would become. Did his father love them? Did he even have a father? It's hard not to wonder such things when you're speeding down the street in a big red fire truck. It makes you contemplative and—I don't mind saying—a little bit wistful .
With a screech of brakes, we arrive at the fire. It is a house fire in a pretty swanky part of town, and well under way. Sometimes these rich bastards can rub me up the wrong way. I break my back working for this department and I never had no trust fund. And the only 'hedge fund' I manage is the one where I save up to buy new hedge clippers.
I see that Gary and Lou have the hose held in place. I wrench the water on and it comes gushing from the big hose like a snake throwing up a stream of moles. This is us, doing our job as fire fighters. We are fighting a fire. This is what it is all about. This is what it feels like to be a fireman.
I hear what sounds like a baby crying. I imagine his discomfort from the heat and perhaps experiencing the first signs of smoke inhalation. I run into the rich bastard's house and save the baby.
Everyone was very pleased with me for saving the baby, so I called my dad for the first time in 20 years. He said he was proud of me.
I was a man.
That night as I was having a beer with my dad I knew that he knew that I was a man. I didn't need him to say it. We were just both men. This is what is what it feels like to be a good man.
—Tony G.
Quote from: Pæs on March 31, 2014, 05:14:31 AM
What Nigel said.
Also, the best thing about the Good Men Project is that they published my friend's troll post.
http://goodmenproject.com/the-good-life/100-acts-of-male-goodness/47-the-fireman/
Quote#47: The Fireman
It was a typical afternoon in the firehouse. Me, Danny and Pete were sat around playing five card stud, drinking cold soda and dreaming of hot pizza. The alarm went off. We folded and sprung into action.
The next thing you know, we're into the fire truck and out the door. I still get that rumble in my stomach whenever the firetruck goes really fast. I wasn't driving that day, so as we sped down the streets, I made sure to give the thumbs-up to any young boys who saw us. I was trying to catch a glimpse of the fireman dream in a boy's eyes, wondering what sort of men he would become. Did his father love them? Did he even have a father? It's hard not to wonder such things when you're speeding down the street in a big red fire truck. It makes you contemplative and—I don't mind saying—a little bit wistful .
With a screech of brakes, we arrive at the fire. It is a house fire in a pretty swanky part of town, and well under way. Sometimes these rich bastards can rub me up the wrong way. I break my back working for this department and I never had no trust fund. And the only 'hedge fund' I manage is the one where I save up to buy new hedge clippers.
I see that Gary and Lou have the hose held in place. I wrench the water on and it comes gushing from the big hose like a snake throwing up a stream of moles. This is us, doing our job as fire fighters. We are fighting a fire. This is what it is all about. This is what it feels like to be a fireman.
I hear what sounds like a baby crying. I imagine his discomfort from the heat and perhaps experiencing the first signs of smoke inhalation. I run into the rich bastard's house and save the baby.
Everyone was very pleased with me for saving the baby, so I called my dad for the first time in 20 years. He said he was proud of me.
I was a man.
That night as I was having a beer with my dad I knew that he knew that I was a man. I didn't need him to say it. We were just both men. This is what is what it feels like to be a good man.
—Tony G.
:lulz:
I'm pretty sure this has been posted before, but it's relevant to the discussion, as it's a project by a feminist filmmaker who is advocating for boys: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hc45-ptHMxo
Quote from: Pæs on March 31, 2014, 05:14:31 AM
What Nigel said.
Also, the best thing about the Good Men Project is that they published my friend's troll post.
http://goodmenproject.com/the-good-life/100-acts-of-male-goodness/47-the-fireman/
Quote#47: The Fireman
It was a typical afternoon in the firehouse. Me, Danny and Pete were sat around playing five card stud, drinking cold soda and dreaming of hot pizza. The alarm went off. We folded and sprung into action.
The next thing you know, we're into the fire truck and out the door. I still get that rumble in my stomach whenever the firetruck goes really fast. I wasn't driving that day, so as we sped down the streets, I made sure to give the thumbs-up to any young boys who saw us. I was trying to catch a glimpse of the fireman dream in a boy's eyes, wondering what sort of men he would become. Did his father love them? Did he even have a father? It's hard not to wonder such things when you're speeding down the street in a big red fire truck. It makes you contemplative and—I don't mind saying—a little bit wistful .
With a screech of brakes, we arrive at the fire. It is a house fire in a pretty swanky part of town, and well under way. Sometimes these rich bastards can rub me up the wrong way. I break my back working for this department and I never had no trust fund. And the only 'hedge fund' I manage is the one where I save up to buy new hedge clippers.
I see that Gary and Lou have the hose held in place. I wrench the water on and it comes gushing from the big hose like a snake throwing up a stream of moles. This is us, doing our job as fire fighters. We are fighting a fire. This is what it is all about. This is what it feels like to be a fireman.
I hear what sounds like a baby crying. I imagine his discomfort from the heat and perhaps experiencing the first signs of smoke inhalation. I run into the rich bastard's house and save the baby.
Everyone was very pleased with me for saving the baby, so I called my dad for the first time in 20 years. He said he was proud of me.
I was a man.
That night as I was having a beer with my dad I knew that he knew that I was a man. I didn't need him to say it. We were just both men. This is what is what it feels like to be a good man.
—Tony G.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: