Principia Discordia

Principia Discordia => Apple Talk => Topic started by: Pope Pixie Pickle on August 07, 2012, 11:33:24 am

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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



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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It doesn't "burden" men in the same way that it burdens women, but it's also not mentally, spiritually, or intellectually healthy for men. Man thrive economically and politically under patriarchal systems, but I am not sure they are thriving as human beings.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, BUT

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

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

And this.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 07, 2012, 07:34:03 pm

Yes, BUT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<cough>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 :lulz: Wow.

This really makes me just go... wow.

:facepalm:

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

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

:popcorn:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 07, 2012, 07:48:08 pm
I think that any system which damages or oppresses a part of the population damages and oppresses the whole population on some level.

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

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

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

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

It doesn't "burden" men in the same way that it burdens women, but it's also not mentally, spiritually, or intellectually healthy for men. Man thrive economically and politically under patriarchal systems, but I am not sure they are thriving as human beings.

I think we're in agreement.

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

Yes, BUT

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

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

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

Yes, it is. Some people were doing it before it had a name and became a movement.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 07, 2012, 07:51:16 pm
<cough>

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

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

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

Youth is wasted on the young.

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

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

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

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

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

Not saying that's a fact, but it did occur to me.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 07, 2012, 07:53:00 pm

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

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

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

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

"Patriarchy" is part of "society in general". I think it would be profoundly premature to argue that patriarchy is dead.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 07, 2012, 07:53:25 pm
<cough>

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

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

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

Youth is wasted on the young.

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

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

Okay, I can see that.  Sort of the way widowers are/were viewed when they continued to raise kids and continue working.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 07, 2012, 07:55:18 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:popcorn:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Youth is wasted on the young.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:popcorn:

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

Only because I said it out loud.

:lulz:

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

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

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

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 07, 2012, 08:17:04 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's a bunch of interrelated hierarchies that work together. Sex, financial class, and race are the three big ones.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 07, 2012, 08:18:41 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Youth is wasted on the young.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:popcorn:

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

Only because I said it out loud.

:lulz:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TIA,
Dirty Old Uncle Roger

Damn. I miss all the fun when I'm writing posts.  :lulz:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 07, 2012, 08:34:09 pm
Or maybe you wanted me to shut up and kiss your ass.

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

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

TIA,
Dirty Old Uncle Roger

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

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

She was right about the shut up part, but I say that to everyone, regardless of race, sex, religion, or species.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 07, 2012, 08:35:52 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You wouldn't include religion?

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

(at this moment in time).

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 07, 2012, 08:36:02 pm
Or maybe you wanted me to shut up and kiss your ass.

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

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

TIA,
Dirty Old Uncle Roger

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

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

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

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

Which explains my initial reaction.  Here, it's definitely as important as gender and race.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 07, 2012, 08:40:34 pm
Or maybe you wanted me to shut up and kiss your ass.

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

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

TIA,
Dirty Old Uncle Roger

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, no problem.

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

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

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

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

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

They hate Moozlimz like Obama, though.  :x
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 07, 2012, 08:50:51 pm
I would (Protestants at the top, Catholics and Orthodox, Jews are next, and then everybody else at the bottom in one giant heap), although some of that plays into race.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When the rock hits you, holler.

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

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

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

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

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

I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

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

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

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

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

Other than that, I don't have much.

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

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

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Phox on August 07, 2012, 09:24:05 pm
I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

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

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

Other than that, I don't have much.
That's more gender role sereotyping, which isn't necessarily "patriarchy", but definitely exploited by the patriarchy.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:26:00 pm
I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When the rock hits you, holler.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or aren't, as the case may be (see my response to the same post).
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 07, 2012, 09:32:08 pm
NIGEL IS STEALING MY THOUGHTS!  :lulz:)

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

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

That means it's accomplishing something.

I like it when threads make me THINK. Good threads lately, guys. F'reals.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 07, 2012, 09:34:16 pm
I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

 :lulz:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 07, 2012, 09:38:23 pm
I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

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

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

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

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

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

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

More like, treating them differently reinforces the status quo, while treating them equally undermines it. On a very small scale.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:38:44 pm
I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, no argument at all.  I'm just saying that teaching kids moderation in emotional expression isn't necessarily a gender-based thing.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:39:16 pm
I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's the only scale I've got.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 07, 2012, 09:40:06 pm
I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quit it/deal with it applied equally is great.

Yelling at a preschooler like a drill instructor when you would hug his sister for the same behavior, not so much.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:41:41 pm
I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crying is appropriate for extreme emotion (anger, grief, even happiness, etc) or serious injury, IMO.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 07, 2012, 09:42:06 pm
I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK, but you keep talking about things from an individualistic perspective, which makes it really hard to discuss patriarchy from a societal perspective.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:42:45 pm
I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quit it/deal with it applied equally is great.

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

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

Never let your child see that you're upset with them.  It's one of their goals, part of the primate dominance game.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:43:56 pm
I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry.

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

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

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

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

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

I mean the past 100 years or so seem to have culminated in women having more freedom/control/power and men being more free of stereotypical constraints. Is this something real, or just superficial? Are Condie and Hillary harbingers of equality, or token women in power?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 07, 2012, 09:50:22 pm
I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quit it/deal with it applied equally is great.

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

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

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

Yep. You yell, they win.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Phox on August 07, 2012, 09:55:41 pm
I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Telling a kid that there's no reason to cry over something not worth crying over is a different ballpark, and even a whole different sport.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 07, 2012, 09:56:53 pm
I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Um...

...


...


SILENCE!  I AM THINKING BIG THOUGHTS!  :crankey:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Phox on August 07, 2012, 09:59:05 pm
NIGEL IS STEALING MY THOUGHTS!  :lulz:)

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

But I'd feel awkward saying "man up" because WTF does that even mean?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Phox on August 07, 2012, 10:01:14 pm
I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Um...

...


...


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

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

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

 :lulz:
Haha, why thank you. :D


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

So do we see a change?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly this. Showing signs of masculinity is much the same. It doesn't have to be a means or symbol of oppressing women, it just is by those who would do so by any method.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 07, 2012, 10:26:19 pm
I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry.

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

S'ok, I'm just reminding you to take a step back and try to look at it from a less personal and more of a broad cultural perspective. :)
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 07, 2012, 10:27:04 pm
I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Um...

...


...


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

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

Or, as my dad once put it:

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

My dad is kinda weird.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 07, 2012, 10:28:39 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

It's Pinkboyism in its most insidious form.
Bless these posts.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 07, 2012, 10:32:29 pm
I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

That's not necessarily a bad thing, just something interesting to be aware of. We all receive approval, including from strangers, when we demonstrate that we exemplify society's expectations for us.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Phox on August 07, 2012, 10:35:11 pm
I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Um...

...


...


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

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

Or, as my dad once put it:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sure. When women and females don't spend every day of their lives trying not to be raped and/or killed and we're all paid the same wage as white men, we can swap over to a gender-inclusive term.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Sure. When women and females don't spend every day of their lives trying not to be raped and/or killed and we're all paid the same wage as white men, we can swap over to a gender-inclusive term.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sure. When women and females don't spend every day of their lives trying not to be raped and/or killed and we're all paid the same wage as white men, we can swap over to a gender-inclusive term.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any idiot can find something wrong with anything.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WYLDKAT IS THAT YUO?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 08, 2012, 12:33:05 am
:lulz:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 08, 2012, 12:44:11 am
I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I personally have found (and this is just from my point of view, mind) that being told to SHUT UP when crying ends up equating to NOBODY GIVES A GOOD GOD DAMN, SHUT THE FUCK UP AND GO AWAY.  Whether that's the real message a person wants to send is another matter entirely. 
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 08, 2012, 12:45:57 am
I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, well, we were talking about 4 year olds.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 08, 2012, 12:47:44 am
You know, I think I'm done here.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 08, 2012, 12:49:37 am
I'm not attacking you, Roger.  I'm sorry if it came out that way.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 08, 2012, 12:53:27 am
I've been enjoying this conversation immensely, because I have to THINK about it (hence some of the wandering and weird questions), because it's something I haven't ever considered before (ie, the effect on men).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I love you spags.

It's been a fun thread.

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

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

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

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

I love you spags.

It's been a fun thread.

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

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

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

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

I love you spags.

It's been a fun thread.

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

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

That never hurts.  The alternative can be seen at capitol grilling (shudder) where everyone becomes their party, no matter how silly or Orwellian things get.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 08, 2012, 02:19:04 am
I second Alty regarding wife number two; gender roles are set by men (and the "woman stays at home" is relatively recent and, random historical fact of the day, courtesy of the Dutch).

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

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

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

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

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

A brainwashed shitbag.

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

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

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

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

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



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



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








*as opposed to douchey monkey-brained spag.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 08, 2012, 09:30:05 pm
UNCOMFORTABLE QUESTION TIME.



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



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








*as opposed to douchey monkey-brained spag.

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

If someone needs criticizing, then by all means get on it. 
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 08, 2012, 11:23:16 pm
UNCOMFORTABLE QUESTION TIME.



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



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








*as opposed to douchey monkey-brained spag.

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

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

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

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

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

What you guys think  :?

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

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

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

What you guys think  :?

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUST A THOUGHT.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Didn't see this before the last post.

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

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

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

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

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

Didn't see this before the last post.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

Are either of your children male?

Also, as far as this goes:

Wut?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 09, 2012, 04:11:13 am
So because a word is gender nonspecific, it is dehumanizing? Are you retarded or something?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You get the same thing with jobs that are considered kinda crappy. You don't say someone works in the sewer system, you say they're sanitation workers. It's supposed to afford some sort of respect because the previous common word for it has a lot of assumptions attached to them.

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

Didn't see this before the last post.

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

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

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

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

Are either of your children male?

Also, as far as this goes:

Wut?

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

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

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

JUST A THOUGHT.

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

Yep and yep.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You get the same thing with jobs that are considered kinda crappy. You don't say someone works in the sewer system, you say they're sanitation workers. It's supposed to afford some sort of respect because the previous common word for it has a lot of assumptions attached to them.

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

Are either of your children male?

Also, as far as this goes:

Wut?

I suspect she was asking because, in this society, most mothers raising boys have a different perspective on the emotional/intellectual harm their boys are subject to, than mothers who are raising girls only. As a mother of a boy, it's heartbreaking seeing him indoctrinated into the dominant culture, and working against it is an uphill battle. The harm patriarchy does to boys is very visible from a mother's perspective.

That works too, but I was more thinking along the lines of boys benefiting from mothers, so anything the patriarchy does to make motherhood more difficult is directly sabotaging its own next generation.

Since it might be relevant here - I am male. You post one picture scraped off Myspace in Spagbook....
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 09, 2012, 04:34:21 am
I mean, I'm not sure how old you are, but I remember that back in the 80s, being a steward was supposed to be funny, and it made your masculinity/sexuality questionable. Same thing with being called a male nurse. It's like, bwahahaha, that's a girl's job. So, actually, it's offensive to both genders at the same time. It basically calls one a homo, and the other less than respectable. So, no, it doesn't castrate a male flight attendant. I mean, just think that through for an extra second.

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

Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever really encountered the "sexy stewardess" trope outside of sketchy costume shops. (And James Bond movies, but he fucked everything so that doesn't really mean much.) All the airlines were competing to be seen as economical and least-inconvenient instead of exotic and sexy, so the difference in advertising tone is probably contributing.

To gain a better understanding of where many of these confusing terms came from, it might be helpful to watch some of the films from the 70's-80's that address the cultural climate change going on at the time. Actually, it might sound strange, but I think some of those films would probably help a lot of people understand feminism a little better.

Also, I'd like to throw something in for a laugh, and maybe an interesting take on perspectives. When I was about 15-16 (mid 1980's), I TOTALLY thought that there was no point to feminism anymore because women had already achieved equality. :lol: I thought it was dumb and outdated.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 09, 2012, 04:35:27 am
I mean, I'm not sure how old you are, but I remember that back in the 80s, being a steward was supposed to be funny, and it made your masculinity/sexuality questionable. Same thing with being called a male nurse. It's like, bwahahaha, that's a girl's job. So, actually, it's offensive to both genders at the same time. It basically calls one a homo, and the other less than respectable. So, no, it doesn't castrate a male flight attendant. I mean, just think that through for an extra second.

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

Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever really encountered the "sexy stewardess" trope outside of sketchy costume shops. (And James Bond movies, but he fucked everything so that doesn't really mean much.) All the airlines were competing to be seen as economical and least-inconvenient instead of exotic and sexy, so the difference in advertising tone is probably contributing.

It's old as fuck. There was an old Continental Airlines TV ad that went "We really move our tail for you" that freaked everybody the fuck OUT and probably started the whole switch to "flight attendant".

(http://arotulon.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/coffe-tea-or-me-by-trudy-baker-and-rachel-jones.jpg)
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 09, 2012, 04:35:38 am
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zippy/3153849427/

A letter from the 1930's discussing using women as 'stewardesses or couriers"... a very interesting bit of history on the current topic.

According to eytmologyonline.com in the 1800's Stewardess was used in reference to female members of a ship's staff that waited on female passengers. Also interesting they link the -ess ending to ancient Greek and find early usage in the Church to refer to female deacons. In the 1600's it was used to refer to a female steward (dictionary.reference.com).

The 1930's letter has overtones of sexism "Good PR to have young women on board". The 1800's usage also have strong overtones of sexist... the Church having female Deacons is just funny and ironic.

As a side note, I get really torqued by the people that think the word "history" is patriarchal.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 09, 2012, 04:40:05 am
I think its hilarious. It's not like historigraphy is taught in schools, though.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Golden Applesauce on August 09, 2012, 05:01:53 am
I think I figured out what's bugging me about explicitly non-gendered job titles. For my generation, women have always earned less than men holding the same job title. Which is subtly but importantly distinct from "women have always earned less than men for doing the same job."

I suppose at least getting the same title is a step up from before, but if you take that step for granted, it comes off as the corporation acknowledging the problem (workplace discrimination) and trying to pass off a name change as a substantive fix. At least when they denied that men and women were doing the same job, pay discrimination had a certain internal logic to it. Admitting that they are both doing the same work but refusing to compensate for it is being aware of evil and refusing to work against it.

edit: and on steward / attendant specifically, "attendant" sounds like they're supposed to be hand feeding me grapes, which is ofc exactly what the airline companies wanted to convey when they pushed the name change. What they actually do, in my experience, is apologize for delayed flights and lost luggage... while the thing that the fear-industrial complex wants us to want is someone to keep the plane from exploding, a literal steward. My issue wasn't even the title, I just wanted an actual steward rather than an apologist for budget cuts.

Nigel, that may be true, but he has a habit of being contrary just to be contrary.

The only way I learn is to get people to explain to me why I'm wrong. Sometimes this requires being aggressively wrong.  :wink:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 09, 2012, 05:07:39 am
I think I figured out what's bugging me about explicitly non-gendered job titles. For my generation, women have always earned less than men holding the same job title. Which is subtly but importantly distinct from "women have always earned less than men for doing the same job."

I suppose at least getting the same title is a step up from before, but if you take that step for granted, it comes off as the corporation acknowledging the problem (workplace discrimination) and trying to pass off a name change as a substantive fix. At least when they denied that men and women were doing the same job, pay discrimination had a certain internal logic to it. Admitting that they are both doing the same work but refusing to compensate for it is being aware of evil and refusing to work against it.

Hints of General Semantics, ITT, You change the words on the map and everyone thinks the territory has changed.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on August 09, 2012, 11:15:24 am
Yes.  That's your prerogative to not like it when people cry, and I don't blame you in the least. 




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

Honestly, I'm running through all the things that guys are supposed to like to do, and I can only come up with some of the most shallow, vile crap that is untrue, I hope.  I mean, like Nigel said upthread, that can't be good for their spirituality or humanity.

Been thinking a bit about this and I'd say that, speaking as a guy, a lot of macho shit is fun and totally suits me, as long as it's not taken seriously. There's a switch in my brain that gets a buzz out of challenging one of my mates to do something mental or he's a pussy. Likewise - to rise to a similar challenge and make a dent in that lamp post, using the power of my head, to earn "man points". I see no reason not to indulge flicking that particular switch, from time to time, in the right company and setting.

I see no harm in it but, if that's all you have, like there's no intellectual, or emotional side to you then you've pretty much overdosed and become a walking cliche.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Roly Poly Oly-Garch on August 09, 2012, 04:38:02 pm
Har!

In Arizona, custody is separate from child support (meaning deadbeat dad pays nothing, still gets to see the kids)

I'm fairly sure that's the case in most states...and I pretty much agree with it.

It's not like the kids are an amusement park to be visited and child support is the ticket. The kids should benefit from a relationship with both their parents. I think it's kind of an outmoded and backwards think that says if a non-custodial parent is a deadbeat they should also be forced to be derelict.

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 09, 2012, 04:41:25 pm
It also prevents the custodial parent from using the kids as a pawn in child support negotiation.

And, prevents the child from being deprived of a parent if that parent loses their job.

On the other hand, in Oregon you can be sent to jail for not paying your child support. Which creates its own catch-22.

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Roly Poly Oly-Garch on August 09, 2012, 05:10:24 pm
Also, I would argue that due to an ever constant fear or rape or assault present in many women, it makes it difficult for men to just be people around women, at times. I've started to notice recently just how many women refuse to make eye contact while walking, or even biking in public. This isn't so much harm to men in our society as much as its a shame. For example: I am totally fucking harmless. I'm still a pacifist at heart. And yet I evoke this same reaction because I am a guy. Again, this is less a tragedy and more a damned shame that women have to live in such fear without the ability to tell who is harmless and who is not.

When I read the topic of this thread, this is the very first thing that I thought of. It's like we're stuck in this scenario that in the whole fucked up order of things, is "Exactly as it should be"(TM), but it truly just sucks for everyone involved.

There's the woman who is in the vulnerable position, the man who is in the potentially dangerous position--that dynamic in play...but underneath it, just two human beings thinking how much the whole god-damned thing is a crying shame.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Phox on August 09, 2012, 05:14:07 pm
So the answer was yes, i see. Grammatical gender and "gender gender" are not the same thing. English does not make use of grammatical gender. Having words with a gender marker serves no purpose other than otherizing one gender and normalizing another.

Didn't see this before the last post.

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

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

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

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

I exposed weakness in good faith, and you called me a retard. Twice. That's not communication, that's raw primate posturing. You skimmed my posts exactly enough to come up with a response intended to elevate your social status at the expense of my own.
Here's the problem: I have neither the time, nor the inclination, to explain the interactions of gender markers and syntax in Romance languages when typing from my phone, nor even now, when that bears no relevance on the topic at hand. If you want to know about French feminist movements and how they relate to language, you are talking to the wrong person anyway, because I have no idea what European feminist movements are doing. When did I ever imply I did?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Roly Poly Oly-Garch on August 09, 2012, 05:23:12 pm
It also prevents the custodial parent from using the kids as a pawn in child support negotiation.

And, prevents the child from being deprived of a parent if that parent loses their job.

On the other hand, in Oregon you can be sent to jail for not paying your child support. Which creates its own catch-22.

I would agree with jail time for failure to pay child support in many instances. I know too many douches who just flat out refuse, and have done so for years. Sure they can't pay child support from a cell, but if they've demonstrated that they are willfully neglecting that obligation, what's the difference?

Colorado yoinks driver's licenses for failure to pay (or in one case that I'm aware of paying under the table in violation of a court order  :oops:). Driving pizza for a living and losing your driver's license for failure to pay child support...that's some catch.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 09, 2012, 05:28:35 pm
Yes.  That's your prerogative to not like it when people cry, and I don't blame you in the least. 




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

Honestly, I'm running through all the things that guys are supposed to like to do, and I can only come up with some of the most shallow, vile crap that is untrue, I hope.  I mean, like Nigel said upthread, that can't be good for their spirituality or humanity.

Been thinking a bit about this and I'd say that, speaking as a guy, a lot of macho shit is fun and totally suits me, as long as it's not taken seriously. There's a switch in my brain that gets a buzz out of challenging one of my mates to do something mental or he's a pussy. Likewise - to rise to a similar challenge and make a dent in that lamp post, using the power of my head, to earn "man points". I see no reason not to indulge flicking that particular switch, from time to time, in the right company and setting.

I see no harm in it but, if that's all you have, like there's no intellectual, or emotional side to you then you've pretty much overdosed and become a walking cliche.
I just wanna take a second to point out that "pussy" is a gendered insult.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 09, 2012, 08:20:47 pm
It also prevents the custodial parent from using the kids as a pawn in child support negotiation.

And, prevents the child from being deprived of a parent if that parent loses their job.

On the other hand, in Oregon you can be sent to jail for not paying your child support. Which creates its own catch-22.

I would agree with jail time for failure to pay child support in many instances. I know too many douches who just flat out refuse, and have done so for years. Sure they can't pay child support from a cell, but if they've demonstrated that they are willfully neglecting that obligation, what's the difference?

Colorado yoinks driver's licenses for failure to pay (or in one case that I'm aware of paying under the table in violation of a court order  :oops:). Driving pizza for a living and losing your driver's license for failure to pay child support...that's some catch.

Yes, I do agree that it's called for in some cases. Maybe even a lot of cases. I think the main problem with it is that the family court system here has little money for investigating/prosecuting, so they've instituted a fairly straightforward rule system that can result in unintended consequences.

But the alternative is no enforcement, and that's probably worse.

Of course, what I'd like to see is a better-funded family court system with better investigation and more judge/mediator involvement in individual cases, but that's unlikely to happen anytime in the near future.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Roly Poly Oly-Garch on August 09, 2012, 08:53:24 pm
The idea that any person should be considered in any way different from any other person on the basis of anything other than what they do is perplexing and foreign to me, even submerged in a culture that is fraught with these kinds of assessments.

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

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

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

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

If the point is to continue the fight until the last breath of the last die-hard patriarch just so we can all show the world that "ha! women ARE strong!" then Feminism is great. But if the point is to completely eliminate gender as a consideration in the math of a person's value altogether, then why not switch to gender neutrality?

Because to the point that there are issues on the ground that need to be addressed--issues that are overwhelmingly oppressive to one specific class in our society--simply removing the label "woman" from that oppressed class basically reads like "Three Pounds of Flax".

--Not disagreeing with where you're going, just saying that there's a lot of in-between to getting there.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 10, 2012, 07:34:48 am
The idea that any person should be considered in any way different from any other person on the basis of anything other than what they do is perplexing and foreign to me, even submerged in a culture that is fraught with these kinds of assessments.

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

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

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

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

If the point is to continue the fight until the last breath of the last die-hard patriarch just so we can all show the world that "ha! women ARE strong!" then Feminism is great. But if the point is to completely eliminate gender as a consideration in the math of a person's value altogether, then why not switch to gender neutrality?

Because to the point that there are issues on the ground that need to be addressed--issues that are overwhelmingly oppressive to one specific class in our society--simply removing the label "woman" from that oppressed class basically reads like "Three Pounds of Flax".

--Not disagreeing with where you're going, just saying that there's a lot of in-between to getting there.

Yup.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on August 13, 2012, 03:06:14 pm
Yes.  That's your prerogative to not like it when people cry, and I don't blame you in the least. 




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

Honestly, I'm running through all the things that guys are supposed to like to do, and I can only come up with some of the most shallow, vile crap that is untrue, I hope.  I mean, like Nigel said upthread, that can't be good for their spirituality or humanity.

Been thinking a bit about this and I'd say that, speaking as a guy, a lot of macho shit is fun and totally suits me, as long as it's not taken seriously. There's a switch in my brain that gets a buzz out of challenging one of my mates to do something mental or he's a pussy. Likewise - to rise to a similar challenge and make a dent in that lamp post, using the power of my head, to earn "man points". I see no reason not to indulge flicking that particular switch, from time to time, in the right company and setting.

I see no harm in it but, if that's all you have, like there's no intellectual, or emotional side to you then you've pretty much overdosed and become a walking cliche.
I just wanna take a second to point out that "pussy" is a gendered insult.

Yeah, but only barely. I don't think it's as bad as saying something like "you drive like a woman" which would definitely be a gendered insult. Referring to a bodypart, tho, is more on par with calling someone a dick or an asshole. And it should be noted that, if you are the type of person who would take offence to me saying something like that then I'm much more likely to do it around you because I'm a bit of a cunt like that. :evil:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 13, 2012, 03:11:36 pm
:facepalm:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 13, 2012, 03:12:02 pm
I don't find it particularly offensive. Just pointing it out.


Eta: me or him?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 13, 2012, 03:15:33 pm
Also, Freaky:  In the UK, "cunt" is a form of punctuation.

Like a semicolon.  It's just there to make them look educated.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 13, 2012, 03:17:31 pm
I don't find it particularly offensive. Just pointing it out.


Eta: me or him?

Him.

I find the connotation of pussy more indignation inducing than offensive. Soft, weak, so on.

Women pop small watermelons out of there all the time.  Is that weak or soft? I dare dudes to give themselves gall stones. If you refuse, you're a fucking pussy.

Note: not really a challenge.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 13, 2012, 03:18:26 pm
Also, Freaky:  In the UK, "cunt" is a form of punctuation.

Like a semicolon.  It's just there to make them look educated.

Stop be ruining my precious indignation, sir!   :argh!:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on August 13, 2012, 03:22:30 pm
Cunt is the funniest word over here. It's generally considered the worst of the swear words but at the same time 90% of it's use is non insulting. Referring to someone as "this cunt over here" is not an insult, it just means "this person" Calling someone a "bastard" or a "dick", however, both very "tame" swear words is always a direct insult and an excellent way to get a fight started.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 13, 2012, 03:25:21 pm
I don't find it particularly offensive. Just pointing it out.


Eta: me or him?

Him.

I find the connotation of pussy more indignation inducing than offensive. Soft, weak, so on.

Women pop small watermelons out of there all the time.  Is that weak or soft? I dare dudes to give themselves gall stones. If you refuse, you're a fucking pussy.

Note: not really a challenge.
This is true.
Cunt is the funniest word over here. It's generally considered the worst of the swear words but at the same time 90% of it's use is non insulting. Referring to someone as "this cunt over here" is not an insult, it just means "this person" Calling someone a "bastard" or a "dick", however, both very "tame" swear words is always a direct insult and an excellent way to get a fight started.
What. You people are weird.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 13, 2012, 03:27:06 pm
Cunt is the funniest word over here. It's generally considered the worst of the swear words but at the same time 90% of it's use is non insulting. Referring to someone as "this cunt over here" is not an insult, it just means "this person" Calling someone a "bastard" or a "dick", however, both very "tame" swear words is always a direct insult and an excellent way to get a fight started.

So reveresd then. :lulz:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on August 13, 2012, 03:34:19 pm
Seriously. If someone says cunt on teevee, it's still front page news but it's totally non aggressive. "Some cunt must have done that for me" - thanks kind mystery person. "I'm feeling totally cunted" - I'm quite tired. "I knocked my cunt in today" - I had a hard day at work ...

It's a totally awesome word and polite folks really take the hump when you use it, like Roger said - as punctuation  :lulz:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Faust on August 13, 2012, 03:42:08 pm
Yeah, it looks like some people need a Guy Ritchie education marathon. Cunt, faggot and Nigger is used all the time here and is considered mild. Call someone a prick though and you are saying they have pissed you off, there's no jokey way to call someone a prick but scumbags call each other cunt, faggot or nigger all the time.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 13, 2012, 03:51:20 pm
Seriously. If someone says cunt on teevee, it's still front page news but it's totally non aggressive. "Some cunt must have done that for me" - thanks kind mystery person. "I'm feeling totally cunted" - I'm quite tired. "I knocked my cunt in today" - I had a hard day at work ...

It's a totally awesome word and polite folks really take the hump when you use it, like Roger said - as punctuation  :lulz:

One of my favorite Britishisms is "No bastard".  As in "No bastard told me that the curry was India hot."

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 13, 2012, 03:52:34 pm
Yeah, it looks like some people need a Guy Ritchie education marathon.

I spent a lot of time in Liverpool in the 80s and 90s, and when I saw Guy Ritchie's stuff, I thought he was toning it down a tad.

 :lulz:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 13, 2012, 04:47:36 pm
Yes.  That's your prerogative to not like it when people cry, and I don't blame you in the least. 




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

Honestly, I'm running through all the things that guys are supposed to like to do, and I can only come up with some of the most shallow, vile crap that is untrue, I hope.  I mean, like Nigel said upthread, that can't be good for their spirituality or humanity.

Been thinking a bit about this and I'd say that, speaking as a guy, a lot of macho shit is fun and totally suits me, as long as it's not taken seriously. There's a switch in my brain that gets a buzz out of challenging one of my mates to do something mental or he's a pussy. Likewise - to rise to a similar challenge and make a dent in that lamp post, using the power of my head, to earn "man points". I see no reason not to indulge flicking that particular switch, from time to time, in the right company and setting.

I see no harm in it but, if that's all you have, like there's no intellectual, or emotional side to you then you've pretty much overdosed and become a walking cliche.
I just wanna take a second to point out that "pussy" is a gendered insult.

Yeah, but only barely. I don't think it's as bad as saying something like "you drive like a woman" which would definitely be a gendered insult. Referring to a bodypart, tho, is more on par with calling someone a dick or an asshole. And it should be noted that, if you are the type of person who would take offence to me saying something like that then I'm much more likely to do it around you because I'm a bit of a cunt like that. :evil:

Well I guess you've bought in then, haven't you?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 13, 2012, 05:01:37 pm
I don't find it particularly offensive. Just pointing it out.


Eta: me or him?

Him.

I find the connotation of pussy more indignation inducing than offensive. Soft, weak, so on.

Women pop small watermelons out of there all the time.  Is that weak or soft? I dare dudes to give themselves gall stones. If you refuse, you're a fucking pussy.

Note: not really a challenge.

This is a fact.  Gallstones are enough to make a grown man cry, and they're tiny.

Pooping a watermelon?  The species would go extinct.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on August 13, 2012, 06:46:56 pm
Yes.  That's your prerogative to not like it when people cry, and I don't blame you in the least. 




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

Honestly, I'm running through all the things that guys are supposed to like to do, and I can only come up with some of the most shallow, vile crap that is untrue, I hope.  I mean, like Nigel said upthread, that can't be good for their spirituality or humanity.

Been thinking a bit about this and I'd say that, speaking as a guy, a lot of macho shit is fun and totally suits me, as long as it's not taken seriously. There's a switch in my brain that gets a buzz out of challenging one of my mates to do something mental or he's a pussy. Likewise - to rise to a similar challenge and make a dent in that lamp post, using the power of my head, to earn "man points". I see no reason not to indulge flicking that particular switch, from time to time, in the right company and setting.

I see no harm in it but, if that's all you have, like there's no intellectual, or emotional side to you then you've pretty much overdosed and become a walking cliche.
I just wanna take a second to point out that "pussy" is a gendered insult.

Yeah, but only barely. I don't think it's as bad as saying something like "you drive like a woman" which would definitely be a gendered insult. Referring to a bodypart, tho, is more on par with calling someone a dick or an asshole. And it should be noted that, if you are the type of person who would take offence to me saying something like that then I'm much more likely to do it around you because I'm a bit of a cunt like that. :evil:

Well I guess you've bought in then, haven't you?

If you're prepared to label me as a misogynist on the strength of which swear words I use then you are exactly the kind of person I want to offend. Want to try the old "I don't realise it but..." bullshit? Good luck with that.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 13, 2012, 10:12:23 pm
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO link=topic=32979.msg1198394#msg1198394
=1344867122
I don't find it particularly offensive. Just pointing it out.


Eta: me or him?

Him.

I find the connotation of pussy more indignation inducing than offensive. Soft, weak, so on.

Women pop small watermelons out of there all the time.  Is that weak or soft? I dare dudes to give themselves gall stones. If you refuse, you're a fucking pussy.

Note: not really a challenge.

This is a fact.  Gallstones are enough to make a grown man cry, and they're tiny.

Pooping a watermelon?  The species would go extinct.
I had a health teacher in high school say it was, proportionally, like trying to get a golf ball through your dick.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Dark Monk on August 13, 2012, 10:15:49 pm
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO link=topic=32979.msg1198394#msg1198394
=1344867122
I don't find it particularly offensive. Just pointing it out.


Eta: me or him?

Him.

I find the connotation of pussy more indignation inducing than offensive. Soft, weak, so on.

Women pop small watermelons out of there all the time.  Is that weak or soft? I dare dudes to give themselves gall stones. If you refuse, you're a fucking pussy.

Note: not really a challenge.

This is a fact.  Gallstones are enough to make a grown man cry, and they're tiny.

Pooping a watermelon?  The species would go extinct.
I had a health teacher in high school say it was, proportionally, like trying to get a golf ball through your dick.

I've pissed a ripping stone through a bladder infection. Definitely in the top 10 worst pains in my life, up there with gut dropping into my sack and rib punctured lung and frontal tooth smashy-outtie. (dental pain fucking SUCKS)
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 13, 2012, 11:17:32 pm
Yes.  That's your prerogative to not like it when people cry, and I don't blame you in the least. 




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

Honestly, I'm running through all the things that guys are supposed to like to do, and I can only come up with some of the most shallow, vile crap that is untrue, I hope.  I mean, like Nigel said upthread, that can't be good for their spirituality or humanity.

Been thinking a bit about this and I'd say that, speaking as a guy, a lot of macho shit is fun and totally suits me, as long as it's not taken seriously. There's a switch in my brain that gets a buzz out of challenging one of my mates to do something mental or he's a pussy. Likewise - to rise to a similar challenge and make a dent in that lamp post, using the power of my head, to earn "man points". I see no reason not to indulge flicking that particular switch, from time to time, in the right company and setting.

I see no harm in it but, if that's all you have, like there's no intellectual, or emotional side to you then you've pretty much overdosed and become a walking cliche.
I just wanna take a second to point out that "pussy" is a gendered insult.

Yeah, but only barely. I don't think it's as bad as saying something like "you drive like a woman" which would definitely be a gendered insult. Referring to a bodypart, tho, is more on par with calling someone a dick or an asshole. And it should be noted that, if you are the type of person who would take offence to me saying something like that then I'm much more likely to do it around you because I'm a bit of a cunt like that. :evil:

Well I guess you've bought in then, haven't you?

If you're prepared to label me as a misogynist on the strength of which swear words I use then you are exactly the kind of person I want to offend. Want to try the old "I don't realise it but..." bullshit? Good luck with that.

No, I just think you've gotten so caught up in showing everybody what a badass you are, you've forgotten how to walk upright. It just disappoints me in the way it always disappoints me when I know someone is capable of better. I know... you Don't Care™. I've heard it enough times to know it's part of your uniform.

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 13, 2012, 11:27:34 pm
A thought:  Why would you make fun of people who have genuine beliefs and an urge to make things better?

Ripping on that isn't booting a sacred cow, it's being part of The MachineTM.  I think (not sure, mind you, I've been more rational) that this might be the root cause of the disagreement, here.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 13, 2012, 11:28:13 pm
Basically, if your stance is the tired old "I'M NOT GUNNA THINK ABOUT OR OBJECTIVELY DISCUSS THE WIDER SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF COMMON LANGUAGE USAGES 'CAUSE I RAWK TOO HARD, FUCKEM" why are you even participating in this conversation? Don't you have a dominant paradigm to go uphold?

FFS. :lulz: I know, consciousness is hard. SHOWING US WHAT A TOUGH GUY YOU ARE is much, much easier, because you don't even have to take off your nametag.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 13, 2012, 11:30:52 pm
(Not directed at you, Roger, you just posted while I was posting)
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 13, 2012, 11:32:50 pm
(Not directed at you, Roger, you just posted while I was posting)

S'ok, I kinda figured.  I'm feeling quite a bit better, today, so I don't think EVERYTHING is aimed at me.  These things are less and less severe, and last shorter and shorter amounts of time.  And they're less frequent. 
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 13, 2012, 11:36:16 pm
(Not directed at you, Roger, you just posted while I was posting)

S'ok, I kinda figured.  I'm feeling quite a bit better, today, so I don't think EVERYTHING is aimed at me.  These things are less and less severe, and last shorter and shorter amounts of time.  And they're less frequent.

Good!
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 14, 2012, 04:05:20 am
I think there was a valid point there though. Using genital terms as slang isn't necessarily misogynistic.  I just recently heard about "Elevatorgate" some bizarre dustup in the skeptic/atheist community dealing with misogyny, hurt feelings, blog fights and other stuff that sounded a lot like "I am monkey, hear me beat my chest!!" Anyway, Dawkins came down on one side, and the feminists on the other.  Throughout the debate the feminists and the people that supported their side kept referring to Dawkins as "Dick", obviously due to his first name, his gender and their opinion of him.

I don't think that meant that they hated all men or felt that all men were horrible people, or lesser beings or anything like that. It was just petty name calling. Cunt certainly 'could' be misogynistic in some usages, just as 'dick' could be, or it could just be name calling.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 14, 2012, 04:26:24 am
I think there was a valid point there though. Using genital terms as slang isn't necessarily misogynistic.  I just recently heard about "Elevatorgate" some bizarre dustup in the skeptic/atheist community dealing with misogyny, hurt feelings, blog fights and other stuff that sounded a lot like "I am monkey, hear me beat my chest!!" Anyway, Dawkins came down on one side, and the feminists on the other.  Throughout the debate the feminists and the people that supported their side kept referring to Dawkins as "Dick", obviously due to his first name, his gender and their opinion of him.

I don't think that meant that they hated all men or felt that all men were horrible people, or lesser beings or anything like that. It was just petty name calling. Cunt certainly 'could' be misogynistic in some usages, just as 'dick' could be, or it could just be name calling.

Usage of "dick" vs "cunt" as insults aren't on the same level, though. I think Jessica Valenti (though I'm normally not a fan) said it best: the worst thing you can call a woman (slut, whore, bitch, cunt) is a woman. The worst thing you can call a man (pussy, mangina, fag, bitch) is a girl. In much the same way that "cracker" and "n***er" are both race-based insults, but one has a much stronger history of oppression and hatred behind it, saying "well some women call people dicks" isn't actually a valid counterpoint to "hey, using cunt as an insult is misogynistic."
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 14, 2012, 05:10:43 am
I think there was a valid point there though. Using genital terms as slang isn't necessarily misogynistic.  I just recently heard about "Elevatorgate" some bizarre dustup in the skeptic/atheist community dealing with misogyny, hurt feelings, blog fights and other stuff that sounded a lot like "I am monkey, hear me beat my chest!!" Anyway, Dawkins came down on one side, and the feminists on the other.  Throughout the debate the feminists and the people that supported their side kept referring to Dawkins as "Dick", obviously due to his first name, his gender and their opinion of him.

I don't think that meant that they hated all men or felt that all men were horrible people, or lesser beings or anything like that. It was just petty name calling. Cunt certainly 'could' be misogynistic in some usages, just as 'dick' could be, or it could just be name calling.

Usage of "dick" vs "cunt" as insults aren't on the same level, though. I think Jessica Valenti (though I'm normally not a fan) said it best: the worst thing you can call a woman (slut, whore, bitch, cunt) is a woman. The worst thing you can call a man (pussy, mangina, fag, bitch) is a girl. In much the same way that "cracker" and "n***er" are both race-based insults, but one has a much stronger history of oppression and hatred behind it, saying "well some women call people dicks" isn't actually a valid counterpoint to "hey, using cunt as an insult is misogynistic."
Bless most of this post.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 14, 2012, 05:24:28 am
I reclaimed "cunt".

"Damn right and don't you forget it", "I'm not a cunt, I'm THE cunt", etc.  :lulz:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 14, 2012, 05:33:53 am
I think there was a valid point there though. Using genital terms as slang isn't necessarily misogynistic.  I just recently heard about "Elevatorgate" some bizarre dustup in the skeptic/atheist community dealing with misogyny, hurt feelings, blog fights and other stuff that sounded a lot like "I am monkey, hear me beat my chest!!" Anyway, Dawkins came down on one side, and the feminists on the other.  Throughout the debate the feminists and the people that supported their side kept referring to Dawkins as "Dick", obviously due to his first name, his gender and their opinion of him.

I don't think that meant that they hated all men or felt that all men were horrible people, or lesser beings or anything like that. It was just petty name calling. Cunt certainly 'could' be misogynistic in some usages, just as 'dick' could be, or it could just be name calling.

Usage of "dick" vs "cunt" as insults aren't on the same level, though. I think Jessica Valenti (though I'm normally not a fan) said it best: the worst thing you can call a woman (slut, whore, bitch, cunt) is a woman. The worst thing you can call a man (pussy, mangina, fag, bitch) is a girl. In much the same way that "cracker" and "n***er" are both race-based insults, but one has a much stronger history of oppression and hatred behind it, saying "well some women call people dicks" isn't actually a valid counterpoint to "hey, using cunt as an insult is misogynistic."

Nail, head.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 14, 2012, 05:50:26 am
I reclaimed "cunt".

"Damn right and don't you forget it", "I'm not a cunt, I'm THE cunt", etc.  :lulz:

I'm not quite at a point where I can reclaim cunt, yet. I'd like to get there.

Slut, though. Slut I will totally own.  :lulz:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 14, 2012, 06:54:16 am
I reclaimed "cunt".

"Damn right and don't you forget it", "I'm not a cunt, I'm THE cunt", etc.  :lulz:

I'm not quite at a point where I can reclaim cunt, yet. I'd like to get there.

Slut, though. Slut I will totally own.  :lulz:

You have an army.  :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SlutWalk
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 14, 2012, 07:06:38 am
I reclaimed "cunt".

"Damn right and don't you forget it", "I'm not a cunt, I'm THE cunt", etc.  :lulz:

I'm not quite at a point where I can reclaim cunt, yet. I'd like to get there.

Slut, though. Slut I will totally own.  :lulz:

You have an army.  :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SlutWalk

Heh, I know. I'm on organising committees in two countries. SlutLord!
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 14, 2012, 07:19:44 am
I reclaimed "cunt".

"Damn right and don't you forget it", "I'm not a cunt, I'm THE cunt", etc.  :lulz:

I'm not quite at a point where I can reclaim cunt, yet. I'd like to get there.

Slut, though. Slut I will totally own.  :lulz:

You have an army.  :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SlutWalk

Heh, I know. I'm on organising committees in two countries. SlutLord!

Ooooooo...a TITLE!  :cheers:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Johnny on August 14, 2012, 07:31:30 am

Ive been on the fence regarding those "walks" for some time...

I mean, i understand its trying to give "slut" a positive connotation, but i dont think it accomplishes the intended intention to uncritical observers.

On one hand its the deconstruction of a stereotype, but its also assuming the stereotype to a point.

I mean, if i organized a "BeanerWalk" in a racist location, the people that showed up and marched with me would equate with a display of support for the so called "beaners" and a symbolic show that racism will not be tolerated, but does it really deconstruct and resignify the stereotype?

Wouldnt a "March against discrimination and violence" in both cases would be better and probably get even more support?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Johnny on August 14, 2012, 07:33:47 am

To me it seems as useful as the "ZombieWalks" with the difference being that theres flyers and information that might be good.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 14, 2012, 07:41:13 am

Ive been on the fence regarding those "walks" for some time...

I mean, i understand its trying to give "slut" a positive connotation, but i dont think it accomplishes the intended intention to uncritical observers.

On one hand its the deconstruction of a stereotype, but its also assuming the stereotype to a point.

I mean, if i organized a "BeanerWalk" in a racist location, the people that showed up and marched with me would equate with a display of support for the so called "beaners" and a symbolic show that racism will not be tolerated, but does it really deconstruct and resignify the stereotype?

Wouldnt a "March against discrimination and violence" in both cases would be better and probably get even more support?

Well, "March against discrimination and violence" is really hard to fit on a poster and too long for a Twitter handle.

In all seriousness though, there's been a lot of discussion about the name of SlutWalks. Some offshoots have opted to rename, and that's awesome. We talked about it coming up to our second march this year and ultimately decided to keep the Slut moniker, at least for now. It's hard-hitting and in your face and it got us a lot of attention. Yes, that attention was both positive and negative, but the point of a protest march is attention in general, and we got something like twenty-five times the amount of people that Take Back the Night marches were getting in our city (and they haven't even had a TBTN in a few years now, which is a shame). And it's a great opportunity to educate people (those who want to be educated, anyway). Our biggest issue, actually, has always been in the media portrayals of our movement, because "WOMEN WANT TO DRESS/ACT LIKE SLUTTY SLUTTY SLUTS ALSO HEY DID WE MENTION LOLSLUTS" is a much better headline than "Rape culture is shit and here's an intersectional group of people who would really like to work towards breaking it down."

After the march last year, the voiceover on the news was "scantily-clad protesters braved the weather today; a group of women marched down..." blah blah blah complete inability to read press releases or stick around for the speeches. And my mother, when she watched it later, was yelling at the computer, "There's a ton of men there and most people are in jeans WHAT THE FUCK." Which was especially hilarious considering she side-eyed the fuck out of me when I told her I was organising it.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Johnny on August 14, 2012, 07:48:06 am

Catch 22?

You get attention from the media for using a controversial word, but the message isnt passed on or is distorted.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 14, 2012, 08:02:01 am

Catch 22?

You get attention from the media for using a controversial word, but the message isnt passed on or is distorted.

Fuck TV. Anybody who's on facebook probably knows what SlutWalk is.

Has TV ever reported ANYTHING right?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on August 14, 2012, 08:04:26 am
Basically, if your stance is the tired old "I'M NOT GUNNA THINK ABOUT OR OBJECTIVELY DISCUSS THE WIDER SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF COMMON LANGUAGE USAGES 'CAUSE I RAWK TOO HARD, FUCKEM" why are you even participating in this conversation? Don't you have a dominant paradigm to go uphold?

FFS. :lulz: I know, consciousness is hard. SHOWING US WHAT A TOUGH GUY YOU ARE is much, much easier, because you don't even have to take off your nametag.

Patronising personal insults aside (I don't expect better from you) I'll have a stab at answering that. Using gendered insults, as intended gendered insults is a bad thing - no argument from me there. However, when something is not a gendered insult and merely a lighthearted pisstake between me and another consenting adult and then someone getting on my case about it reeks of censorship. It's everything that's bullshit about "politically correct" and it's headed straight to Newspeak town. Sure, some people might use a word with a certain mindset that should be attacked, where others are just using a word. Attacking the word and not the mindset is typical dumbfuck behaviour. I do not and will not respect that.

I maintain that, in a macho-bullshit setting, calling your pal a pussy is not an attack on seven thousand years of womens rights. That's my position the fact that I rawk too hard is merely coincidental.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 14, 2012, 08:06:24 am

Ive been on the fence regarding those "walks" for some time...

I mean, i understand its trying to give "slut" a positive connotation, but i dont think it accomplishes the intended intention to uncritical observers.

On one hand its the deconstruction of a stereotype, but its also assuming the stereotype to a point.

I mean, if i organized a "BeanerWalk" in a racist location, the people that showed up and marched with me would equate with a display of support for the so called "beaners" and a symbolic show that racism will not be tolerated, but does it really deconstruct and resignify the stereotype?

Wouldnt a "March against discrimination and violence" in both cases would be better and probably get even more support?

If it was big enough, they couldn't say shit.

And it would IRK them, the way hearing rappers drop n-bombs irks white racists who have to be careful to only say it around other white racists these days.

Irking racists is ALWAYS worthwhile, in my book.  :lulz:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Johnny on August 14, 2012, 08:09:13 am
So its about preaching to and getting support from the choir?

I mean, if thats the purpose, fine, so be it, but its coming to my attention that these manifestations dont get thru to changing the oppositions view.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 14, 2012, 08:17:12 am
So its about preaching to and getting support from the choir?

I mean, if thats the purpose, fine, so be it, but its coming to my attention that these manifestations dont get thru to changing the oppositions view.

You CAN'T change the opposition's view.

What you CAN do is show them there's a lot of you and you're not going to stand for a bunch of bullshit.

I mean, FFS, "beaner"? The whole premise is retarded in the first place. "THOSE PEOPLE EAT BEANS!" WTF? It's like "cunt" - that's supposed to be the WORST word? That little old thang between a woman's legs that EVERYBODY'S TRYING TO GET  is the worst thing they can come up with?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 14, 2012, 08:23:17 am
So its about preaching to and getting support from the choir?

I mean, if thats the purpose, fine, so be it, but its coming to my attention that these manifestations dont get thru to changing the oppositions view.

You CAN'T change the opposition's view.

What you CAN do is show them there's a lot of you and you're not going to stand for a bunch of bullshit.

I mean, FFS, "beaner"? The whole premise is retarded in the first place. "THOSE PEOPLE EAT BEANS!" WTF? It's like "cunt" - that's supposed to be the WORST word? That little old thang between a woman's legs that EVERYBODY'S TRYING TO GET  is the worst thing they can come up with?

This. People who oppose, with a few exceptions, will always oppose. But you can educate those who don't know. Fuck, I spent a good two hours last year teaching my mother and sister the concept of rape culture. And you can definitely, definitely show those who oppose you that it's not just you, that there are a lot of people who are not going to be silenced by oppressive bullshit. The most amazing, empowering feeling for me at the first SlutWalk was being surrounded by 1,200 other people who also recognised that our culture is fucked up when it comes to sexual assault and policing women's bodies. It's really easy to forget that it's not just me!
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 14, 2012, 08:32:02 am

Catch 22?

You get attention from the media for using a controversial word, but the message isnt passed on or is distorted.

I had an alarming number of conversations leading up to the first march that went something like this:

Stranger: I saw an article in [insert newspaper/website/television channel here] about this "slut" walk. What's the point in a march where you just yell about wanting to dress like sluts? No one is going to respect you for it. I agree that 'sluts' shouldn't get raped, but all you're doing is objectifying yourselves.
Signora: Leaving aside for the moment that the level of respect I deserve really has next-to-nothing to do with the amount of skin I do or do not cover up at any given time, that's not actually what SlutWalk is about at all. We are fighting the myths around the types of people who are sexually assaulted, who is responsible, and why they occur. This is a march to fight the myths around the types of people who are sexually assaulted, who is responsible, and why they occur. We are rallying to place the blame for sexual assault where it belongs: on the perpetrators. We are promoting the idea that women should be able to dress however they like without having to wonder if they will be blamed if they are attacked – and that 'slut' should not be seen as an inherently bad thing. We aim to put an end to victims' sexual history being brought up at trial as a weapon for the defence, and we wish to get the message out there: no means no, yes means yes, and only our words can consent for us – not our bodies or our clothes. We also firmly stand behind the truth that sexual assault is not only something done by men to women, and that not all sexual assault is rape.
Stranger: Oh. Well that's actually... when's the march again?

So while I have no doubt that there were people who saw an interview on TV, thought "LOL stupid sluts" and went on their merry way without bothering to educate themselves (so... fuck 'em!), there were also a lot of people who, because it was covered (albeit in a very distorted way) by the media, rocked up and marched alongside us on the day. Which is all we could ask for, really.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 14, 2012, 08:42:59 am

Catch 22?

You get attention from the media for using a controversial word, but the message isnt passed on or is distorted.

I had an alarming number of conversations leading up to the first march that went something like this:

Stranger: I saw an article in [insert newspaper/website/television channel here] about this "slut" walk. What's the point in a march where you just yell about wanting to dress like sluts? No one is going to respect you for it. I agree that 'sluts' shouldn't get raped, but all you're doing is objectifying yourselves.
Signora: Leaving aside for the moment that the level of respect I deserve really has next-to-nothing to do with the amount of skin I do or do not cover up at any given time, that's not actually what SlutWalk is about at all. We are fighting the myths around the types of people who are sexually assaulted, who is responsible, and why they occur. This is a march to fight the myths around the types of people who are sexually assaulted, who is responsible, and why they occur. We are rallying to place the blame for sexual assault where it belongs: on the perpetrators. We are promoting the idea that women should be able to dress however they like without having to wonder if they will be blamed if they are attacked – and that 'slut' should not be seen as an inherently bad thing. We aim to put an end to victims' sexual history being brought up at trial as a weapon for the defence, and we wish to get the message out there: no means no, yes means yes, and only our words can consent for us – not our bodies or our clothes. We also firmly stand behind the truth that sexual assault is not only something done by men to women, and that not all sexual assault is rape.
Stranger: Oh. Well that's actually... when's the march again?

So while I have no doubt that there were people who saw an interview on TV, thought "LOL stupid sluts" and went on their merry way without bothering to educate themselves (so... fuck 'em!), there were also a lot of people who, because it was covered (albeit in a very distorted way) by the media, rocked up and marched alongside us on the day. Which is all we could ask for, really.

Yeah. Hell yeah. ^^
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Dark Monk on August 14, 2012, 09:28:25 am
The curious ones will always inquire, they require no attention.
The opposing will always oppose, they require no attention.
The stupid will continue to be stupid, they require no attention.
The enlightened shall share their view, and be ridiculed for it, so many keep silent.
Once in a while one breaks loose, for they realize:
The aim is not for the stupid, for that is a disease curable only by death.
The aim is for those ignorant, who have a chance to actually live.

I believe an ignorant stranger became a bit enlightened that day ^.^

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 14, 2012, 04:37:49 pm
Basically, if your stance is the tired old "I'M NOT GUNNA THINK ABOUT OR OBJECTIVELY DISCUSS THE WIDER SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF COMMON LANGUAGE USAGES 'CAUSE I RAWK TOO HARD, FUCKEM" why are you even participating in this conversation? Don't you have a dominant paradigm to go uphold?

FFS. :lulz: I know, consciousness is hard. SHOWING US WHAT A TOUGH GUY YOU ARE is much, much easier, because you don't even have to take off your nametag.

Patronising personal insults aside (I don't expect better from you) I'll have a stab at answering that. Using gendered insults, as intended gendered insults is a bad thing - no argument from me there. However, when something is not a gendered insult and merely a lighthearted pisstake between me and another consenting adult and then someone getting on my case about it reeks of censorship. It's everything that's bullshit about "politically correct" and it's headed straight to Newspeak town. Sure, some people might use a word with a certain mindset that should be attacked, where others are just using a word. Attacking the word and not the mindset is typical dumbfuck behaviour. I do not and will not respect that.

I maintain that, in a macho-bullshit setting, calling your pal a pussy is not an attack on seven thousand years of womens rights. That's my position the fact that I rawk too hard is merely coincidental.

That wasn't a personal attack, it addressed your specific behavior that I take issue with, not your personhood. And you didn't reply to the post that directly addressed you, so just to make sure you read it:

If you're prepared to label me as a misogynist on the strength of which swear words I use then you are exactly the kind of person I want to offend. Want to try the old "I don't realise it but..." bullshit? Good luck with that.

No, I just think you've gotten so caught up in showing everybody what a badass you are, you've forgotten how to walk upright. It just disappoints me in the way it always disappoints me when I know someone is capable of better. I know... you Don't Care™. I've heard it enough times to know it's part of your uniform.


And, just like I explained to Roger a couple of days ago, these threads are about broader cultural implications, not about one person's use and intentions.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 14, 2012, 04:49:57 pm
The curious ones will always inquire, they require no attention.
The opposing will always oppose, they require no attention.
The stupid will continue to be stupid, they require no attention.
The enlightened shall share their view, and be ridiculed for it, so many keep silent.
Once in a while one breaks loose, for they realize:
The aim is not for the stupid, for that is a disease curable only by death.
The aim is for those ignorant, who have a chance to actually live.

I believe an ignorant stranger became a bit enlightened that day ^.^

I believe he may have instead laughed at a pseudo-zen hippie.

But that's just my opinion.  I wasn't there.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on August 14, 2012, 05:15:03 pm
Basically, if your stance is the tired old "I'M NOT GUNNA THINK ABOUT OR OBJECTIVELY DISCUSS THE WIDER SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF COMMON LANGUAGE USAGES 'CAUSE I RAWK TOO HARD, FUCKEM" why are you even participating in this conversation? Don't you have a dominant paradigm to go uphold?

FFS. :lulz: I know, consciousness is hard. SHOWING US WHAT A TOUGH GUY YOU ARE is much, much easier, because you don't even have to take off your nametag.

Patronising personal insults aside (I don't expect better from you) I'll have a stab at answering that. Using gendered insults, as intended gendered insults is a bad thing - no argument from me there. However, when something is not a gendered insult and merely a lighthearted pisstake between me and another consenting adult and then someone getting on my case about it reeks of censorship. It's everything that's bullshit about "politically correct" and it's headed straight to Newspeak town. Sure, some people might use a word with a certain mindset that should be attacked, where others are just using a word. Attacking the word and not the mindset is typical dumbfuck behaviour. I do not and will not respect that.

I maintain that, in a macho-bullshit setting, calling your pal a pussy is not an attack on seven thousand years of womens rights. That's my position the fact that I rawk too hard is merely coincidental.

That wasn't a personal attack, it addressed your specific behavior that I take issue with, not your personhood. And you didn't reply to the post that directly addressed you, so just to make sure you read it:

If you're prepared to label me as a misogynist on the strength of which swear words I use then you are exactly the kind of person I want to offend. Want to try the old "I don't realise it but..." bullshit? Good luck with that.

No, I just think you've gotten so caught up in showing everybody what a badass you are, you've forgotten how to walk upright. It just disappoints me in the way it always disappoints me when I know someone is capable of better. I know... you Don't Care™. I've heard it enough times to know it's part of your uniform.


And, just like I explained to Roger a couple of days ago, these threads are about broader cultural implications, not about one person's use and intentions.

First off - I read both those posts back to back, so I ended up replying to both of them.

Quote
No, I just think you've gotten so caught up in showing everybody what a badass you are, you've forgotten how to walk upright. It just disappoints me in the way it always disappoints me when I know someone is capable of better.

this was the part that I took as a personal insult. It was the repeated use of the word "you" that did it for me.

Fair enough when I attack an attitude I do tend to adopt a fuck you attitude so I'll try and dial that back in the interest of getting my point across. Believe it or not I do actually have one. I accept the wider cultural implications of certain turns of phrase or language constructs or whatever but, I feel that a lot of it is actually harmless, the difference being intent.

Despite what you might think, I don't believe I'm the only one. Hell, I don't even think I'm necessarily in a minority. I think a lot of guys like me use gendered insults and/or swear words without necessarily hating on women, subconsciously or otherwise. For example - someone is bitching and whining about some gruelling task we've voluntarily subjected ourselves to, it's quite common for us to tell them to "man up" this is particularly amusing if it's a woman doing the complaining. You're implying that men are superior but you are not doing it in a serious way otherwise you'd be a complete dick and the woman would rightly take the hump over it.

I get the impression, tho, that because of these "wider cultural implications" some folks would be happier if they passed a law to make the saying of these kind of things illegal, just to deal with the minority who would say shit like that and wholeheartedly mean it or, even more insidiously, educate us all until we agree that it's badwrong and that's what I'm against - blanket censorship as a shortcut to thinking.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 14, 2012, 05:23:10 pm
this was the part that I took as a personal insult. It was the repeated use of the word "you" that did it for me.

P3nt:  You had just done the very same thing yourself1.

Action/reaction.  What else would you expect from the universe, or anyone living in it?






1
If you're prepared to label me as a misogynist on the strength of which swear words I use then you are exactly the kind of person I want to offend. Want to try the old "I don't realise it but..." bullshit? Good luck with that.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on August 14, 2012, 06:44:12 pm
LOL. No shit, I hadn't even noticed that! But it's exactly what I said. The intention was hypothetical - "If you..." but there was no reason not to use "If someone"

I'm also aware that on a deep, dark level, which I'm only really aware of in retrospect, it was intentional. It was an attack. It had aggression behind it. Apologies Nigel, I'm letting my monkey show again.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 14, 2012, 07:06:24 pm
You say you don't mean any harm when you use gendered insults. I believe you. But I have to wonder, does this general use (that is, pent is included but not the only subject) of casual insulting enforce someone's women hating view? And doesn't that just perpetuate woman = insult no matter how mild?  I think it might.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on August 14, 2012, 07:11:00 pm
Hell hath no fury like an person of unspecified gender scorned.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 14, 2012, 07:24:28 pm
Hell hath no fury like an person of unspecified gender scorned.

Fine, fuck you all then.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 14, 2012, 07:29:08 pm
I said I was leaving for the day.

And then I came back anyway.  Because I'm DUMB.  Because I seem to have some sort of unconscious addiction to BUTTHURT.

Fucking P3nt apologized.  He continues to get shat on.  That's a GREAT incentive for people to change their minds.  Vex makes a joke.  We can't have that, this is SRS BSNAZZ.

WHAT WE CAN'T SEEM TO FUCKING HAVE HERE IS A CONVERSATION THAT DOESN'T COME PRE-LOADED WITH ASININE BUTTHURT FROM 2010.

And we were doing SO well.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on August 14, 2012, 07:35:07 pm
shat on? Might have missed that, or saw it a different way or something
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 14, 2012, 07:41:29 pm
While I'm glad that happened, I don't think we've finished discussing gendered insults and that can be done without wank directed at any one person. So I, at least, would like the conversation to continue.

Freeky said what I would say, pretty much. Associating weakness with women/females contributes to the idea that we are lesser. It's femmephobia, whether or not you mean it to be.




edited for redundant wording.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 14, 2012, 07:47:31 pm
I just found Vex's post funny for the same reason I found the great Chicago debate about replacing "manhole" with "personhole" funny, back in 1997.

In any case, swearing is a personal thing.  It's like prayer, in some ways.  Provided that it isn't directed at a person, I fail to see what the problem is.  Even if it IS directed at a person, if it is used as a pronoun instead of a slam on perceived traits, I still don't see a problem.

Examples:

1.  This clutch plate is being a cunt.  <--- I do it all the time.

2.  That dickhole over there is the guy with whom you need to speak.  <--- no problem.

3.  You drive like a girl.  <--- Not good.

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 14, 2012, 07:49:53 pm

Fucking P3nt apologized.  He continues to get shat on. 

Excuse me?  Trying to make a cogent point is shitting on someone?  Fuck you, Roger, that's god damn hurtful.

Quote
Vex makes a joke.  We can't have that, this is SRS BSNAZZ.

It was a jab at me and what I was trying to say.  And shit, if no one takes me seriously ANYWAY, I might as well act like a complete psycho bitch, because LOL it's just Freeky, how silly!   

Why are you being like this at me?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 14, 2012, 07:51:14 pm

Fucking P3nt apologized.  He continues to get shat on. 

Excuse me?  Trying to make a cogent point is shitting on someone?  Fuck you, Roger, that's god damn hurtful.

Quote
Vex makes a joke.  We can't have that, this is SRS BSNAZZ.

It was a jab at me and what I was trying to say.  And shit, if no one takes me seriously ANYWAY, I might as well act like a complete psycho bitch, because LOL it's just Freeky, how silly!   

Why are you being like this at me?

Well, I can approach it in a different way.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on August 14, 2012, 07:57:07 pm
Quote
Vex makes a joke.  We can't have that, this is SRS BSNAZZ.

It was a jab at me and what I was trying to say.  And shit, if no one takes me seriously ANYWAY, I might as well act like a complete psycho bitch, because LOL it's just Freeky, how silly!   

No, actually, it wasn't a jab at you. It was a joke intended to make fun of how silly an idea it is that singling people out based on gender is always an insult or sexist. The quote I corrupted is, in fact, used both by men to insult women and by women to claim feminine ownership of wrath. So my point was that words themselves cannot be considered "good" or "bad" without considering the context and intent.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 14, 2012, 08:02:57 pm
Quote
Vex makes a joke.  We can't have that, this is SRS BSNAZZ.

It was a jab at me and what I was trying to say.  And shit, if no one takes me seriously ANYWAY, I might as well act like a complete psycho bitch, because LOL it's just Freeky, how silly!   

No, actually, it wasn't a jab at you. It was a joke intended to make fun of how silly an idea it is that singling people out based on gender is always an insult or sexist. The quote I corrupted is, in fact, used both by men to insult women and by women to claim feminine ownership of wrath. So my point was that words themselves cannot be considered "good" or "bad" without considering the context and intent.

Sorry about that, v3x.  I take it back. 
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 14, 2012, 08:15:17 pm
I just found Vex's post funny for the same reason I found the great Chicago debate about replacing "manhole" with "personhole" funny, back in 1997.

In any case, swearing is a personal thing.  It's like prayer, in some ways.  Provided that it isn't directed at a person, I fail to see what the problem is.  Even if it IS directed at a person, if it is used as a pronoun instead of a slam on perceived traits, I still don't see a problem.

Examples:

1.  This clutch plate is being a cunt.  <--- I do it all the time.

2.  That dickhole over there is the guy with whom you need to speak.  <--- no problem.

3.  You drive like a girl.  <--- Not good.


The problem I have with that is that it continues to associate negative things with women and females. It's still contributing to femmephobia (which I am not accusing you of. It's something that a lot of people have internalized and our entire culture needs to deal with). There's not a lot, really, that's different in any of your examples, because in all cases thing that are negative are being associated with women/females.

1. Stubborn and inconvenient and annoying be associated with the vagina and therefore anyone who owns one/women.

2. Even if it's affectionate, it's still a bit demeaning because you're using a crude, somewhat demeaning, term for a female/feminine body part to make a person lesser.
(I am possibly not explaining this one well)

3. Agreed that it's not good and I acknowledge that that example is directly associating a gender with negative thing.


Could you explain to me why you think that swearing being personal separates it from my argument?


So my point was that words themselves cannot be considered "good" or "bad" without considering the context and intent.
In relation to this, what's your response to "that person is being a pussy"? (context: unwilling to do something potentially embarrassing)

eta context
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 14, 2012, 08:21:53 pm
The problem I have with that is that it continues to associate negative things with women and females.

Really?  Because when I hear the word "cunt", I don't think about women at all.  I think about stripped bolts, broken welds, and shit that SHOULD fit together, but doesn't.  I am utterly unable to see how this contributes to femmephobia.  I can see that it contributes to the aims and goals of Luddites, I suppose.

Quote
It's still contributing to femmephobia (which I am not accusing you of. It's something that a lot of people have internalized and our entire culture needs to deal with). There's not a lot, really, that's different in any of your examples, because in all cases thing that are negative are being associated with women/females.

Okay, but then we're ALSO gonna have to eliminate all male-based cursewords, or any cursewords that could be used to demean either.

We lose:

Bugger.
Son of a bitch.
Son of a gun.
Fucker.
Bastard.
Dickhead.
Dick.
Cocksucker.


Quote
Could you explain to me why you think that swearing being personal separates it from my argument?

Well, what it MEANS is that when I burn myself with a piece of hot steel, I have to say "dog-gonnit" like my boss does.  Until Pita comes along and takes THAT away from me.  I do not get the release that a string of hideous profanity brings in such a situation.  I will be reduced to this horrible thing that passively looks at the blisters forming in the burn and says, "well, THAT was less than optimal".


Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on August 14, 2012, 08:27:02 pm
I just found Vex's post funny for the same reason I found the great Chicago debate about replacing "manhole" with "personhole" funny, back in 1997.

In any case, swearing is a personal thing.  It's like prayer, in some ways.  Provided that it isn't directed at a person, I fail to see what the problem is.  Even if it IS directed at a person, if it is used as a pronoun instead of a slam on perceived traits, I still don't see a problem.

Examples:

1.  This clutch plate is being a cunt.  <--- I do it all the time.

2.  That dickhole over there is the guy with whom you need to speak.  <--- no problem.

3.  You drive like a girl.  <--- Not good.


The problem I have with that is that it continues to associate negative things with women and females. It's still contributing to femmephobia (which I am not accusing you of. It's something that a lot of people have internalized and our entire culture needs to deal with). There's not a lot, really, that's different in any of your examples, because in all cases thing that are negative are being associated with women/females.

1. Stubborn and inconvenient and annoying be associated with the vagina and therefore anyone who owns one/women.

2. Even if it's affectionate, it's still a bit demeaning because you're using a crude, somewhat demeaning, term for a female/feminine body part to make a person lesser.
(I am possibly not explaining this one well)

3. Agreed that it's not good and I acknowledge that that example is directly associating a gender with negative thing.


Could you explain to me why you think that swearing being personal separates it from my argument?


So my point was that words themselves cannot be considered "good" or "bad" without considering the context and intent.
In relation to this, what's your response to "that person is being a pussy"?

Try to think of it in the abstract, that's how (I think) most of us do. Pussy is an abstract phrase meaning cowardly or not macho enough. neither of these are things that even vaguely apply to reproductive organs. Yes, if one were to over-analyse it, it probably comes from centuries of repressed mommy issues but, in this day and age, it's not really about that, unless you choose to see it as such. At least not for most of the guys I've heard using it.

Likewise calling someone a dick doesn't mean someone hates men. Or does it?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 14, 2012, 08:49:24 pm
That's kind of like saying (in American English) "fag" can be abstractly separated from homosexual men. It doesn't really work that way.

I fully admit I use "dick" to refer to things and people who are inconvenient or unpleasant. I should probably stop, although I'm going to first point out that men have never been associated with weakness, nor their body parts. Women and females have, in both cases.


The problem I have with that is that it continues to associate negative things with women and females.

Really?  Because when I hear the word "cunt", I don't think about women at all.  I think about stripped bolts, broken welds, and shit that SHOULD fit together, but doesn't.  I am utterly unable to see how this contributes to femmephobia.  I can see that it contributes to the aims and goals of Luddites, I suppose.
Okay, but what's the word a noun for? The vagina. (ftr, I have no problem with the word when used to actually refer to the vagina). That's where the association comes from.

Quote
It's still contributing to femmephobia (which I am not accusing you of. It's something that a lot of people have internalized and our entire culture needs to deal with). There's not a lot, really, that's different in any of your examples, because in all cases thing that are negative are being associated with women/females.

Okay, but then we're ALSO gonna have to eliminate all male-based cursewords, or any cursewords that could be used to demean either.

We lose:

Bugger.
Son of a bitch.
Son of a gun.
Fucker.
Bastard.
Dickhead.
Dick.
Cocksucker.
Sure. That one's homophobic, too, since "buggery" only recently started to refer to bestiality and was traditionally associated with male sodomy.
Sure.
Sure
I have no problem with gender neutral insults and fucking is something anyone can do.
Sure.
Sure
Sure (I use this one, I admit. Perhaps I need to stop).
Anyone can suck cock. Gender-neutral is a-okay. (related: why would would gender-neutral insults need to be eliminated?)


Quote
Could you explain to me why you think that swearing being personal separates it from my argument?

Well, what it MEANS is that when I burn myself with a piece of hot steel, I have to say "dog-gonnit" like my boss does.  Until Pita comes along and takes THAT away from me.  I do not get the release that a string of hideous profanity brings in such a situation.  I will be reduced to this horrible thing that passively looks at the blisters forming in the burn and says, "well, THAT was less than optimal".
Check your privilege, please. "I am not going to change my arsenal of swearwords, some of which are negatively associating women/females with things that are unpleasant, because they are less colorful and don't make me feel better about maiming myself on machinery."
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 14, 2012, 08:55:27 pm
Check your privilege, please. "I am not going to change my arsenal of swearwords, some of which are negatively associating women/females with things that are unpleasant, because they are less colorful and don't make me feel better about maiming myself on machinery."

Well, it's not really so much privilege...Given that God gets a good bashing, too (and I am not an atheist), so much as it is the need to say horribly rotten shit on account of a bad burn or smashed hand.  Mark Twain once remarked that profanity (which by definition is vulgar) affords a release denied even by prayer.

Also, there's the fact that EVERYONE gets some.  I am fairly pan-catagorical (which I do not believe is actually a word, but should be) in my vulgarity, at least when pain or frustration are involved.

When I am swearing AT someone, I typically stick with "asshole", regardless of whom they may be.

I could very well be in the wrong on this (I AM omnifallible, of course, being a Holy Man™), but it seems to me that when addressing a balky piece of equipment, none of the associated meanings or values of the word have any relevance.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 14, 2012, 09:06:58 pm
No, it's privilege. You're a man who is unwilling to change his swearwords to stop insulting women and females because it's inconvenient.

God is not germaine to this discussion, nor is religion in general (considering the general reception of nontheists in America (I all but lost a job because I acknowledged that I was an atheist), let's not get into that discussion here).

Ditto.

I have already explained why I disagree like three times, so I'm disinclined to explain it again.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on August 14, 2012, 09:07:24 pm
So my point was that words themselves cannot be considered "good" or "bad" without considering the context and intent.
In relation to this, what's your response to "that person is being a pussy"? (context: unwilling to do something potentially embarrassing)

I don't associate the insult "pussy" with the slang for female parts, though they are the same word. Probably because I don't often use either one, but I can't think of a situation where context might be confusing as to which meaning someone intends to use. Granted, in general usage, "pussy" is more insulting to men than to women (and it's rarely used in that sense in reference to a woman), and that insult is grounded in the unspoken assumption that being feminine is equal to being scared or weak. For that reason I understand the word's inflammatory nature and how it perpetuates that unspoken assumption to the detriment of women, and why it might be offensive even when it's used in a context that has nothing to do with women per se.

Having said that I think there's a problem with trying to eliminate all aspects of language that are rooted in offensive history. Many words, like "pussy," retain their offensive edge even after the initial culture which gave it that edge has faded. The intended offense of calling someone a "pussy," which is to call them weak simply because you are calling them weak, can be distinguished easily from the historical offense, which was to call them weak by equating them with women. The insult is understood and most reactions to the statement "You're a pussy," do not include anything like "NO I'M NOT I HAVE A PENIS LOL." And, if someone did respond in that way, they'd be dismissed and probably called "A double-pussified pussycat pussy," or something, and then the two or so people engaging in this conversation would be sent to the Principal's office or held inside without recess.

Anyway, my point is that if I call someone a "pussy," it is understood that I mean "weak" and "fearful," and nobody would reasonably assume I was accusing anyone of being "a woman."
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 14, 2012, 09:12:05 pm
No, it's privilege. You're a man who is unwilling to change his swearwords to stop insulting women and females because it's inconvenient.

Well, there's that.   :lulz:

I can't think of a decent counterargument, so I'm gonna have to say that I was - as I said was possible - in the wrong.

And as far as theism/atheism goes, I think my reputation here is solid on the subject.  I don't understand why I would be lumped in with some asshole who fired you for atheism (I was fired once for not being a theist or enough of a theist by my boss's standards).
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 14, 2012, 09:14:00 pm
Also, having been wrong, I must now perform the "proven wrong" ritual.

GRRRRR!  I HATE YUO GUISE!  YUO ARE THE CANCER THAT IS KILLING PD!  OOOOOOOK!

Dour,
Always willing to observe the proper forms & rituals.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 14, 2012, 09:14:18 pm
I think there is a big difference between changing a behavior that actively demeans a group and changing a behavior because some people within a group might choose to take offense. The former seems to fit with the idea of 'privilege', the latter seems to be a lot more fuzzy.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on August 14, 2012, 09:15:41 pm
So, we need to invent a new catalog of swear words. Resolved, then.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 14, 2012, 09:17:58 pm
So, we need to invent a new catalog of swear words. Resolved, then.

We still have

Shit
Fuck
Damn
Cocksucker
Motherfucker (assuming strapons are available)

Now, what about using terms in a positive light?  As in "This new reverse F wrench design is the tits"?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on August 14, 2012, 09:22:59 pm
So, we need to invent a new catalog of swear words. Resolved, then.

We still have

Shit
Fuck
Damn
Cocksucker
Motherfucker (assuming strapons are available)

Now, what about using terms in a positive light?  As in "This new reverse F wrench design is the tits"?

"Motherfucker" implies moral or physical weakness on the part of the Mother, therefore it is banned.

Calling something "the tits" implies an inherent beauty to the female form. Since it is forbidden to assume anything about females is inherent, I don't see how that can be allowed.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 14, 2012, 09:24:55 pm
So, we need to invent a new catalog of swear words. Resolved, then.

We still have

Shit
Fuck
Damn
Cocksucker
Motherfucker (assuming strapons are available)

Now, what about using terms in a positive light?  As in "This new reverse F wrench design is the tits"?

"Motherfucker" implies moral or physical weakness on the part of the Mother, therefore it is banned.

Calling something "the tits" implies an inherent beauty to the female form. Since it is forbidden to assume anything about females is inherent, I don't see how that can be allowed.

I'm gonna argue that, because I find women to be inherently beautiful, no matter how much of a pig it makes me.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 14, 2012, 09:26:06 pm
No, it's privilege. You're a man who is unwilling to change his swearwords to stop insulting women and females because it's inconvenient.

Well, there's that.   :lulz:

I can't think of a decent counterargument, so I'm gonna have to say that I was - as I said was possible - in the wrong.

And as far as theism/atheism goes, I think my reputation here is solid on the subject.  I don't understand why I would be lumped in with some asshole who fired you for atheism (I was fired once for not being a theist or enough of a theist by my boss's standards).

I'm a woman and I say shit like that.

My favorite expression for things that don't work right, take the skin off my knuckles, etc. is "fuckin whore".

Because it's so goddamn absurd. I don't think I need to explain the myriad reasons WHY it's absurd here. And I don't hate women, or "whores", for that matter. I've just loved the phrase ever since I heard some poor sap working under a car scream it.  :lol:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on August 14, 2012, 09:26:43 pm
So, we need to invent a new catalog of swear words. Resolved, then.

We still have

Shit
Fuck
Damn
Cocksucker
Motherfucker (assuming strapons are available)

Now, what about using terms in a positive light?  As in "This new reverse F wrench design is the tits"?

"Motherfucker" implies moral or physical weakness on the part of the Mother, therefore it is banned.

Calling something "the tits" implies an inherent beauty to the female form. Since it is forbidden to assume anything about females is inherent, I don't see how that can be allowed.

I'm gonna argue that, because I find women to be inherently beautiful, no matter how much of a pig it makes me.

I will have to join you in your piggishness, then. But I still think we need new profanity.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 14, 2012, 09:27:07 pm
Pussy for example has an interesting etymology. The usage for female genitals likely comes from Norse/Germanic words related to pouch/purse. The usage for wimpy/weak guy comes from an older English usage which means pampered/fat/spoiled (like pursy).

Pussy as a term from women dates back to the 15th century in the vlugar usage and has its origins in Germanic/Norse(we think). Pussy as a vulger term for men, has similarly old usage but comes from Latin/French roots.


Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on August 14, 2012, 09:27:34 pm
So, we need to invent a new catalog of swear words. Resolved, then.

Yup. And I'll use the banned list almost exclusively, in the hope that it will offend exactly the kind of twats* that take the hump over that kind of thing.


* another word derived from the cunt-section of the female form and thus an direct attack on femininity in general
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 14, 2012, 09:29:13 pm
No, it's privilege. You're a man who is unwilling to change his swearwords to stop insulting women and females because it's inconvenient.

Well, there's that.   :lulz:

I can't think of a decent counterargument, so I'm gonna have to say that I was - as I said was possible - in the wrong.

And as far as theism/atheism goes, I think my reputation here is solid on the subject.  I don't understand why I would be lumped in with some asshole who fired you for atheism (I was fired once for not being a theist or enough of a theist by my boss's standards).

I'm a woman and I say shit like that.

My favorite expression for things that don't work right, take the skin off my knuckles, etc. is "fuckin whore".

Because it's so goddamn absurd. I don't think I need to explain the myriad reasons WHY it's absurd here. And I don't hate women, or "whores", for that matter. I've just loved the phrase ever since I heard some poor sap working under a car scream it.  :lol:

Whore is gender-neutral.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 14, 2012, 09:31:26 pm
No, it's privilege. You're a man who is unwilling to change his swearwords to stop insulting women and females because it's inconvenient.

Well, there's that.   :lulz:

I can't think of a decent counterargument, so I'm gonna have to say that I was - as I said was possible - in the wrong.

And as far as theism/atheism goes, I think my reputation here is solid on the subject.  I don't understand why I would be lumped in with some asshole who fired you for atheism (I was fired once for not being a theist or enough of a theist by my boss's standards).

I'm a woman and I say shit like that.

My favorite expression for things that don't work right, take the skin off my knuckles, etc. is "fuckin whore".

Because it's so goddamn absurd. I don't think I need to explain the myriad reasons WHY it's absurd here. And I don't hate women, or "whores", for that matter. I've just loved the phrase ever since I heard some poor sap working under a car scream it.  :lol:

Whore is gender-neutral.

Hey, it is! WOOOOOT!

"Dad gummint", on the other hand, is male-specific. And BADWRONG.  :lulz:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 14, 2012, 09:41:24 pm
Cunt also has some mixed origins. Early English references indicate it references a stupid person, American references from the same time indicate it references females, Australian ones from the same time indicate it referenced males. Further, in all of those countries (except America) the word can have a positive connotation as well.

Granted this is taking reference material from online sources, but I only looked because I remembered some of those points from an etymology discussion a long time ago.

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 14, 2012, 09:51:32 pm
Holy jesus shit. I thoroughly respond to Vex and the thread explodes!  :lulz:


Vex -
You may not associate it with vagina, but ime it generally is, by both men and women (again, I have no objection to the word when used to actually refer to the organ itself).
It's not about confusing contexts. It's about contextualizing a body part belonging to women and females with negative concepts.

Quote
Granted, in general usage, "pussy" is more insulting to men than to women (and it's rarely used in that sense in reference to a woman), and that insult is grounded in the unspoken assumption that being feminine is equal to being scared or weak. For that reason I understand the word's inflammatory nature and how it perpetuates that unspoken assumption to the detriment of women, and why it might be offensive even when it's used in a context that has nothing to do with women per se.
I'm glad you realize this, but no buts.

Quote
Having said that I think there's a problem with trying to eliminate all aspects of language that are rooted in offensive history.
Give me a couple examples of these, besides gendered insults (because I maintain that they are such).

Quote
Anyway, my point is that if I call someone a "pussy," it is understood that I mean "weak" and "fearful," and nobody would reasonably assume I was accusing anyone of being "a woman."
No, when you call someone a "pussy" you are associating them with things that are OF a woman or female. These things have negative connotations. End of story.

Quote
Many words, like "pussy," retain their offensive edge even after the initial culture which gave it that edge has faded. The intended offense of calling someone a "pussy," which is to call them weak simply because you are calling them weak, can be distinguished easily from the historical offense, which was to call them weak by equating them with women.
The edge has not faded. If it had, it would either not be an insult or it would be gender neutral (which you have acknowledged that it is not). It is still bad to be associated with femininity in this culture. "She's one of the guys" is a compliment, women who dress femininely are shat on by certain kinds of feminists, things that are "girly" - loufas and diet soda and irons - have to be masculinized to be sold to men, men receive shit for being interested in things that are associated with women's gender roles, it's not okay for a man to wear "women's" clothing and otherwise go outside their gender's boundaries, and so on.
Pussy is a term for a female sexual organ (and most females are women). Women have been seen as weak and lesser for a very, very long time. To be associated with women and females and anything that belongs to them is considered an insult. To call a recalcitrant piece of machinery a cunt is to associate them with what our society still sees as lesser beings.


No, it's privilege. You're a man who is unwilling to change his swearwords to stop insulting women and females because it's inconvenient.

Well, there's that.   :lulz:

I can't think of a decent counterargument, so I'm gonna have to say that I was - as I said was possible - in the wrong.

And as far as theism/atheism goes, I think my reputation here is solid on the subject.  I don't understand why I would be lumped in with some asshole who fired you for atheism (I was fired once for not being a theist or enough of a theist by my boss's standards).
:D
I'm not lumping you in with that sort of person. I'm just saying that it would be a bad idea to get into that discussion in this thread.

So, we need to invent a new catalog of swear words. Resolved, then.

We still have

Shit
Fuck
Damn
Cocksucker
Motherfucker (assuming strapons are available)

Now, what about using terms in a positive light?  As in "This new reverse F wrench design is the tits"?

"Motherfucker" implies moral or physical weakness on the part of the Mother, therefore it is banned.

Calling something "the tits" implies an inherent beauty to the female form. Since it is forbidden to assume anything about females is inherent, I don't see how that can be allowed.
I was wondering about that word, actually. It's the incest.
No. It's okay to associate good things with that are feminine (although I'd prefer it not to be physical, myself). Just like it's okay to do the same with men or other genders. It's when most, if not all, associations are bad that it becomes a problem.

No, it's privilege. You're a man who is unwilling to change his swearwords to stop insulting women and females because it's inconvenient.

Well, there's that.   :lulz:

I can't think of a decent counterargument, so I'm gonna have to say that I was - as I said was possible - in the wrong.

And as far as theism/atheism goes, I think my reputation here is solid on the subject.  I don't understand why I would be lumped in with some asshole who fired you for atheism (I was fired once for not being a theist or enough of a theist by my boss's standards).

I'm a woman and I say shit like that.

My favorite expression for things that don't work right, take the skin off my knuckles, etc. is "fuckin whore".

Because it's so goddamn absurd. I don't think I need to explain the myriad reasons WHY it's absurd here. And I don't hate women, or "whores", for that matter. I've just loved the phrase ever since I heard some poor sap working under a car scream it.  :lol:
While I can see where you, and the others who disagree with me, are coming from, I kind of want to point out that the kind of language a society uses tells you a lot about their values. A culture where the dominant group associates bad things with subordinate ones is indicative of an oppressive and exploitative one.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 14, 2012, 09:53:18 pm
Cunt also has some mixed origins. Early English references indicate it references a stupid person, American references from the same time indicate it references females, Australian ones from the same time indicate it referenced males. Further, in all of those countries (except America) the word can have a positive connotation as well.

Granted this is taking reference material from online sources, but I only looked because I remembered some of those points from an etymology discussion a long time ago.

English has it as female anatomy.  All the streets in England that are now called "Grope Street" or "Grope Lane" were originally "Gropecunt Lane", which was a helpful indication of where the red light district was.  This dates to before the Norman conquest.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 14, 2012, 10:01:09 pm
Cunt also has some mixed origins. Early English references indicate it references a stupid person, American references from the same time indicate it references females, Australian ones from the same time indicate it referenced males. Further, in all of those countries (except America) the word can have a positive connotation as well.

Granted this is taking reference material from online sources, but I only looked because I remembered some of those points from an etymology discussion a long time ago.

English has it as female anatomy.  All the streets in England that are now called "Grope Street" or "Grope Lane" were originally "Gropecunt Lane", which was a helpful indication of where the red light district was.  This dates to before the Norman conquest.

Yes, that's ture. I was reference the use as a epithet.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 14, 2012, 10:05:54 pm
Doesn't "cunt" have some kind of common root with "cunning" or "ken"?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 14, 2012, 10:08:56 pm
According to wikipedia:
Quote
The etymology of "cunt" is a matter of debate,[7] but most sources consider the word to have derived from a Germanic word (Proto-Germanic *kuntō, stem *kuntōn-), which appeared as kunta in Old Norse. Scholars are uncertain of the origin of the Proto-Germanic form itself.[8] In Middle English, it appeared with many spellings, such as coynte, cunte and queynte, which did not always reflect the actual pronunciation of the word. There are cognates in most Germanic languages, such as the Swedish, Faroese and Nynorsk kunta; West Frisian and Middle Low German kunte; Middle Dutch conte; Dutch kut; Middle Low German kutte; Middle High German kotze ("prostitute"); German kott, and perhaps Old English cot. The etymology of the Proto-Germanic term is disputed. It may have arisen by Grimm's law operating on the Proto-Indo-European root *gen/gon "create, become" seen in gonads, genital, gamete, genetics, gene, or the Proto-Indo-European root *gʷneh₂/guneh₂ "woman" (Greek: gunê, seen in gynaecology). Relationships to similar-sounding words such as the Latin cunnus ("vulva"), and its derivatives French con, Spanish coño, and Portuguese cona, or in Persian kun (کون), have not been conclusively demonstrated. Other Latin words related to cunnus are cuneus ("wedge") and its derivative cunēre ("to fasten with a wedge", (figurative) "to squeeze in"), leading to English words such as cuneiform ("wedge-shaped").

The word in its modern meaning is attested in Middle English. Proverbs of Hendyng, a manuscript from some time before 1325, includes the advice:[9]

    Ȝeue þi cunte to cunnig and craue affetir wedding.
    (Give your cunt wisely and make (your) demands after the wedding.)
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 14, 2012, 10:22:28 pm
Kuntz (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgXpRqAVL64)

It's actually a song by an obscure Thai band. (http://moonglampers.net/media/Thai_Shotugun_-_Kuntz.mp3)

No idea what it means in Thai. Google translate failed me.  :lol:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Don Coyote on August 14, 2012, 10:24:22 pm
GUYS STOP BEING A BUNCH OF RUSTY SCABBARDS!!!!!!!!!!!! :argh!: :argh!: :argh!: :argh!:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on August 14, 2012, 10:31:46 pm
According to wikipedia:
Quote
The etymology of "cunt" is a matter of debate,[7] but most sources consider the word to have derived from a Germanic word (Proto-Germanic *kuntō, stem *kuntōn-), which appeared as kunta in Old Norse. Scholars are uncertain of the origin of the Proto-Germanic form itself.[8] In Middle English, it appeared with many spellings, such as coynte, cunte and queynte, which did not always reflect the actual pronunciation of the word. There are cognates in most Germanic languages, such as the Swedish, Faroese and Nynorsk kunta; West Frisian and Middle Low German kunte; Middle Dutch conte; Dutch kut; Middle Low German kutte; Middle High German kotze ("prostitute"); German kott, and perhaps Old English cot. The etymology of the Proto-Germanic term is disputed. It may have arisen by Grimm's law operating on the Proto-Indo-European root *gen/gon "create, become" seen in gonads, genital, gamete, genetics, gene, or the Proto-Indo-European root *gʷneh₂/guneh₂ "woman" (Greek: gunê, seen in gynaecology). Relationships to similar-sounding words such as the Latin cunnus ("vulva"), and its derivatives French con, Spanish coño, and Portuguese cona, or in Persian kun (کون), have not been conclusively demonstrated. Other Latin words related to cunnus are cuneus ("wedge") and its derivative cunēre ("to fasten with a wedge", (figurative) "to squeeze in"), leading to English words such as cuneiform ("wedge-shaped").

The word in its modern meaning is attested in Middle English. Proverbs of Hendyng, a manuscript from some time before 1325, includes the advice:[9]

    Ȝeue þi cunte to cunnig and craue affetir wedding.
    (Give your cunt wisely and make (your) demands after the wedding.)

I wasn't around back in the day when the word originated so I couldn't really comment. Back when I learned to use it, it wasn't til years later, when I learned about the concept of a vagina, that I found out that it could be used to refer to that particular new fangled invention as well.

"Pussy" was originally to do with cats and kittens, if memory serves. You aint a big, rough, tough macho beast, you're a little baby kitteh cat makes more sense than you're a female reproductive organ.

So you're one of those people who gets a bug in their (gender neutral) ass cos someone says pussy, right? That's a label, it's a uniform. It's angry, millitant, "I'm being oppressed" crusader, deliberately alienating those who are on their side because they're not on their side enough. Good luck with insisting that everyone in the world see things your (officially sanctioned) way and act in a manner laid down in the guidelines with regards what to think, say and do. It's been tried before, numerous times but, luckily for the rest of us, good generally triumphs.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 14, 2012, 10:35:57 pm
Your OOK and your privilege is showing again, P3nt. 
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 14, 2012, 10:42:22 pm
While I can see where you, and the others who disagree with me, are coming from, I kind of want to point out that the kind of language a society uses tells you a lot about their values. A culture where the dominant group associates bad things with subordinate ones is indicative of an oppressive and exploitative one.

Well, yeah. And their while opression and exploitation are serious problems, their "values" are a laugh riot.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on August 14, 2012, 10:53:42 pm
Your OOK and your privilege is showing again, P3nt. 

I don't think p3nt is the kind of IRL person who would be one of my friends, honestly. Not that he's a bad guy, I just see him as more of the outdoorsy macho type than I ever have a desire to be near.

HOWEVER

That he engages in traditionally "male" behavior, including activities, hobbies, speech or whatever else is not necessarily him being a monkey or engaging in "privilege." I don't think I've ever seen p3nt be an outright chauvinist here, and in fact he has shown himself to have more depth of character than I've ever seen any chauvinist to have. That alone, in my opinion, absolves him in this conversation of engaging in "privilege." What I see here is that he is being accused of reverting to non-bipedal behavior just because his behavior is abrasive to you.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 14, 2012, 11:08:00 pm
I wasn't around back in the day when the word originated so I couldn't really comment. Back when I learned to use it, it wasn't til years later, when I learned about the concept of a vagina, that I found out that it could be used to refer to that particular new fangled invention as well.
:roll: Did you even read what I posted?

Quote
"Pussy" was originally to do with cats and kittens, if memory serves. You aint a big, rough, tough macho beast, you're a little baby kitteh cat makes more sense than you're a female reproductive organ.
:cn:

Quote
So you're one of those people who gets a bug in their (gender neutral) ass cos someone says pussy, right? That's a label, it's a uniform. It's angry, millitant, "I'm being oppressed" crusader, deliberately alienating those who are on their side because they're not on their side enough. Good luck with insisting that everyone in the world see things your (officially sanctioned) way and act in a manner laid down in the guidelines with regards what to think, say and do. It's been tried before, numerous times but, luckily for the rest of us, good generally triumphs.

A) I'm okay with labels. I wear them IF they fit and tweak them with modifiers as necessary, and take 'em off if they eventually don't work for me. Labels and uniforms are not the same thing. A label is used to describe something ("feminist" is a label, "macho" is a label, "Discordian" is a label, "biped" is a label), and these words are useful for describing yourself or talking about things. A uniform is a pre-made, one-size-fits-all identity. "Feminism" can be either, but don't confuse the label for the identity.
Please note that at no time was I angry (I tend to think that the person who raised their voice in anger first has lost the argument) or militant. I don't like the words, that's true. I tend to side-eye people who do use them. But at no time did I screech or show my inner monkey because I was disagreed with and criticized (unlike you).

I mainly wanted to provoke a discussion about these words, how we use them, where they come from, and what they mean. If asking you to think about these things alienated you, I see no reason to give a fuck. Ook ook, motherfucker.
(also, if it was a deliberate attempt to alienate you, it would have been far bigger and wouldn't involve asking you to think about words  :lulz:)


B) I am oppressed and validly angry about it, and I will not be cowed into silence by your hilariously out of proportion response to my attempt to make you look at the words you use.


While I can see where you, and the others who disagree with me, are coming from, I kind of want to point out that the kind of language a society uses tells you a lot about their values. A culture where the dominant group associates bad things with subordinate ones is indicative of an oppressive and exploitative one.

Well, yeah. And their while opression and exploitation are serious problems, their "values" are a laugh riot.
Expand, please? I'm not clear on what you mean.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 14, 2012, 11:12:48 pm
While I can see where you, and the others who disagree with me, are coming from, I kind of want to point out that the kind of language a society uses tells you a lot about their values. A culture where the dominant group associates bad things with subordinate ones is indicative of an oppressive and exploitative one.

Well, yeah. And their while opression and exploitation are serious problems, their "values" are a laugh riot.
Expand, please? I'm not clear on what you mean.

The idea that body parts, labels for people who fuck around, etc. are considered "curse words".
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Faust on August 14, 2012, 11:14:22 pm
Meh words lose their meaning from overuse.

Look at the word punk, its basically a homophobic insult meaning catamite.

Words never offend me. People with Manager and PC speech are just as likely to discriminate against someone based on gender or sexuality as someone who talks like a sailor.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on August 14, 2012, 11:15:08 pm
B) I am oppressed and validly angry about it, and I will not be cowed into silence by your hilariously out of proportion response to my attempt to make you look at the words you use.

:spittake:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 14, 2012, 11:19:59 pm
Meh words lose their meaning from overuse.

Look at the word punk, its basically a homophobic insult meaning catamite.

Words never offend me. People with Manager and PC speech are just as likely to discriminate against someone based on gender or sexuality as someone who talks like a sailor.
There's literally no association with that here, so I'm only familiar with it via music. Interesting. I'll have to look into that.

That has more to do with being ignorant, I would argue.


B) I am oppressed and validly angry about it, and I will not be cowed into silence by your hilariously out of proportion response to my attempt to make you look at the words you use.

:spittake:
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_m231s4RUWK1qiqnbq.gif)
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on August 14, 2012, 11:20:39 pm
Meh words lose their meaning from overuse.

Look at the word punk, its basically a homophobic insult meaning catamite.

Words never offend me. People with Manager and PC speech are just as likely to discriminate against someone based on gender or sexuality as someone who talks like a sailor.

This.

Also... no, basically just that.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Faust on August 14, 2012, 11:22:15 pm
Meh words lose their meaning from overuse.

Look at the word punk, its basically a homophobic insult meaning catamite.

Words never offend me. People with Manager and PC speech are just as likely to discriminate against someone based on gender or sexuality as someone who talks like a sailor.
There's literally no association with that here, so I'm only familiar with it via music. Interesting. I'll have to look into that.

That has more to do with being ignorant, I would argue.


B) I am oppressed and validly angry about it, and I will not be cowed into silence by your hilariously out of proportion response to my attempt to make you look at the words you use.

:spittake:
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_m231s4RUWK1qiqnbq.gif)

It literally doesn't have that association any more , punk has had several meanings before ever hitting the music name.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=punk
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 14, 2012, 11:25:53 pm
Thanks for the link, Faust! I agree that word has totally mutated enough for the origins not to matter anymore.

While I can see where you, and the others who disagree with me, are coming from, I kind of want to point out that the kind of language a society uses tells you a lot about their values. A culture where the dominant group associates bad things with subordinate ones is indicative of an oppressive and exploitative one.

Well, yeah. And their while opression and exploitation are serious problems, their "values" are a laugh riot.
Expand, please? I'm not clear on what you mean.

The idea that body parts, labels for people who fuck around, etc. are considered "curse words".
Ah. The thing is is that the dominant group made those words into curse words. Which is the problem. *shrug* I'm all in favor of reclaiming them, though.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 14, 2012, 11:27:20 pm
Meh words lose their meaning from overuse.

Look at the word punk, its basically a homophobic insult meaning catamite.

Words never offend me. People with Manager and PC speech are just as likely to discriminate against someone based on gender or sexuality as someone who talks like a sailor.

This.

Also... no, basically just that.
Yes, I agree that words can mutate enough for the origin not to matter any more (like "punk" apparently). But my argument is that the words have not mutated enough for that association to be dead yet.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 14, 2012, 11:41:41 pm

Quote
"Pussy" was originally to do with cats and kittens, if memory serves. You aint a big, rough, tough macho beast, you're a little baby kitteh cat makes more sense than you're a female reproductive organ.
:cn:


Actually I mentioned the origin a few posts back.

Pussy as in the female reproductive organ comes from Saxon/Norse roots relating to pocket and vulva.
Pussy as in "Dude, you're a pussy" comes from Latin/Old French origins and is either a corruption of the word "pursy" (or pursy is a corruption of pussy), which means to be fat and short of breath, pampered etc. So calling a guy a pussy means he is weak... not a female body part.

There doesn't appear to actually be a connection with the pussy as in cat.

They have completely separate roots.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 14, 2012, 11:42:15 pm
That he engages in traditionally "male" behavior, including activities, hobbies, speech or whatever else is not necessarily him being a monkey or engaging in "privilege." I don't think I've ever seen p3nt be an outright chauvinist here, and in fact he has shown himself to have more depth of character than I've ever seen any chauvinist to have. That alone, in my opinion, absolves him in this conversation of engaging in "privilege." What I see here is that he is being accused of reverting to non-bipedal behavior just because his behavior is abrasive to you.

He was doing the same thing he did earlier in thus thread to Nigel, which he identified as letting his monkey show. And he was. He was framing things in an abrasive way that was aimed at Garbo. 

And he is priveleged enough to not have to think of every time someone uses that word that his bits are considered inferior bits.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 14, 2012, 11:55:16 pm
http://www.thefword.org.uk/features/2003/10/taboo_for_who (http://www.thefword.org.uk/features/2003/10/taboo_for_who)

Interesting article on the topic from Kate Allen, a feminist living in London. I think it covers both sides of this discussion pretty fairly.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pope Pixie Pickle on August 15, 2012, 12:06:00 am
Slightly related... I have taken to saying "I'd call you a cunt but you don't have the warmth or the depth" as an insult.

This amuses me.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on August 15, 2012, 12:08:35 am
Slightly related... I have taken to saying "I'd call you a cunt but you don't have the warmth or the depth" as an insult.

This amuses me.

Chauvinist!
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: EK WAFFLR on August 15, 2012, 12:11:36 am
I love this thread. Very thought provoking!

When people call me a cunt, I usually reply with, why, thank you. They are wonderful, and I'm honored to be compared to one.

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 15, 2012, 12:49:50 am
I love this thread. Very thought provoking!

When people call me a cunt, I usually reply with, why, thank you. They are wonderful, and I'm honored to be compared to one.
Slightly related... I have taken to saying "I'd call you a cunt but you don't have the warmth or the depth" as an insult.

This amuses me.

:lulz: these are awesome.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 15, 2012, 01:13:05 am
That he engages in traditionally "male" behavior, including activities, hobbies, speech or whatever else is not necessarily him being a monkey or engaging in "privilege." I don't think I've ever seen p3nt be an outright chauvinist here, and in fact he has shown himself to have more depth of character than I've ever seen any chauvinist to have. That alone, in my opinion, absolves him in this conversation of engaging in "privilege." What I see here is that he is being accused of reverting to non-bipedal behavior just because his behavior is abrasive to you.

He was doing the same thing he did earlier in thus thread to Nigel, which he identified as letting his monkey show. And he was. He was framing things in an abrasive way that was aimed at Garbo. 

And he is priveleged enough to not have to think of every time someone uses that word that his bits are considered inferior bits.
Privilege is not "privilege". Just sayin'. It's not a theoretical thing you can put in quotes. It's a factual thing nearly all of us have in one flavor or another.
Misogyny, indeed bigotry in general, is not always blatant. Racism is not always NIGGER CLEAN MY HOUSE. A lot of the time it's a white lady clutching her purse when a black dude comes by or PoCs always having a gang or crime related death in CSI. Misogyny is "man up and quit being a pussy", too. Because if you ain't acting like a man, there's something wrong with your behavior, and god help you if you're acting like a woman.



Quote
"Pussy" was originally to do with cats and kittens, if memory serves. You aint a big, rough, tough macho beast, you're a little baby kitteh cat makes more sense than you're a female reproductive organ.
:cn:


Actually I mentioned the origin a few posts back.

Pussy as in the female reproductive organ comes from Saxon/Norse roots relating to pocket and vulva.
Pussy as in "Dude, you're a pussy" comes from Latin/Old French origins and is either a corruption of the word "pursy" (or pursy is a corruption of pussy), which means to be fat and short of breath, pampered etc. So calling a guy a pussy means he is weak... not a female body part.

There doesn't appear to actually be a connection with the pussy as in cat.

They have completely separate roots.
Oooh, right! Thanks. :)
I'm gonna take a second here to point out to everyone, then, that "pussy" and "cunt" have been associated with women for centuries, if not millenia. "Punk" has no linguistic roots linked to homosexuality and its time as a homophobic insult was brief (as per Faust's link).


http://www.thefword.org.uk/features/2003/10/taboo_for_who (http://www.thefword.org.uk/features/2003/10/taboo_for_who)

Interesting article on the topic from Kate Allen, a feminist living in London. I think it covers both sides of this discussion pretty fairly.
If someone, regardless or sex or gender, uses the word "pussy" or "cunt" in reference to an actual vagina, I see no reason to care. When used as an insult, I object to the objectification, the fact that men have linked cunts and pussies and vaginas (and therefore women and females) to weakness for, apparently, millenia, and the fact that calling a woman/female either of those words reduces them to a part of their reproductive tract.
(let's also take a second to jump back to Rog's post about cunt's origins in "Gropecunt" and then think about how prostitutes and promiscuous women in general have been treated)


I love this thread. Very thought provoking!

When people call me a cunt, I usually reply with, why, thank you. They are wonderful, and I'm honored to be compared to one.
:lulz: You're adorable.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Faust on August 15, 2012, 01:35:33 am
That he engages in traditionally "male" behavior, including activities, hobbies, speech or whatever else is not necessarily him being a monkey or engaging in "privilege." I don't think I've ever seen p3nt be an outright chauvinist here, and in fact he has shown himself to have more depth of character than I've ever seen any chauvinist to have. That alone, in my opinion, absolves him in this conversation of engaging in "privilege." What I see here is that he is being accused of reverting to non-bipedal behavior just because his behavior is abrasive to you.

He was doing the same thing he did earlier in thus thread to Nigel, which he identified as letting his monkey show. And he was. He was framing things in an abrasive way that was aimed at Garbo. 

And he is priveleged enough to not have to think of every time someone uses that word that his bits are considered inferior bits.
Privilege is not "privilege". Just sayin'. It's not a theoretical thing you can put in quotes. It's a factual thing nearly all of us have in one flavor or another.
Misogyny, indeed bigotry in general, is not always blatant. Racism is not always NIGGER CLEAN MY HOUSE. A lot of the time it's a white lady clutching her purse when a black dude comes by or PoCs always having a gang or crime related death in CSI. Misogyny is "man up and quit being a pussy", too. Because if you ain't acting like a man, there's something wrong with your behavior, and god help you if you're acting like a woman.



Quote
"Pussy" was originally to do with cats and kittens, if memory serves. You aint a big, rough, tough macho beast, you're a little baby kitteh cat makes more sense than you're a female reproductive organ.
:cn:


Actually I mentioned the origin a few posts back.

Pussy as in the female reproductive organ comes from Saxon/Norse roots relating to pocket and vulva.
Pussy as in "Dude, you're a pussy" comes from Latin/Old French origins and is either a corruption of the word "pursy" (or pursy is a corruption of pussy), which means to be fat and short of breath, pampered etc. So calling a guy a pussy means he is weak... not a female body part.

There doesn't appear to actually be a connection with the pussy as in cat.

They have completely separate roots.
Oooh, right! Thanks. :)
I'm gonna take a second here to point out to everyone, then, that "pussy" and "cunt" have been associated with women for centuries, if not millenia. "Punk" has no linguistic roots linked to homosexuality and its time as a homophobic insult was brief (as per Faust's link).


http://www.thefword.org.uk/features/2003/10/taboo_for_who (http://www.thefword.org.uk/features/2003/10/taboo_for_who)

Interesting article on the topic from Kate Allen, a feminist living in London. I think it covers both sides of this discussion pretty fairly.
If someone, regardless or sex or gender, uses the word "pussy" or "cunt" in reference to an actual vagina, I see no reason to care. When used as an insult, I object to the objectification, the fact that men have linked cunts and pussies and vaginas (and therefore women and females) to weakness for, apparently, millenia, and the fact that calling a woman/female either of those words reduces them to a part of their reproductive tract.
(let's also take a second to jump back to Rog's post about cunt's origins in "Gropecunt" and then think about how prostitutes and promiscuous women in general have been treated)


I love this thread. Very thought provoking!

When people call me a cunt, I usually reply with, why, thank you. They are wonderful, and I'm honored to be compared to one.
:lulz: You're adorable.
But punk did have five hundred years of use as whore, prostitute or harlot before becoming gay slur before becoming a music type.

All you cunts need to stop circle jerking your sausage in this here forum. Now to listen to some cunt rock.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Placid Dingo on August 15, 2012, 01:51:04 am
In Aus, we use cunt frequently as a term of affection, usually for men.

"whats up cunt"
"just chilling bro. Hey, who's that cunt?"
"thats Dazza."
"he cool?"
"yeah, he's a mad cunt eh"
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 01:54:01 am
LOL. No shit, I hadn't even noticed that! But it's exactly what I said. The intention was hypothetical - "If you..." but there was no reason not to use "If someone"

I'm also aware that on a deep, dark level, which I'm only really aware of in retrospect, it was intentional. It was an attack. It had aggression behind it. Apologies Nigel, I'm letting my monkey show again.

Thanks P3nt. Apology accepted; I appreciate it, and respect you for it.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 15, 2012, 02:00:20 am
For me this seems like a very complex problem. On the one hand, words are just words. Words are not the thing they represent. Censorship, at any level seems like a very bad idea... with one exception, self-censorship. That is if a person says to themselves "These words might upset someone so I'm not gonna say them" then that's cool. I self-censor many words... including some of the ones being discussed here. I don't think I've ever used cunt as a curse word or slur. I think its good to discuss "Hey, these words upset some people and here's why".

On the other hand, trying to accuse someone of having a specific psychological state because of the words they use seems absurd to me. ("OMGZ YOU ARE A RACIST, MISOGYNIST, BAD PERSON because there's some word in your vocabulary doesn't seem right to me.") Most of us humans learn the words used by the tribe around us. If the curse word X is used by everyone in a particular way and it finds its way into your language because you grow up around it... I don't think it says anything about the person, except that they grew up in a particular tribe where that term was used/accepted. Then there's the problem I see of people getting upset by words. They're just words. I recall some state dept. outlawing the terminology "Master/Slave" when discussing IDE disk drive arrays because it might upset someone. That seems completely absurd to me. If you allow words to have some kind of power over you, that seems to be a failing on your part.

As Discordians, many of us seem to try to break out of our own BiP, or at least bust a few bricks and bend a few bars. In this thread, I feel like both sides are banging their heads on the wall in some sense. On the one hand, rigidly holding to tribal slang, just because... seems like a brick in the wall. Yet, allowing the tribal slang to mess with you psychologically seems to be an equally hard brick to bang your head on. Demanding other people adjust their vocabulary because of your personal BiP seems equally confining.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Cain on August 15, 2012, 02:01:16 am
Is this a case where e-prime would actually be helpful?

Why yes, I think it could be.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 02:04:06 am
I just found Vex's post funny for the same reason I found the great Chicago debate about replacing "manhole" with "personhole" funny, back in 1997.

In any case, swearing is a personal thing.  It's like prayer, in some ways.  Provided that it isn't directed at a person, I fail to see what the problem is.  Even if it IS directed at a person, if it is used as a pronoun instead of a slam on perceived traits, I still don't see a problem.

Examples:

1.  This clutch plate is being a cunt.  <--- I do it all the time.

2.  That dickhole over there is the guy with whom you need to speak.  <--- no problem.

3.  You drive like a girl.  <--- Not good.

I thought V3x's joke was funny, on multiple levels, one of which being that it's absurd to the point of humor to imagine a culture in which popular sayings based on negative gender stereotypes are minimized or nonexistent.

That said, I think the point of the conversation is not that the people using these terms have sexist or misogynistic intentions, but rather that the culture which has produced them is rooted in patriarchy and devalues women and all things female. A culture which routinely and consistently associates negativity with femaleness in its language is a sexist culture. We all exist within it. I'm not saying changing the words we use in the answer, because the language will change when the culture changes. But being aware of it can really change your perspective.

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 15, 2012, 02:07:55 am
I just found Vex's post funny for the same reason I found the great Chicago debate about replacing "manhole" with "personhole" funny, back in 1997.

In any case, swearing is a personal thing.  It's like prayer, in some ways.  Provided that it isn't directed at a person, I fail to see what the problem is.  Even if it IS directed at a person, if it is used as a pronoun instead of a slam on perceived traits, I still don't see a problem.

Examples:

1.  This clutch plate is being a cunt.  <--- I do it all the time.

2.  That dickhole over there is the guy with whom you need to speak.  <--- no problem.

3.  You drive like a girl.  <--- Not good.

I thought V3x's joke was funny, on multiple levels, one of which being that it's absurd to the point of humor to imagine a culture in which popular sayings based on negative gender stereotypes are minimized or nonexistent.

That said, I think the point of the conversation is not that the people using these terms have sexist or misogynistic intentions, but rather that the culture which has produced them is rooted in patriarchy and devalues women and all things female. A culture which routinely and consistently associates negativity with femaleness in its language is a sexist culture. We all exist within it. I'm not saying changing the words we use in the answer, because the language will change when the culture changes. But being aware of it can really change your perspective.

I think that is a fantastic observation, Nigel.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 02:08:19 am
No, it's privilege. You're a man who is unwilling to change his swearwords to stop insulting women and females because it's inconvenient.

Well, there's that.   :lulz:

I can't think of a decent counterargument, so I'm gonna have to say that I was - as I said was possible - in the wrong.

And as far as theism/atheism goes, I think my reputation here is solid on the subject.  I don't understand why I would be lumped in with some asshole who fired you for atheism (I was fired once for not being a theist or enough of a theist by my boss's standards).

I should really learn to read the whole thread before replying.  :lulz:

Then again, I never know if I'm going to get to read the whole thing, so it's probably better that I just keep on doing it this way.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 02:10:02 am
Pussy for example has an interesting etymology. The usage for female genitals likely comes from Norse/Germanic words related to pouch/purse. The usage for wimpy/weak guy comes from an older English usage which means pampered/fat/spoiled (like pursy).

Pussy as a term from women dates back to the 15th century in the vlugar usage and has its origins in Germanic/Norse(we think). Pussy as a vulger term for men, has similarly old usage but comes from Latin/French roots.

Can I get some citation on that?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 02:17:38 am
So, we need to invent a new catalog of swear words. Resolved, then.

Yup. And I'll use the banned list almost exclusively, in the hope that it will offend exactly the kind of twats* that take the hump over that kind of thing.


* another word derived from the cunt-section of the female form and thus an direct attack on femininity in general

Why?  :? And what are that "kind of twats", exactly, anyway?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 02:21:14 am
I wasn't around back in the day when the word originated so I couldn't really comment. Back when I learned to use it, it wasn't til years later, when I learned about the concept of a vagina, that I found out that it could be used to refer to that particular new fangled invention as well.

"Pussy" was originally to do with cats and kittens, if memory serves. You aint a big, rough, tough macho beast, you're a little baby kitteh cat makes more sense than you're a female reproductive organ.

So you're one of those people who gets a bug in their (gender neutral) ass cos someone says pussy, right? That's a label, it's a uniform. It's angry, millitant, "I'm being oppressed" crusader, deliberately alienating those who are on their side because they're not on their side enough. Good luck with insisting that everyone in the world see things your (officially sanctioned) way and act in a manner laid down in the guidelines with regards what to think, say and do. It's been tried before, numerous times but, luckily for the rest of us, good generally triumphs.

 :lulz: :horrormirth: :lulz: :horrormirth: :lulz: :horrormirth:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 02:22:52 am
Your OOK and your privilege is showing again, P3nt. 

I don't think p3nt is the kind of IRL person who would be one of my friends, honestly. Not that he's a bad guy, I just see him as more of the outdoorsy macho type than I ever have a desire to be near.

HOWEVER

That he engages in traditionally "male" behavior, including activities, hobbies, speech or whatever else is not necessarily him being a monkey or engaging in "privilege." I don't think I've ever seen p3nt be an outright chauvinist here, and in fact he has shown himself to have more depth of character than I've ever seen any chauvinist to have. That alone, in my opinion, absolves him in this conversation of engaging in "privilege." What I see here is that he is being accused of reverting to non-bipedal behavior just because his behavior is abrasive to you.

What I find fascinating about this thread is that, over and over again, women try to explain to men what the elements of our culture that reflect patriarchy and misogyny look like, and over and over again, men argue with us and tell us why we're wrong. 
:horrormirth:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Freeky on August 15, 2012, 02:24:14 am
That.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 02:25:49 am

Quote
"Pussy" was originally to do with cats and kittens, if memory serves. You aint a big, rough, tough macho beast, you're a little baby kitteh cat makes more sense than you're a female reproductive organ.
:cn:


Actually I mentioned the origin a few posts back.

Pussy as in the female reproductive organ comes from Saxon/Norse roots relating to pocket and vulva.
Pussy as in "Dude, you're a pussy" comes from Latin/Old French origins and is either a corruption of the word "pursy" (or pursy is a corruption of pussy), which means to be fat and short of breath, pampered etc. So calling a guy a pussy means he is weak... not a female body part.

There doesn't appear to actually be a connection with the pussy as in cat.

They have completely separate roots.

 :lulz: You can't use yourself as a citation, dude.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 15, 2012, 02:27:23 am
I just found Vex's post funny for the same reason I found the great Chicago debate about replacing "manhole" with "personhole" funny, back in 1997.

In any case, swearing is a personal thing.  It's like prayer, in some ways.  Provided that it isn't directed at a person, I fail to see what the problem is.  Even if it IS directed at a person, if it is used as a pronoun instead of a slam on perceived traits, I still don't see a problem.

Examples:

1.  This clutch plate is being a cunt.  <--- I do it all the time.

2.  That dickhole over there is the guy with whom you need to speak.  <--- no problem.

3.  You drive like a girl.  <--- Not good.

I thought V3x's joke was funny, on multiple levels, one of which being that it's absurd to the point of humor to imagine a culture in which popular sayings based on negative gender stereotypes are minimized or nonexistent.

That said, I think the point of the conversation is not that the people using these terms have sexist or misogynistic intentions, but rather that the culture which has produced them is rooted in patriarchy and devalues women and all things female. A culture which routinely and consistently associates negativity with femaleness in its language is a sexist culture. We all exist within it. I'm not saying changing the words we use in the answer, because the language will change when the culture changes. But being aware of it can really change your perspective.

There goes Nigel slicing through the bullshit again.  :)
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 02:29:48 am
I just found Vex's post funny for the same reason I found the great Chicago debate about replacing "manhole" with "personhole" funny, back in 1997.

In any case, swearing is a personal thing.  It's like prayer, in some ways.  Provided that it isn't directed at a person, I fail to see what the problem is.  Even if it IS directed at a person, if it is used as a pronoun instead of a slam on perceived traits, I still don't see a problem.

Examples:

1.  This clutch plate is being a cunt.  <--- I do it all the time.

2.  That dickhole over there is the guy with whom you need to speak.  <--- no problem.

3.  You drive like a girl.  <--- Not good.

I thought V3x's joke was funny, on multiple levels, one of which being that it's absurd to the point of humor to imagine a culture in which popular sayings based on negative gender stereotypes are minimized or nonexistent.

That said, I think the point of the conversation is not that the people using these terms have sexist or misogynistic intentions, but rather that the culture which has produced them is rooted in patriarchy and devalues women and all things female. A culture which routinely and consistently associates negativity with femaleness in its language is a sexist culture. We all exist within it. I'm not saying changing the words we use in the answer, because the language will change when the culture changes. But being aware of it can really change your perspective.

I think that is a fantastic observation, Nigel.

Thanks Rat!  :)
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 02:31:38 am
I just found Vex's post funny for the same reason I found the great Chicago debate about replacing "manhole" with "personhole" funny, back in 1997.

In any case, swearing is a personal thing.  It's like prayer, in some ways.  Provided that it isn't directed at a person, I fail to see what the problem is.  Even if it IS directed at a person, if it is used as a pronoun instead of a slam on perceived traits, I still don't see a problem.

Examples:

1.  This clutch plate is being a cunt.  <--- I do it all the time.

2.  That dickhole over there is the guy with whom you need to speak.  <--- no problem.

3.  You drive like a girl.  <--- Not good.

I thought V3x's joke was funny, on multiple levels, one of which being that it's absurd to the point of humor to imagine a culture in which popular sayings based on negative gender stereotypes are minimized or nonexistent.

That said, I think the point of the conversation is not that the people using these terms have sexist or misogynistic intentions, but rather that the culture which has produced them is rooted in patriarchy and devalues women and all things female. A culture which routinely and consistently associates negativity with femaleness in its language is a sexist culture. We all exist within it. I'm not saying changing the words we use in the answer, because the language will change when the culture changes. But being aware of it can really change your perspective.

There goes Nigel slicing through the bullshit again.  :)

Thanks!  :)
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:56:53 am
No, it's privilege. You're a man who is unwilling to change his swearwords to stop insulting women and females because it's inconvenient.

Well, there's that.   :lulz:

I can't think of a decent counterargument, so I'm gonna have to say that I was - as I said was possible - in the wrong.

And as far as theism/atheism goes, I think my reputation here is solid on the subject.  I don't understand why I would be lumped in with some asshole who fired you for atheism (I was fired once for not being a theist or enough of a theist by my boss's standards).

I should really learn to read the whole thread before replying.  :lulz:

Then again, I never know if I'm going to get to read the whole thing, so it's probably better that I just keep on doing it this way.

I have spent a lifetime operating under the theory "GO BATSHIT FIRST, YOU CAN ALWAYS REASON LATER", so I can hardly gripe when someone else does it.

 :lulz:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Johnny on August 15, 2012, 03:54:23 am
Your OOK and your privilege is showing again, P3nt. 

I don't think p3nt is the kind of IRL person who would be one of my friends, honestly. Not that he's a bad guy, I just see him as more of the outdoorsy macho type than I ever have a desire to be near.

HOWEVER

That he engages in traditionally "male" behavior, including activities, hobbies, speech or whatever else is not necessarily him being a monkey or engaging in "privilege." I don't think I've ever seen p3nt be an outright chauvinist here, and in fact he has shown himself to have more depth of character than I've ever seen any chauvinist to have. That alone, in my opinion, absolves him in this conversation of engaging in "privilege." What I see here is that he is being accused of reverting to non-bipedal behavior just because his behavior is abrasive to you.

What I find fascinating about this thread is that, over and over again, women try to explain to men what the elements of our culture that reflect patriarchy and misogyny look like, and over and over again, men argue with us and tell us why we're wrong. 
:horrormirth:

Well, at least i have learned that "harpy" is a bad insult  :lulz:

I think a problem in this thread is a lot of counter-examples go like "BUT WHEN I SAY IT, IT DOESNT MEAN WHAT YOU THINK", which im starting to think is just a rationalization to not examine one's own behaviour and do you know, actual insight.

"I always call my girlfriend a bitch, but she knows, and i know, that im just playing, im just FUNNY like that"

I think Rat is going in the right direction by digging up etymologies, which has value, but it does need to be contrasted with current usage.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 15, 2012, 04:05:51 am
I think a problem in this thread is a lot of counter-examples go like "BUT WHEN I SAY IT, IT DOESNT MEAN WHAT YOU THINK", which im starting to think is just a rationalization to not examine one's own behaviour and do you know, actual insight.

"I always call my girlfriend a bitch, but she knows, and i know, that im just playing, im just FUNNY like that"

I think Rat is going in the right direction by digging up etymologies, which has value, but it does need to be contrasted with current usage.
I knew I liked you, Joh.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:08:17 am
Yeah.  Let's try this out.


"YOU'RE A CUNT!"

"What did you say?"

"Well, in ancient Sanskrit, that meant 'apple turnover', so don't get all torqued up."

*thump, punch, slash, flense*

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 04:11:44 am
Your OOK and your privilege is showing again, P3nt. 

I don't think p3nt is the kind of IRL person who would be one of my friends, honestly. Not that he's a bad guy, I just see him as more of the outdoorsy macho type than I ever have a desire to be near.

HOWEVER

That he engages in traditionally "male" behavior, including activities, hobbies, speech or whatever else is not necessarily him being a monkey or engaging in "privilege." I don't think I've ever seen p3nt be an outright chauvinist here, and in fact he has shown himself to have more depth of character than I've ever seen any chauvinist to have. That alone, in my opinion, absolves him in this conversation of engaging in "privilege." What I see here is that he is being accused of reverting to non-bipedal behavior just because his behavior is abrasive to you.

What I find fascinating about this thread is that, over and over again, women try to explain to men what the elements of our culture that reflect patriarchy and misogyny look like, and over and over again, men argue with us and tell us why we're wrong. 
:horrormirth:

Well, at least i have learned that "harpy" is a bad insult  :lulz:

I think a problem in this thread is a lot of counter-examples go like "BUT WHEN I SAY IT, IT DOESNT MEAN WHAT YOU THINK", which im starting to think is just a rationalization to not examine one's own behaviour and do you know, actual insight.

"I always call my girlfriend a bitch, but she knows, and i know, that im just playing, im just FUNNY like that"

I think Rat is going in the right direction by digging up etymologies, which has value, but it does need to be contrasted with current usage.

MOTORCYCLE!
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 15, 2012, 04:14:37 am
Pussy for example has an interesting etymology. The usage for female genitals likely comes from Norse/Germanic words related to pouch/purse. The usage for wimpy/weak guy comes from an older English usage which means pampered/fat/spoiled (like pursy).

Pussy as a term from women dates back to the 15th century in the vlugar usage and has its origins in Germanic/Norse(we think). Pussy as a vulger term for men, has similarly old usage but comes from Latin/French roots.

Can I get some citation on that?

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913 + 1828):

Quote
Pussy (?), n. [Dim. of puss.]

1. A pet name for a cat; also, an endearing name for a girl.


Pus"sy (?), a. See Pursy. [Colloq. or Low]

Pur"sy (?), a. [OF. pourcif, poulsif, poussif, fr. pousser to push, thrust, heave, OF. also poulser: cf. F. pousse the heaves, asthma. See Push.] Fat and short-breathed; fat, short, and thick; swelled with pampering; as, pursy insolence. Shak.

Pursy important he sat him down. Sir W. Scot.

According to the dictionary in 1913, "Pussy" in reference to a girl was endearing and Pussy in reference to a vulgar slur was a variation on Pursy.

http://machaut.uchicago.edu/classic (http://machaut.uchicago.edu/classic)

The online etymology dictionary states that pussy was a term of endearment for women ("What do you think, pussy?" said her father to Eva. [Harriet Beecher Stowe, "Uncle Tom's Cabin," 1852]). Apparently it was also used as a reference to cats, rabbits and other soft furry things. Ala pussy willow.

So... it almost seems as though pussy isn't particularly a word developed my a misogynistic society, but rather a somewhat recent conflation of two separate definitions for the same word.

Something along the lines of:
"It means female"
"It means weak"
"Therefore... It means females are weak."

Or at least that's what this would seem to suggest. Also, I'm mostly looking at this from a "where did it come from" perspective, not a "should you say it" perspective.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:24:10 am
Scrrrrraaaaaape.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 04:27:28 am
I am actually unconvinced, as I saw the Webster's 1913 citation and found it very odd that there are absolutely no supporting citations other than a quote that is impossible to find elsewhere, nor has any other dictionary ever used that origin. I was hoping you would have something a little more substantive, especially since dictionary editors of that era were notorious for simply making shit up in order to claim to have better/different information than other dictionaries.

Not that it's particularly relevant to modern usage and understanding, but I just find that a bit sketchy.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 15, 2012, 04:28:21 am
Scrrrrraaaaaape.

Yep right from the dictionary page. Also the Wikipedia page. You don't think I keep that depth of shit in my head do you? I remembered the etymology being different than assumed from a discussion a long time ago, but since I no longer have my books or notes I googled it. I think I mentioned that in one of the earlier posts.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:29:50 am
It doesn't matter.

What does the word mean TODAY? 

What it meant 800 years ago in Belgium makes no difference at all.  It's just really weak rationalization, and it sounds like the heels of boots being dragged through caliche.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:30:28 am
Scrrrrraaaaaape.

Yep right from the dictionary page. Also the Wikipedia page. You don't think I keep that depth of shit in my head do you? I remembered the etymology being different than assumed from a discussion a long time ago, but since I no longer have my books or notes I googled it. I think I mentioned that in one of the earlier posts.

You're completely missing my point, or conflating my argument with Nigel's argument.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Johnny on August 15, 2012, 04:42:05 am

Hes just attempting to see the origin of the word, he stated its not an argument to if it should be used or not.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Phox on August 15, 2012, 05:05:25 am
Rat, the problem:

Then: "Pussy" as a term for women, cats, pussy willows, whatever.... meant "soft, fluffy, cuddly, etc."

Today: "Pussy" as an insult means "soft, weak, vagina, etc."

Do you see where there is overlap, regardless of actual origins?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞ on August 15, 2012, 05:08:53 am
The following is a rationalization that my brain came up with. I know it's not right in spite of there being a little truth to it, but I thought I'd offer it up as an example of a way that patriarchal ideas can manifest. I'm also depositing it here for the sake of dissection.

Women tend to be physically smaller and have less upper body strength than men, so why is it such a no-no to link femininity to weakness? On one hand I hear women saying that men don't understand how inequality in strength and size fuels feelings of vulnerability around men, yet women seem to not want womanhood or femininity otherwise linked with weakness.

Unfortunately, it's entirely appropriate for women to be concerned about being physically overpowered as it's basic fact that most men are stronger than most women. For the average man, such a concern is less warranted as he's likely to have a more even match when push comes to shove. So when guys disparage one another using words conceptually linked to women it seems less about putting women down and more an inference that what is an appropriate concern for a woman is often not an appropriate concern for man.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 05:10:53 am

Hes just attempting to see the origin of the word, he stated its not an argument to if it should be used or not.

I think etymology can be enlightening, but I the relevance of every single etymology to the discussion varies a lot. I would say that most are interesting to know; for example, I think that it's very culturally revealing that "hysterical" has its roots in the same word as "uterus", but I wouldn't suggest changing our use of the word at this point because most people don't even make that association. It's just a little tidbit of historical misogyny trivia to toss around. Since the current use of the word "pussy" associates it with female genitalia and "girly" behavior, it's just another piece of the whole cultural puzzle to take in, whether it derives from a single or multiple root origins.

I'm interested in etymology, and I would say that if it did first emerge with a separate root, it's also revealing of our culture that it eventually merged with "pussy" meaning vulva. I'm just skeptical of that particular etymology, as it seems particularly tenuous and not at all well cited.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 15, 2012, 05:16:02 am
I am actually unconvinced, as I saw the Webster's 1913 citation and found it very odd that there are absolutely no supporting citations other than a quote that is impossible to find elsewhere, nor has any other dictionary ever used that origin. I was hoping you would have something a little more substantive, especially since dictionary editors of that era were notorious for simply making shit up in order to claim to have better/different information than other dictionaries.

Not that it's particularly relevant to modern usage and understanding, but I just find that a bit sketchy.

Which part seems unconvincing?

Pursy can be found in several historical quotes. Pussy as an endearing term can be found in several historical quotes. Pussy as a vulgar insult to a man seems defined in the 1828 and 1913 Websters and most other references I can find either directly source that dictionary, or make statements that appear very similar.

It could be made up. I have not, however, found any other dictionaries or reference material online that disagrees with it (and I originally remembered it from a lecture 20 years ago, but I'd guess the teacher probably got her source from Webster) . Maybe they're all just cribbing from Webster. I will go wander over to the library this weekend and see if I can find any older references.

And yeah, I'm looking for the origin of the word. The argument has been made that the word as vulgar slang for a guy exists because of the misogynistic culture they developed in. IF (and we must assume IF) the "weak man" is actually from 'pursy', rather than 'pussy' than the origin is no more misogynistic than 'niggardly' is racist.

When I think about how 'pussy' gets used in slang...

Pussy can mean vagina, or sex "Baby, I love to eat your pussy". That's not particularly misogynistic, any more than cock or dick.
Pussy can be denigrating to a woman "Look at that pussy that just walked in" and is obviously misogynistic in that usage.
Pussy can mean a weak guy, and that's the bit that I am trying to dig into. Is it "weak guy" because he's like a woman, or is it "weak guy" because he's "pursy"?

IF (and I'm trying to stress that here) the answer is that it does indeed come from pursy... then the word isn't particularly misogynistic except in a case where the usage is reducing the value of the woman to her sexual value, even in today's usage. 

Rat, the problem:

Then: "Pussy" as a term for women, cats, pussy willows, whatever.... meant "soft, fluffy, cuddly, etc."

Today: "Pussy" as an insult means "soft, weak, vagina, etc."

Do you see where there is overlap, regardless of actual origins?

Well, IF the Websters entry is right then "Then" (early 20the century) Pussy meant soft/fluffy/cuddly/cat/rabbit/fur (Saxon) from one root source. It meant 'endearing term for a girl' (French) from another root source and it meant 'weak' ('pursy') from a completely different root source.

Yes, today we might conflate them all together and it makes a good argument for people who want to be careful not to offend women to eschew its usage. However, the 'root' of the issue is if the term came about because of a misogynistic culture that saw women as weak, or if it came about from two completely different sources.

There are people that dislike the word niggardly because it overlaps the slur for a race and negative traits of being stingy or miserly. The word though has nothing, at all, to do with race, it just happens to sound like it. IF Websters is right, then 'pussy' suffers from the same issue.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 05:18:57 am
The following is a rationalization that my brain came up with. I know it's not right in spite of there being a little truth to it, but I thought I'd offer it up as an example of a way that patriarchal ideas can manifest. I'm also depositing it here for the sake of dissection.

Women tend to be physically smaller and have less upper body strength than men, so why is it such a no-no to link femininity to weakness? On one hand I hear women saying that men don't understand how inequality in strength and size fuels feelings of vulnerability around men, yet women seem to not want womanhood or femininity otherwise linked with weakness.

Unfortunately, it's entirely appropriate for women to be concerned about being physically overpowered as it's basic fact that most men are stronger than most women. For the average man, such a concern is less warranted as he's likely to have a more even match when push comes to shove. So when guys disparage one another using words conceptually linked to women it seems less about putting women down and more an inference that what is an appropriate concern for a woman is often not an appropriate concern for man.

OK, I'm going to do one of those comparisons that people hate so much. Before I do, I want to make clear that I am doing this purely because I find it incredibly effective in highlighting the issue in terms that most of us are already familiar with, and not because I in any way think you endorse these views.

Quote
Blacks tend to be lower income and have less material wealth than whites, so why is it such a no-no to link blackness to poverty? On one hand I hear blacks saying that whites don't understand how inequality in income and assets fuels feelings of oppression and disparity around whites, yet blacks seem to not want African origins or dark skin otherwise linked with poverty.

Unfortunately, it's entirely appropriate for blacks to be concerned about being economically discriminated against as it's basic fact that most whites are paid more than most blacks. For the average white person, such a concern is less warranted as they're likely to have a more even match when applying for work. So when whites disparage one another using words conceptually linked to blacks it seems less about putting blacks down and more an inference that what is an appropriate concern for a black person is often not an appropriate concern for a white person.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Phox on August 15, 2012, 05:19:55 am
The following is a rationalization that my brain came up with. I know it's not right in spite of there being a little truth to it, but I thought I'd offer it up as an example of a way that patriarchal ideas can manifest. I'm also depositing it here for the sake of dissection.

Women tend to be physically smaller and have less upper body strength than men, so why is it such a no-no to link femininity to weakness? On one hand I hear women saying that men don't understand how inequality in strength and size fuels feelings of vulnerability around men, yet women seem to not want womanhood or femininity otherwise linked with weakness.

Unfortunately, it's entirely appropriate for women to be concerned about being physically overpowered as it's basic fact that most men are stronger than most women. For the average man, such a concern is less warranted as he's likely to have a more even match when push comes to shove. So when guys disparage one another using words conceptually linked to women it seems less about putting women down and more an inference that what is an appropriate concern for a woman is often not an appropriate concern for man.
There are at least two factors here. The first is the very idea that "what is an appropriate concern for women is not for men" is very much "Othering".

The second is demeaning a man by comparing them to women implies that women are inferior to men. This is pretty obvious when men say "Stop being such a girl" or whatever when a fellow man is hesitant to do something that might range from being potentially embarrassing or dangerous to completely illegal and stupid. Very rarely is it explicitly linked with actual feats of physical strength. In those cases, it's more likely that they would say something more like "My grandmother could lift that thing", which is a bit different.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 05:27:27 am
I am actually unconvinced, as I saw the Webster's 1913 citation and found it very odd that there are absolutely no supporting citations other than a quote that is impossible to find elsewhere, nor has any other dictionary ever used that origin. I was hoping you would have something a little more substantive, especially since dictionary editors of that era were notorious for simply making shit up in order to claim to have better/different information than other dictionaries.

Not that it's particularly relevant to modern usage and understanding, but I just find that a bit sketchy.

Which part seems unconvincing?

Pursy can be found in several historical quotes. Pussy as an endearing term can be found in several historical quotes. Pussy as a vulgar insult to a man seems defined in the 1828 and 1913 Websters and most other references I can find either directly source that dictionary, or make statements that appear very similar.

It could be made up. I have not, however, found any other dictionaries or reference material online that disagrees with it (and I originally remembered it from a lecture 20 years ago, but I'd guess the teacher probably got her source from Webster) . Maybe they're all just cribbing from Webster. I will go wander over to the library this weekend and see if I can find any older references.

And yeah, I'm looking for the origin of the word. The argument has been made that the word as vulgar slang for a guy exists because of the misogynistic culture they developed in. IF (and we must assume IF) the "weak man" is actually from 'pursy', rather than 'pussy' than the origin is no more misogynistic than 'niggardly' is racist.

When I think about how 'pussy' gets used in slang...

Pussy can mean vagina, or sex "Baby, I love to eat your pussy". That's not particularly misogynistic, any more than cock or dick.
Pussy can be denigrating to a woman "Look at that pussy that just walked in" and is obviously misogynistic in that usage.
Pussy can mean a weak guy, and that's the bit that I am trying to dig into. Is it "weak guy" because he's like a woman, or is it "weak guy" because he's "pursy"?

IF (and I'm trying to stress that here) the answer is that it does indeed come from pursy... then the word isn't particularly misogynistic except in a case where the usage is reducing the value of the woman to her sexual value, even in today's usage. 

Rat, the problem:

Then: "Pussy" as a term for women, cats, pussy willows, whatever.... meant "soft, fluffy, cuddly, etc."

Today: "Pussy" as an insult means "soft, weak, vagina, etc."

Do you see where there is overlap, regardless of actual origins?

Well, IF the Websters entry is right then "Then" (early 20the century) Pussy meant soft/fluffy/cuddly/cat/rabbit/fur (Saxon) from one root source. It meant 'endearing term for a girl' (French) from another root source and it meant 'weak' ('pursy') from a completely different root source.

Yes, today we might conflate them all together and it makes a good argument for people who want to be careful not to offend women to eschew its usage. However, the 'root' of the issue is if the term came about because of a misogynistic culture that saw women as weak, or if it came about from two completely different sources.

There are people that dislike the word niggardly because it overlaps the slur for a race and negative traits of being stingy or miserly. The word though has nothing, at all, to do with race, it just happens to sound like it. IF Websters is right, then 'pussy' suffers from the same issue.

1. See my post immediately before this one.

2. I think you are getting bogged down in semantics in a big, bad way, and failing to look at the issue holistically.

3. I already explained why I am skeptical of that etymology, and why I was hoping you would offer more substantive citations.

4. As I previously mentioned, whether the current common understanding of the word as a derogatory term has its origin in one root or two, the current association with female genitalia, and how the word developed in that direction, reveals a lot about our culture. Remember, the word "pussy" didn't always mean "vulva", either, but it does now. Information is not found solely in word origin, nor solely in current use, but also in the path it travels on its way from origin to current use.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 05:33:28 am
Oh, and

There are people that dislike the word niggardly because it overlaps the slur for a race and negative traits of being stingy or miserly. The word though has nothing, at all, to do with race, it just happens to sound like it. IF Websters is right, then 'pussy' suffers from the same issue.


5. No, they do not suffer from the same issue regardless of whether Websters 1913 is right, because while "pussy" is widely used both as a derogatory term and as slang for vulva, "niggardly" has never been used to mean "black person" or anything related.

As an aside, another thing I find suspicious about that entry is that it doesn't seem to have survived into later editions.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 05:35:56 am
P.S. if you are just playing Devil's Advocate and the logical flaws in your posts are the result of just making up arguments for fun, please let me know so I can stop responding, as I will feel pretty jerked around if I find out you've been wasting my time. Especially with it being finals week.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 15, 2012, 05:37:08 am
The following is a rationalization that my brain came up with. I know it's not right in spite of there being a little truth to it, but I thought I'd offer it up as an example of a way that patriarchal ideas can manifest. I'm also depositing it here for the sake of dissection.

Women tend to be physically smaller and have less upper body strength than men, so why is it such a no-no to link femininity to weakness? On one hand I hear women saying that men don't understand how inequality in strength and size fuels feelings of vulnerability around men, yet women seem to not want womanhood or femininity otherwise linked with weakness.

Unfortunately, it's entirely appropriate for women to be concerned about being physically overpowered as it's basic fact that most men are stronger than most women. For the average man, such a concern is less warranted as he's likely to have a more even match when push comes to shove. So when guys disparage one another using words conceptually linked to women it seems less about putting women down and more an inference that what is an appropriate concern for a woman is often not an appropriate concern for man.
What Phoxxy and Nigel said. Also, it's not physical weakness that comes up in debates like this (ime, that only comes up after all other forms have been proven wrong and is sometimes by accompanied implied violence in order to shut you up), it's weakness of character. For example, "quit being a pussy" and "man up" imply cowardice or emotional weaknesses.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Phox on August 15, 2012, 05:38:59 am
I am actually unconvinced, as I saw the Webster's 1913 citation and found it very odd that there are absolutely no supporting citations other than a quote that is impossible to find elsewhere, nor has any other dictionary ever used that origin. I was hoping you would have something a little more substantive, especially since dictionary editors of that era were notorious for simply making shit up in order to claim to have better/different information than other dictionaries.

Not that it's particularly relevant to modern usage and understanding, but I just find that a bit sketchy.

Which part seems unconvincing?

Pursy can be found in several historical quotes. Pussy as an endearing term can be found in several historical quotes. Pussy as a vulgar insult to a man seems defined in the 1828 and 1913 Websters and most other references I can find either directly source that dictionary, or make statements that appear very similar.

It could be made up. I have not, however, found any other dictionaries or reference material online that disagrees with it (and I originally remembered it from a lecture 20 years ago, but I'd guess the teacher probably got her source from Webster) . Maybe they're all just cribbing from Webster. I will go wander over to the library this weekend and see if I can find any older references.

And yeah, I'm looking for the origin of the word. The argument has been made that the word as vulgar slang for a guy exists because of the misogynistic culture they developed in. IF (and we must assume IF) the "weak man" is actually from 'pursy', rather than 'pussy' than the origin is no more misogynistic than 'niggardly' is racist.

When I think about how 'pussy' gets used in slang...

Pussy can mean vagina, or sex "Baby, I love to eat your pussy". That's not particularly misogynistic, any more than cock or dick.
Pussy can be denigrating to a woman "Look at that pussy that just walked in" and is obviously misogynistic in that usage.
Pussy can mean a weak guy, and that's the bit that I am trying to dig into. Is it "weak guy" because he's like a woman, or is it "weak guy" because he's "pursy"?

IF (and I'm trying to stress that here) the answer is that it does indeed come from pursy... then the word isn't particularly misogynistic except in a case where the usage is reducing the value of the woman to her sexual value, even in today's usage. 

Rat, the problem:

Then: "Pussy" as a term for women, cats, pussy willows, whatever.... meant "soft, fluffy, cuddly, etc."

Today: "Pussy" as an insult means "soft, weak, vagina, etc."

Do you see where there is overlap, regardless of actual origins?

Well, IF the Websters entry is right then "Then" (early 20the century) Pussy meant soft/fluffy/cuddly/cat/rabbit/fur (Saxon) from one root source. It meant 'endearing term for a girl' (French) from another root source and it meant 'weak' ('pursy') from a completely different root source.

Yes, today we might conflate them all together and it makes a good argument for people who want to be careful not to offend women to eschew its usage. However, the 'root' of the issue is if the term came about because of a misogynistic culture that saw women as weak, or if it came about from two completely different sources.

There are people that dislike the word niggardly because it overlaps the slur for a race and negative traits of being stingy or miserly. The word though has nothing, at all, to do with race, it just happens to sound like it. IF Websters is right, then 'pussy' suffers from the same issue.
Err, as we keep trying to tell you. NONE OF THAT IS ACTUALLY FUCKING RELEVANT.

Regardless of what the usage of the word meant in decades past, or where it came from, when people use it today, they do not think of it in such terms.

This reminds me of that holist character (you remember, the homeopath dude). He was trying to make an argument that modern science was intentionally corrupt and untruthful, based on the fact that scio the Latin word that science ostensibly comes from is possibly related to the Indo-European root [iskie-[/i] which prbably meant something like "to cut". So, his argument ran that science is the art of cutting up facts or... something, I don't know....

But anyway, the point is what you are you doing is arguing from the same fallacy, that the origin of a word, regardless of how pertinent it is to current usage, trumps any connotation or understanding of its definition.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Johnny on August 15, 2012, 06:12:33 am

Maybe im oversimplifying but, it all boils down to context and intent, alongside the current general representation of the word?

A) "He is a homosexual. He is gay." versus "He is a homosexual. He is a faggot."

B) "Why didn't you sneak into that building with us? You are so gay." versus idem

Regardless of etymology ("happy" or whatever), the current significance of "gay" tends to be "homosexual" or "unmanly".

Regarding "faggot", its an agressive way to call someone "gay".

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Johnny on August 15, 2012, 06:18:46 am

Language is a convention that we use to communicate with others in as efficient manner as we can do.

When you scream at someone "FAGGOT" this is an attempt to infuriate or insult the other person.

This word is used as an insult, because its general meaning pertains to homosexuality, with the implicit reasoning that being homosexual is an insult and degrading.

How do we distinguish or know that the person is a homophobe or merely trying to anger us? We dont know.

What we do know, is that by using it as an insult (although very efficient), it perpetuates negative representations of homosexuals as something that is degrading.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Johnny on August 15, 2012, 06:22:24 am

In conclusion, being cost-efficient in insulting someone, usually has the drawback of propagating stereotypes and prejudice.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Placid Dingo on August 15, 2012, 06:23:20 am

Maybe im oversimplifying but, it all boils down to context and intent, alongside the current general representation of the word?

A) "He is a homosexual. He is gay." versus "He is a homosexual. He is a faggot."

B) "Why didn't you sneak into that building with us? You are so gay." versus idem

Regardless of etymology ("happy" or whatever), the current significance of "gay" tends to be "homosexual" or "unmanly".

Regarding "faggot", its an agressive way to call someone "gay".

the general term for this is connotation vs denotation.

Denotation is the literal meaning, where connotation is the implied meaning.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 06:24:25 am
Yeah, I think you're nailing it.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 15, 2012, 06:27:21 am
OK... I think things have gotten pretty sidetracked from my original point. So I'm gonna try to clarify what I'm talking about.

FIRST:

I don't disagree with what you're saying Nigel, Phox, Garbo.

To your previous point with the example of blacks and poverty, I agree completely with you. If a woman is worried that she will be discriminated against as weak, then she would want nothing to do with slang that can reference soft furry bunnies, cats or weak 'out of breath' men.

I agree completely with that point.

Earlier we talked about how women get CEO jobs today, or titles that are equal to men's, but still make less money. The upshot is that people can look at the surface and say "Equality!" while the real problem persists. If we were to eschew all slur/slang terms for a woman's sex organs and the guys at the bar still had the same conversation, still reduced the woman walking in to a sexual object and nothing more... then wouldn't we be in an identical situation?

You made an excellent statement that words change as culture changes and that its culture that needs to change. With that, I couldn't agree more.

If we're talking only about "Look at the pussy that just walked into the bar", then of course its misogynistic. It would be equally misogynistic if they used any other term for a woman's sex organs. That usage and more importantly that whole fucking line of thinking needs to be wiped from our culture, if such a thing is possible.

BUT (and this is the ONLY point I was trying to make regarding the etymology)

The source of the word is important if we are going to substantiate the claim that pussy as slang exists because of a misogynistic culture. If (just for this bit of the argument) we assume Webster is right, then pussy the slur had nothing at all to do with women and its current usage is an artifact that has been confused and mangled with other meanings of the word.

Usage in some contexts are definitely misogynistic today. Usage in other contexts are obviously not... as to what it says about the history of our culture well I think that bears more research.

Ironically I ran across this on a blog... again, something that would be interesting to research further:

Quote
Well before “vagina” or “vulva” entered English as a stilted medical term, there was the Middle English “cunte.” Why did this become crude? It became crude for all the reasons feminists would like to think that “vagina” is uncomfortable for people to say: because it is a frank term referring to female sexuality; it also was used by the lower classes, and used in a common way, not a medical or detached academic way. (See also “womb” instead of “uterus.”) Like “uterus,” “vagina” is a pretentious, specific, non-vernacular word. The very process of trying to incorporate it into the vernacular and to edge out anything else as being obscene is to endorse the domination of patriarchal Latin over frank Anglo-Saxon. It’s classist and sexist and exclusionary—everything feminists claim not to be.

And Nigel, I'm not trying to play Devil's Advocate here... I'm not advocating for the usage of pussy as a derogatory term. I don't use it myself.

Also, I think Placid Dingo and Joh'Nyx are riding the correct motorcycle (too many posts while I'm posting!!!)
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 15, 2012, 06:29:54 am
Forgot the link to the blog I mentioned: http://higharka.blogspot.com/2012/07/vaginas-cunts.html

I am totally going to do more research on that...
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 06:39:30 am
There are also cases where the connotation is derived from the context: ie. "You have a sweet pussy" vs. "Don't be such a pussy", and "You've got some balls to talk to me like that" vs. "Wow, it took real balls to stand up to them like that!" vs. "It's all ballsed up".

Of course, it really takes looking at the bigger picture to try to figure out what the overall connotation of a word really is at any point in time. And it's subject to change over time. That's why it's so important to look at things like language use from a wide perspective. If you're coming into a culture and you don't know that, say, "persimmon" is a euphemism for people with pale hair, and you hear "persimmon" used as a slur, it can't be placed contextually within the culture unless you also know what it relates to and whether pale-haired people have higher or lower status than others in that culture.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Placid Dingo on August 15, 2012, 06:42:33 am
Also context matters.

I know I will sometimes crap on about doing particularly manly things. "I'm such a man today, I'm gonna go home and punch a koala." It all buys into the existing patriarchal ideology but the truth is that it can be fun to party along with fucked up cultural values, as a joke or parody, when you're with people who share the joke.

I mean, thats why PD throws off at the Welsh and Australians. Because it's fun to use the language of racism to mock people, when the context allows people to not get hurt.

And that context is important. There was a recent controversy here about an Aboriginal Memes page on Facebook that made 'controvercial jokes' about how all Australian Aborigines are dole bludging petrol sniffers who never achieved anything. It was completely repulsive, because the context was of a group of racist dickheads attacking a minority group.

Compare that to me copping a good natured insult here for being an "upside downer". The people making the comments are people who are tolerant decent people, and as a white middle class first world male it's not like I'm deprived of a voice with which to express myself.

I do wonder a little... Cain posted an article that discussed Shrek for a while to make a point; it's sold as a film that mocks the structure of fairy tales. But really, it is a fairy tale. So, the prince is fat and the princess knows self defence, but in the end, the prince saves a princess from a dragon and marries her. Mocking the culture one is steeped in does not mean you're not buying into it.

No particular point I'm trying to make, just some thoughts.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Placid Dingo on August 15, 2012, 06:45:57 am
Dammit Nigel beat me to the context post.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 06:46:21 am
BUT (and this is the ONLY point I was trying to make regarding the etymology)

The source of the word is important if we are going to substantiate the claim that pussy as slang exists because of a misogynistic culture. If (just for this bit of the argument) we assume Webster is right, then pussy the slur had nothing at all to do with women and its current usage is an artifact that has been confused and mangled with other meanings of the word.

Are we trying to substantiate that claim? Or just arguing that the current use of pussy is reflective of a misogynistic culture (which would be part of its etymology, regardless of the fact that it once meant "cat" and possibly also joined with another root that meant "purse", because, if that is its origin, the words have become intertwined?)

Are you arguing that somehow the confusion and mangling into what it's generally perceived as today is somehow indicative of a culture that is NOT devaluing of women?

I guess I am having a hard time seeing your point, if your point was anything other than introducing a tidbit of (potential) etymological trivia.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 06:49:09 am
Dammit Nigel beat me to the context post.

Yeah but yours made some really good points!
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Johnny on August 15, 2012, 06:49:50 am
Shrek plays off on novelty, novelty always sells, and dont forget the CONTEXT of that movie, its a comedy, its entertainment

the princess knowing martial arts or whatever is supposed to be funny (temporary cognitive dissonance?), in the sense of "haha, no way a princess can do THAT"
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 06:50:57 am
Shrek plays off on novelty, novelty always sells, and dont forget the CONTEXT of that movie, its a comedy, its entertainment

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

Also an excellent point.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Johnny on August 15, 2012, 06:55:42 am

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

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

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

Of course she had to be white and with light eyes, but thats another issue.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 07:00:19 am
Also, just to reiterate, if we are trying to look at things from an evidential perspective, the Webster 1913 etymology of the variance "pussy" as a derogatory term derived from "pursy" occurred only in that single edition and was removed from subsequent editions, and has no other support. It seems like a funny thing to latch onto so hard, and reminds me of when in the early 1990's it was common for grrrl power chicks to latch onto the widely-repeated piece of (erroneous) folklore that "Cunt" was actually derived from Sumerian "Kundi" and means "Goddess".

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

As I mentioned, it was incredibly common for dictionary editors of that time to "pad" their content with inventive etymologies in order to create a selling point for their dictionary.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Placid Dingo on August 15, 2012, 07:05:09 am
Shrek plays off on novelty, novelty always sells, and dont forget the CONTEXT of that movie, its a comedy, its entertainment

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

It's cool I dont have beef with Shrek. :)

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

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

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

Does the intention of these things matter? Theyre both opposing prejudice using parody or humour, but do they ultimately just buy into the existing structures? Or is it just too easy to lose control of the message once it goes into the wild?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Placid Dingo on August 15, 2012, 07:07:58 am

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

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

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

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

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


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

Edit: I missed that this was about her filns in general. There might be a good point with some if the Resident Evil franchise.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bu🤠ns on August 15, 2012, 07:15:37 am
So I finally just read this whole thread and I hope to not derail it terribly with this post.  One of the things that has drawn me into discordianism is the idea about understanding the difference between thinking one's thoughts and one's thoughts thinking them.  What's really cool about this thread is that it's unearthing a lot of those thoughts thinking me.  Even when looking at Pixie's facebook posts and threads in here I reacted much like Pee Wee Herman did to the snakes when he was saving the animals from the burning pet shop. :lol: This is really uncomfortable shit as it forces me to confront a rather patriarchal lineage and extract some fundamental assumptions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have a few other things I'd love to get off my chest but I'll save them for later.  I don't want to derail this tread too terribly at the moment.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 07:19:55 am
One thought and then I'm off to bed... the principles of equality don't ask men (or women) to deny their biology. They don't ask us to stop being attracted to the desired sex, or to stop appreciating their physical attractiveness. It only asks that we not try to own, devalue, or subjugate them.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Placid Dingo on August 15, 2012, 07:31:23 am
I remember there was a discussion about 50 shades of Grey on the radio (for now we can bypass the point that theres a lot legitimately objectionable about it), and they were taking to a guy who was into dominating women, sexually. The presenter was getting quite aggressive about things, telling him he was anti-women, was the kind of person who would see women controlled by men and not voting or leaving the house.

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

In other words, a really long version of what Nigel just said.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 15, 2012, 07:32:17 am
Does the intention of these things matter? Theyre both opposing prejudice using parody or humour, but do they ultimately just buy into the existing structures? Or is it just too easy to lose control of the message once it goes into the wild?

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

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

None of which changes the fact that I think about it now and want to smack 12-year-old Signora quite hard in the back of the head. I guess my point, if I haven't lost it, is: sure, contextually, what we were saying was not an active message of hate, but that doesn't change the fact that the language we were using was hateful and oppressive.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bu🤠ns on August 15, 2012, 07:33:46 am
Shrek plays off on novelty, novelty always sells, and dont forget the CONTEXT of that movie, its a comedy, its entertainment

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

It's cool I dont have beef with Shrek. :)

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

I guess a great example is the comedian-i think Dave Chapelle or Eddie Murphy- used to have a routine about black people vs niggers. They stopped using it because it was becoming a part of standard white racist rhetoric.

Another; South Parks mocking of redheads was a joke about the stupidity of racism. Now through the redhead meme is big enough that kids in schools are unironically mocked with the terminology from that episode.

Does the intention of these things matter? Theyre both opposing prejudice using parody or humour, but do they ultimately just buy into the existing structures? Or is it just too easy to lose control of the message once it goes into the wild?

Paul Mooney talks about how he feels about using the N-word in the context of Michael Richards racist comments shoutings (ETA) . (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDIoGJcWxM8#t=4m00s)  You remember that bit right? Everytime I read about the use of these oppressive words I think about this interview. He said that when he wrote for Richard Pryor they wanted to "depower the word" after using it for so many years.  And he chooses to not use it despite it being used in hip-hop and in the black community.

With that said I would never stop another from saying those words but I think my choice to not say a particular word is a louder statement that choosing to say that word or even "take it back."
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bu🤠ns on August 15, 2012, 07:37:50 am
I remember there was a discussion about 50 shades of Grey on the radio (for now we can bypass the point that theres a lot legitimately objectionable about it), and they were taking to a guy who was into dominating women, sexually. The presenter was getting quite aggressive about things, telling him he was anti-women, was the kind of person who would see women controlled by men and not voting or leaving the house.

His answer was this; you can't politicise sexual attraction. Or rather you can, but you'll continue making wrong impressions. Some men see a woman and think ' love to get her naked'. Some think, love to tie her up. Some men feel those things for men, some women for women. Some think, love to cover her in cheese and eat bread off her. People have impulsive sexual desires that dint always link coherently to their cognitive, rationalised beliefs. Impulses do not mean youre opposing feminism. The way the thinking part negotiates those impulses is what matters and defines you as a human.

In other words, a really long version of what Nigel just said.
One thought and then I'm off to bed... the principles of equality don't ask men (or women) to deny their biology. They don't ask us to stop being attracted to the desired sex, or to stop appreciating their physical attractiveness. It only asks that we not try to own, devalue, or subjugate them.

Okay, so that's what i thought too.  It's not necessarily apparent  at first.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 15, 2012, 07:48:09 am
Say I'm walking down the street and see this beautiful woman with these appealing curves and all the right things that cause my body to want to create more people with her.

It might sound something like, "mmm mmmm mmmm."

To a feminist that appears to be objectification but to my body it's biology...it's the national geographic channel.  I don't think of her as an object and certainly wouldn't rape her.  I don't understand how that's rape culture. IS it? How does feminism distinguish between biological desires and rape culture?

For me, it's the difference between admiring that woman with all the appealing curves in your own head, and feeling the need to comment on the fact. If I walk past you in the street and you think, to yourself, "Man, I'd like to get up on that" -- all power to you. I am literally not affected at all by that.

However. If I walk past you in the street and you feel the need to articulate your desire to put your penis inside me, that is where we start to have a problem. Because as women, we're told that our worth is innately tied to how fuckable men find us and it's supposed to be a compliment when we're deemed worthy of taking your dick. But if I'm walking past you on the street, I might not want to be deemed fuckable. I might be on my way home after a long day of work and just want to make dinner, or I might be on my way to meet a friend I haven't seen in years, or I might be on the rag... or, actually, I might not need to justify it at all. Because "I want to fuck you" is not the highest compliment a woman can receive, no matter how much society may try to convince us otherwise. I can think of a ton of qualities that I would rather have people define me by than "fuckable".

If I walk past you in the street and you make a comment like "Mmmm yeah, shake that ass baby" when all I am doing is walking like I normally walk, it might start off a whole chain reaction in my head of 'was I shaking my ass too much? Does he think I was doing it on purpose? To try and attract him?' In a society where we are constantly told that doing/saying/wearing the wrong things can "invite" rape, it can be quite an uncomfortable experience to suddenly wonder if you are, in fact, "asking for it", and whether this stranger is going to be the person who interprets it as such.

If you make a lewd comment about my body and I tell you to fuck off, or even that I don't actually care what you think about my body, I'm branded a stuck-up bitch that can't take a fucking compliment. I leave myself open to further harassment and/or abuse, all because I don't consider "Fuck yeah, I want to stick my dick in you" or any variations thereof to be a compliment.

**I hope this is obvious, but just in case: all examples of "I" and "you" in this post are generic examples and definitely not meant to be accusatory!
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 15, 2012, 07:55:16 am
What Nige said. Appreciating a pretty lady not rape culture. It becomes rape culture when your expression of it becomes threatening or possessive or degrading. (Basically, what Signora said while I was lol'ing at Fifty Shades quotes)

Shrek plays off on novelty, novelty always sells, and dont forget the CONTEXT of that movie, its a comedy, its entertainment

the princess knowing martial arts or whatever is supposed to be funny (temporary cognitive dissonance?), in the sense of "haha, no way a princess can do THAT"

It's cool I dont have beef with Shrek. :)

The article in question was a lot bigger. It spoke of more, and said it better.

I guess a great example is the comedian-i think Dave Chapelle or Eddie Murphy- used to have a routine about black people vs niggers. They stopped using it because it was becoming a part of standard white racist rhetoric.

Another; South Parks mocking of redheads was a joke about the stupidity of racism. Now through the redhead meme is big enough that kids in schools are unironically mocked with the terminology from that episode.

Does the intention of these things matter? Theyre both opposing prejudice using parody or humour, but do they ultimately just buy into the existing structures? Or is it just too easy to lose control of the message once it goes into the wild?

Paul Mooney talks about how he feels about using the N-word in the context of Michael Richards racist comments shoutings (ETA) . (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDIoGJcWxM8#t=4m00s)  You remember that bit right? Everytime I read about the use of these oppressive words I think about this interview. He said that when he wrote for Richard Pryor they wanted to "depower the word" after using it for so many years.  And he chooses to not use it despite it being used in hip-hop and in the black community.

With that said I would never stop another from saying those words but I think my choice to not say a particular word is a louder statement that choosing to say that word or even "take it back."
I can agree here. I'm still taking back "bitch" and "slut", but this, largely.

Does the intention of these things matter? Theyre both opposing prejudice using parody or humour, but do they ultimately just buy into the existing structures? Or is it just too easy to lose control of the message once it goes into the wild?

Oh hey, this reminds me of something I was going to say earlier in the thread, but I forgot. I come from a land down undah, and I think it would be fair to say that most high schoolers here have no real understanding of the incredibly complex and fraught racial relations in the United States. I mean, sure, we learn about the Civil Rights movement in history and To Kill a Mockingbird is usually taught in English at some level, but a lot of that more insidious stuff we really have no clue about.

Anyway, when I was twelve or thirteen, one of the many trends in our high school became to use the word "n***er" as a synonym for "steal". And in, "Oi, you n***ered my eraser!" or "I totally n***ered this eyeshadow from the chemist". Now, were we consciously and actively saying 'black people steal and that's why this is a valid comparison'? Fuck no. Most of us had never even heard the word used in a derogatory manner towards a black person; we certainly weren't aware of the power the n-word has in the States. We were ignorant little morons who thought we were being edgy. And a space alien who was dropped into my third form science class who saw someone grab my pencil sharpener off my desk and heard me yell "stop n***ering my stuff!" would come to the reasonable conclusion that "n***er" means "take with asking permission" with no cultural context for comparison.

None of which changes the fact that I think about it now and want to smack 12-year-old Signora quite hard in the back of the head. I guess my point, if I haven't lost it, is: sure, contextually, what we were saying was not an active message of hate, but that doesn't change the fact that the language we were using was hateful and oppressive.
I think you might be my favorite noob since Phoxxy or Waffles.


I remember there was a discussion about 50 shades of Grey on the radio (for now we can bypass the point that theres a lot everything is legitimately objectionable about it), and they were taking to a guy who was into dominating women, sexually. The presenter was getting quite aggressive about things, telling him he was anti-women, was the kind of person who would see women controlled by men and not voting or leaving the house.

His answer was this; you can't politicise sexual attraction. Or rather you can, but you'll continue making wrong impressions. Some men see a woman and think ' love to get her naked'. Some think, love to tie her up. Some men feel those things for men, some women for women. Some think, love to cover her in cheese and eat bread off her. People have impulsive sexual desires that dint always link coherently to their cognitive, rationalised beliefs. Impulses do not mean youre opposing feminism. The way the thinking part negotiates those impulses is what matters and defines you as a human.

In other words, a really long version of what Nigel just said.
(eta) Fix't
Having read some sporkings/MSTings of Fifty Shades, if this is all you know of the BDSM community, it's really not a stretch to think so. Take the unhealthiness of Twlight's D/s up to eleven and you have Ana and Christian. I mean, if a guy says he's into flogging petite brunettes because they look like his dead mom, there's kind of a problem.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 15, 2012, 07:59:52 am
Does the intention of these things matter? Theyre both opposing prejudice using parody or humour, but do they ultimately just buy into the existing structures? Or is it just too easy to lose control of the message once it goes into the wild?

Oh hey, this reminds me of something I was going to say earlier in the thread, but I forgot. I come from a land down undah, and I think it would be fair to say that most high schoolers here have no real understanding of the incredibly complex and fraught racial relations in the United States. I mean, sure, we learn about the Civil Rights movement in history and To Kill a Mockingbird is usually taught in English at some level, but a lot of that more insidious stuff we really have no clue about.

Anyway, when I was twelve or thirteen, one of the many trends in our high school became to use the word "n***er" as a synonym for "steal". And in, "Oi, you n***ered my eraser!" or "I totally n***ered this eyeshadow from the chemist". Now, were we consciously and actively saying 'black people steal and that's why this is a valid comparison'? Fuck no. Most of us had never even heard the word used in a derogatory manner towards a black person; we certainly weren't aware of the power the n-word has in the States. We were ignorant little morons who thought we were being edgy. And a space alien who was dropped into my third form science class who saw someone grab my pencil sharpener off my desk and heard me yell "stop n***ering my stuff!" would come to the reasonable conclusion that "n***er" means "take with asking permission" with no cultural context for comparison.

None of which changes the fact that I think about it now and want to smack 12-year-old Signora quite hard in the back of the head. I guess my point, if I haven't lost it, is: sure, contextually, what we were saying was not an active message of hate, but that doesn't change the fact that the language we were using was hateful and oppressive.
I think you might be my favorite noob since Phoxxy or Waffles.

I'm not 100% sure I know who either of them are (so many naaaaames, I'm still getting my head around y'all), so I'm going to pretend this is a Good Thing whether it actually is or not. :lulz:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bu🤠ns on August 15, 2012, 08:03:58 am
Say I'm walking down the street and see this beautiful woman with these appealing curves and all the right things that cause my body to want to create more people with her.

It might sound something like, "mmm mmmm mmmm."

To a feminist that appears to be objectification but to my body it's biology...it's the national geographic channel.  I don't think of her as an object and certainly wouldn't rape her.  I don't understand how that's rape culture. IS it? How does feminism distinguish between biological desires and rape culture?

For me, it's the difference between admiring that woman with all the appealing curves in your own head, and feeling the need to comment on the fact. If I walk past you in the street and you think, to yourself, "Man, I'd like to get up on that" -- all power to you. I am literally not affected at all by that.

However. If I walk past you in the street and you feel the need to articulate your desire to put your penis inside me, that is where we start to have a problem. Because as women, we're told that our worth is innately tied to how fuckable men find us and it's supposed to be a compliment when we're deemed worthy of taking your dick. But if I'm walking past you on the street, I might not want to be deemed fuckable. I might be on my way home after a long day of work and just want to make dinner, or I might be on my way to meet a friend I haven't seen in years, or I might be on the rag... or, actually, I might not need to justify it at all. Because "I want to fuck you" is not the highest compliment a woman can receive, no matter how much society may try to convince us otherwise. I can think of a ton of qualities that I would rather have people define me by than "fuckable".

If I walk past you in the street and you make a comment like "Mmmm yeah, shake that ass baby" when all I am doing is walking like I normally walk, it might start off a whole chain reaction in my head of 'was I shaking my ass too much? Does he think I was doing it on purpose? To try and attract him?' In a society where we are constantly told that doing/saying/wearing the wrong things can "invite" rape, it can be quite an uncomfortable experience to suddenly wonder if you are, in fact, "asking for it", and whether this stranger is going to be the person who interprets it as such.

If you make a lewd comment about my body and I tell you to fuck off, or even that I don't actually care what you think about my body, I'm branded a stuck-up bitch that can't take a fucking compliment. I leave myself open to further harassment and/or abuse, all because I don't consider "Fuck yeah, I want to stick my dick in you" or any variations thereof to be a compliment.

**I hope this is obvious, but just in case: all examples of "I" and "you" in this post are generic examples and definitely not meant to be accusatory!

Oh that's a great answer!  It makes perfect sense.  It clarifies the motivations. Say I DO come up to you and begin a conversation, it defines the difference between my intent on getting to know YOU vs. ONLY wanting to get into your pants even though that also might be a part of it.  Because if you do stir my biology, it would be a lie to say that I wouldn't want to to have sex.

In this context, then, does my wanting to approach you for the sole purpose of getting laid be indicative of rape culture? How does casual sex fit in....ack! like i said i have a lot of questions but I should stop here.  Perhaps I should research a bit more before continuing.


Actually i gotta go to bed but thanks for reply :)
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Cain on August 15, 2012, 08:05:05 am
It's a terrible thing.  Phoxxy once the whole of Denver.  For real.

And Iron Waffles is Belgian. Enough said.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 15, 2012, 08:11:32 am
In this context, then, does my wanting to approach you for the sole purpose of getting laid be indicative of rape culture? How does casual sex fit in....ack!

It's all situational. I don't know many people who would be appreciative of someone coming up to them when they're walking along the street and saying "I would really like to fuck you, how about it?" Then again, maybe some people are cool with that, I don't know.

In terms of approaching someone for casual sex, say in a bar or a similar setting... the way I see it, it's more in how you react if you're turned down. It's the difference between a non-sarcastic "Oh, okay, well thank you for your time and enjoy your evening" and "But I think you're hot and I'll rock your world, baby, come awwwwwwn!"

Best of luck with your research! :)
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 15, 2012, 08:15:46 am
It's a terrible thing.  Phoxxy once the whole of Denver.  For real.

And Iron Waffles is Belgian. Enough said.
The few survivors have some real horror stories, Signora. Phoxxy, what she didn't do herself, called things out of the Rockies to do.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Placid Dingo on August 15, 2012, 08:47:58 am
Yeah as far as 50 Shades goes, I'm pretty appalled by what I've heard but I don't want to tear it apart without yet having read it.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 15, 2012, 08:53:34 am
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: It is full of horrormirth, from what I've seen thus far.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on August 15, 2012, 09:14:49 am
So back to vex's point...when a man confronts these ideas, it seems like what is being asked of him is to act entirely counter to his nature.  To ask a man to change certain views that are deeply rooted is asking a lot...I guess you'd have to be a really strong man to be able to confront one's own fundamental assumptions. And it CAN be done, but I doubt in a mass amount.

With that in mind, it seems that the direct approach can only take a culture so far.  I think a real effectual change comes through slowly nipping away at the structure and tweaking this idea here and destroying that injustice there. Kind of like the parable The Camel's Nose In The Tent (http://camelphotos.com/tales_nose.html).  Now I agree that Feminism does do that, but it also tends to alienate men who matter by setting up an opposition.  The men who matter are ALL men, not just the few who think for themselves.


This is why I get wound up whenever feminism comes up. It always comes down to - I'm a dumbfuck who can never possibly understand because I was born with a dick and privilege and my whole brain comes with built in misogyny and, although that can never change because I'm, y'know, a male, I'm in the wrong and damn well should fucking change. Even though I can't. It's like - what the fuck do you people want from me? I need to grow a uterus before you'll quit complaining at me?

And all I end up do is yelling "For fucksake - innocent until proven guilty. Just fucking trust me already!" but there's no way to yell that without coming across like an asshole and part of the problem and reinforcing the fact that men just don't get it. Can never get it. So it always comes down to this - feminism is a conversation for women, directed at men and that's a fucking shame, cos it's never going to work and shit really does need to change. A lot of us can see that, if you'd just give us a bit of credit.

Whether it's intentional or not, feminism make men feel like they're being attacked and (if you understand men at all) that is not conducive to change. Quite the opposite, in fact. That's going to make them dig in their heels and put up more barriers.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Verbal Mike on August 15, 2012, 09:33:49 am
This thread is awesome in many ways and I'm glad I took the time to catch up on it just now.
Burns, you should keep up the questions when you get up, so far it's gotten us a hell of an interesting and enlightening response (and thanks for that, Signora!).

Just to try and contribute a perspective, even though I don't have much to add: I've definitely felt oppressed by the patriarchy, despite being male and having consistently identified as a heterosexual man. Because although I identify that way, and although I don't generally step too far outside the cis man box (thanks for making me look up that term, Garbo or whoever it was!), I've always been deeply averse to stereotypical macho cis man behavior, and have never been into physical activity enough to build up the muscle mass expected from me. And being different in these ways, since as long as I can remember myself, has always gotten me a fair amount of shit. At some point as a teenager I simply embraced being "weird", and have since been much likelier to do things that go clearly outside the cis man box (to a degree, because I'm also a coward and instinctively avoid confrontation) but I still have a bit of a thought pattern of being different from other guys and unable to fit in with them, even while wanting to.

At this point I probably don't need to mention that this is obviously less awful than fearing rape and other forms of physical violence every day, but patriarchy seems to me to put everyone other than the most stereotypical cis men under fear of physical violence – females just having rape to worry about on top of that. (I'm just not gonna bother trying to contextualize this with other forms of oppression of females, I think we've established that context here already, right?)

And to comment on some of the stuff that was going on here a couple of pages ago: I don't think it matters at all where words like "pussy" came from. If you use a word in such a way that some people belonging to an oppressed group (women, girls, LGBT, nice guys) might consider it a pejorative reference to an oppressed group, then your usage is not cool. If it's perceived as ironic or otherwise disarming of actual oppression, that's fine, but you have to pretty damn careful with that fine line, and as some have mentioned here that kind of thing has been known to backfire (which is an excellent example about how little language usage cares about original motivation and etymology.)
We can debate where words come from for ages, but (a) most speakers don't know about words' etymologies, and more importantly (b) if it's perceived by oppressed groups as a tool of oppression, that's a fact and it's pretty damn patronizing to try to correct their perception. Even if the perception of oppressive connotations is factually way off the mark, the perception itself deserves respect and attention, even though it's a pain in the ass to correct one's own vocabulary.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Placid Dingo on August 15, 2012, 10:07:17 am
I think there was a bit of a misunderstanding there with where 'it comes from' being interpreted differently.

It doesn't come from a historically patriarchal tradition in that that's not the specific origin of the way in which the word is currently used.

But it does come from patriarchal tradition in that this is the culture that contextualises the current use.

At which point ones brain gets sore and we look for the more important and useful question; what is the impact it has on the way people think and feel, which Verbl covered nicely.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pope Pixie Pickle on August 15, 2012, 10:27:22 am
Shrek plays off on novelty, novelty always sells, and dont forget the CONTEXT of that movie, its a comedy, its entertainment

the princess knowing martial arts or whatever is supposed to be funny (temporary cognitive dissonance?), in the sense of "haha, no way a princess can do THAT"

It's cool I dont have beef with Shrek. :)

The article in question was a lot bigger. It spoke of more, and said it better.

I guess a great example is the comedian-i think Dave Chapelle or Eddie Murphy- used to have a routine about black people vs niggers. They stopped using it because it was becoming a part of standard white racist rhetoric.

Another; South Parks mocking of redheads was a joke about the stupidity of racism. Now through the redhead meme is big enough that kids in schools are unironically mocked with the terminology from that episode.

Does the intention of these things matter? Theyre both opposing prejudice using parody or humour, but do they ultimately just buy into the existing structures? Or is it just too easy to lose control of the message once it goes into the wild?

I think the bolded part is especially relevant.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Verbal Mike on August 15, 2012, 10:31:38 am
Another thought I had now on my way to work: Despite my opinion as described above, that people should be considerate of oppressed groups, this is more a statement of ideal than anything else. Most people don't really understand the concept of oppressed group, not to mention having any interest in being considerate of their feelings.

So ultimately what I wrote above about words is mainly relevant as an intellectual argument: That the criterion for some usage being uncool should be that – taken in context – it's potentially inconsiderate, not any question of etymology or denotation, and certainly not some question of motivation/intention.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 15, 2012, 10:42:43 am
VERBL, yep, cis stuff was me. Glad you find it useful. :)

Going back to Pixie's OP, good, interesting points about how patriarchy hurts men, too!

So back to vex's point...when a man confronts these ideas, it seems like what is being asked of him is to act entirely counter to his nature.  To ask a man to change certain views that are deeply rooted is asking a lot...I guess you'd have to be a really strong man to be able to confront one's own fundamental assumptions. And it CAN be done, but I doubt in a mass amount.

With that in mind, it seems that the direct approach can only take a culture so far.  I think a real effectual change comes through slowly nipping away at the structure and tweaking this idea here and destroying that injustice there. Kind of like the parable The Camel's Nose In The Tent (http://camelphotos.com/tales_nose.html).  Now I agree that Feminism does do that, but it also tends to alienate men who matter by setting up an opposition.  The men who matter are ALL men, not just the few who think for themselves.


This is why I get wound up whenever feminism comes up. It always comes down to - I'm a dumbfuck who can never possibly understand because I was born with a dick and privilege and my whole brain comes with built in misogyny and, although that can never change because I'm, y'know, a male, I'm in the wrong and damn well should fucking change. Even though I can't. It's like - what the fuck do you people want from me? I need to grow a uterus before you'll quit complaining at me?

And all I end up do is yelling "For fucksake - innocent until proven guilty. Just fucking trust me already!" but there's no way to yell that without coming across like an asshole and part of the problem and reinforcing the fact that men just don't get it. Can never get it. So it always comes down to this - feminism is a conversation for women, directed at men and that's a fucking shame, cos it's never going to work and shit really does need to change. A lot of us can see that, if you'd just give us a bit of credit.

Whether it's intentional or not, feminism make men feel like they're being attacked and (if you understand men at all) that is not conducive to change. Quite the opposite, in fact. That's going to make them dig in their heels and put up more barriers.
First and second wave feminism might hold that men are incapable of change. Third wave does not. Third wave does not degrade men into unchangeable cavemen. We believe you can change and want you to.
No, you can't experience what its like to be a woman/female, any more than I can experience what its like to be a PoC. I'm hella white, end of story, and will never experience all the micro aggressions that are part if their lives. You're a cis man, end of story, and will never experience the micro aggressions we live with every day. It doesn't make either of us evil. It's just a fact.

I have trouble being concerned about men who dig in their heels because they feel attacked by the mere existence of feminism as a word and what it means. What are we supposed to do? Give up a term that literally means "belief in women" because men feel uncomfortable with it? No. That's not fair to us and its an awfully lot like saying that PoC should give up names and organizations that advance their cause because it makes white people sad. Stop your white crying (not you, necessarily, Pent). You, specifically, need to stop your cis man tears.
"what about us and our feelings?" is male privilege and invalidates our experiences and our very valid anger in favor of your poor precious fee-fees.

Women live in a culture dictated by men. Any discussion of how to change that requires your help and input because you perpetuate patriarchy without these discussions (in fact, cis man tears are part of the problem). Without them, you don't know how you are doing so and how to stop, or how to be an ally.

I am very aware of how men respond to this sort of thing. Discussions about feminism amply demonstrate that. Even though I'm generally a non-confrontational person, even basic and polite discussion results in monkey ass being bared on my direction. It results in men trying to intimidate me into shutting up. I'm still not sure why women have to change the name of the movement because of that. It's reminiscencent of gender roles that expect us to be submissive and to put male comfort above our own. Which we are not actually obligated to do.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on August 15, 2012, 10:53:38 am

I have trouble being concerned about men who dig in their heels because they feel attacked by the mere existence of feminism as a word and what it means. What are we supposed to do? Give up a term that literally means "belief in women" because men feel uncomfortable with it? No. That's not fair to us and its an awfully lot like saying that PoC should give up names and organizations that advance their cause because it makes white people sad. Stop your white crying (not you, necessarily, Pent). You, specifically, need to stop your cis man tears.
"what about us and our feelings?" is male privilege and invalidates our experiences and our very valid anger in favor of your poor precious fee-fees.


You should be concerned, not because of the poor men's delicate feelings. That's bullshit anyway, real men don't have delicate feelings :wink: You should be concerned because you're alienating potential comrades in arms. If you try to sell me something by calling me a useless dick who doesn't get it you wont get far but if there's another way you can sell it that makes me feel that there's something I can do to help and feel good about myself into the bargain then I'm more inclined to support you.

(again for the record I'm not talking "me" and "you" here, more people in general.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Johnny on August 15, 2012, 11:02:25 am

HERE HERE, MADONNA SHOWS US WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A 2ND WAVE FEMINIST:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYwgG2oyUbA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYwgG2oyUbA)
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Placid Dingo on August 15, 2012, 11:03:05 am
Pent said what I was about to.

I got into Feminism when I understood that men could genuinely play a meaningful role. I didn't want to watch someone else's party.

As far as what anyone is supposed to do, exactly what you and many others ARE doing; a quality job of correcting misconceptions about who can be a part of feminism, and what feminism means.

I don't think anyone's genuinely suggesting the name is bad, just that it comes with some baggage and misconceptions than anyone with a vested interest in feminism need to be proactive about addressing.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Juana on August 15, 2012, 11:15:07 am
If they're refusing to understand why the term "feminism" is important, I don't know if I want them as an ally. I don't know that they can be an ally, because they're denying that we experience discrimination and say "what about me?"instead. *cue cis man tears*
Again, at no time is feminism making out that men are useless dicks. In fact, as I have pointed out, you are necessary. We're often not taken seriously and accused of over reacting. A man who is a feminist gets kudos (while we get "are you a lesbian?" and such) and can communicate with other men in ways we can't.
We're just saying that you can't experience what we live with. You don't spend you entire life trying to avoid being raped, etc. That doesn't mean you're useless. It just means you need listen.

I figured you were talking people in general, haha.


Pent said what I was about to.

I got into Feminism when I understood that men could genuinely play a meaningful role. I didn't want to watch someone else's party.

As far as what anyone is supposed to do, exactly what you and many others ARE doing; a quality job of correcting misconceptions about who can be a part of feminism, and what feminism means.

I don't think anyone's genuinely suggesting the name is bad, just that it comes with some baggage and misconceptions than anyone with a vested interest in feminism need to be proactive about addressing.
I try, haha.

It's been suggested, like, twice that the term be shed. Or someone got their underwear in a knot over implications of it.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 15, 2012, 12:22:11 pm
VERBL, yep, cis stuff was me. Glad you find it useful. :)

Going back to Pixie's OP, good, interesting points about how patriarchy hurts men, too!

So back to vex's point...when a man confronts these ideas, it seems like what is being asked of him is to act entirely counter to his nature.  To ask a man to change certain views that are deeply rooted is asking a lot...I guess you'd have to be a really strong man to be able to confront one's own fundamental assumptions. And it CAN be done, but I doubt in a mass amount.

With that in mind, it seems that the direct approach can only take a culture so far.  I think a real effectual change comes through slowly nipping away at the structure and tweaking this idea here and destroying that injustice there. Kind of like the parable The Camel's Nose In The Tent (http://camelphotos.com/tales_nose.html).  Now I agree that Feminism does do that, but it also tends to alienate men who matter by setting up an opposition.  The men who matter are ALL men, not just the few who think for themselves.


This is why I get wound up whenever feminism comes up. It always comes down to - I'm a dumbfuck who can never possibly understand because I was born with a dick and privilege and my whole brain comes with built in misogyny and, although that can never change because I'm, y'know, a male, I'm in the wrong and damn well should fucking change. Even though I can't. It's like - what the fuck do you people want from me? I need to grow a uterus before you'll quit complaining at me?

And all I end up do is yelling "For fucksake - innocent until proven guilty. Just fucking trust me already!" but there's no way to yell that without coming across like an asshole and part of the problem and reinforcing the fact that men just don't get it. Can never get it. So it always comes down to this - feminism is a conversation for women, directed at men and that's a fucking shame, cos it's never going to work and shit really does need to change. A lot of us can see that, if you'd just give us a bit of credit.

Whether it's intentional or not, feminism make men feel like they're being attacked and (if you understand men at all) that is not conducive to change. Quite the opposite, in fact. That's going to make them dig in their heels and put up more barriers.
First and second wave feminism might hold that men are incapable of change. Third wave does not. Third wave does not degrade men into unchangeable cavemen. We believe you can change and want you to.
No, you can't experience what its like to be a woman/female, any more than I can experience what its like to be a PoC. I'm hella white, end of story, and will never experience all the micro aggressions that are part if their lives. You're a cis man, end of story, and will never experience the micro aggressions we live with every day. It doesn't make either of us evil. It's just a fact.

I have trouble being concerned about men who dig in their heels because they feel attacked by the mere existence of feminism as a word and what it means. What are we supposed to do? Give up a term that literally means "belief in women" because men feel uncomfortable with it? No. That's not fair to us and its an awfully lot like saying that PoC should give up names and organizations that advance their cause because it makes white people sad. Stop your white crying (not you, necessarily, Pent). You, specifically, need to stop your cis man tears.
"what about us and our feelings?" is male privilege and invalidates our experiences and our very valid anger in favor of your poor precious fee-fees.

Women live in a culture dictated by men. Any discussion of how to change that requires your help and input because you perpetuate patriarchy without these discussions (in fact, cis man tears are part of the problem). Without them, you don't know how you are doing so and how to stop, or how to be an ally.

I am very aware of how men respond to this sort of thing. Discussions about feminism amply demonstrate that. Even though I'm generally a non-confrontational person, even basic and polite discussion results in monkey ass being bared on my direction. It results in men trying to intimidate me into shutting up. I'm still not sure why women have to change the name of the movement because of that. It's reminiscencent of gender roles that expect us to be submissive and to put male comfort above our own. Which we are not actually obligated to do.

I came to write a long-winded response to this even though it's late and bed is beckoning but yeah, Garbo said pretty much everything I wanted to say.

The only thing I would add is that in my experience, the best male allies are the ones who come in knowing that they're going to have to earn trust from some feminists and just, you know, quietly do that instead of whining about how Really Really Nice They Are, Why Are You Oppressing Me With Your Mistrust.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pope Pixie Pickle on August 15, 2012, 12:33:53 pm
Heh, Paes has said in short form what I laid out in a fucking essay. Well I spent an age writing this so imma press post anyway.

So back to vex's point...when a man confronts these ideas, it seems like what is being asked of him is to act entirely counter to his nature.  To ask a man to change certain views that are deeply rooted is asking a lot...I guess you'd have to be a really strong man to be able to confront one's own fundamental assumptions. And it CAN be done, but I doubt in a mass amount.

With that in mind, it seems that the direct approach can only take a culture so far.  I think a real effectual change comes through slowly nipping away at the structure and tweaking this idea here and destroying that injustice there. Kind of like the parable The Camel's Nose In The Tent (http://camelphotos.com/tales_nose.html).  Now I agree that Feminism does do that, but it also tends to alienate men who matter by setting up an opposition.  The men who matter are ALL men, not just the few who think for themselves.


This is why I get wound up whenever feminism comes up. It always comes down to - I'm a dumbfuck who can never possibly understand because I was born with a dick and privilege and my whole brain comes with built in misogyny and, although that can never change because I'm, y'know, a male, I'm in the wrong and damn well should fucking change. Even though I can't. It's like - what the fuck do you people want from me? I need to grow a uterus before you'll quit complaining at me?

And all I end up do is yelling "For fucksake - innocent until proven guilty. Just fucking trust me already!" but there's no way to yell that without coming across like an asshole and part of the problem and reinforcing the fact that men just don't get it. Can never get it. So it always comes down to this - feminism is a conversation for women, directed at men and that's a fucking shame, cos it's never going to work and shit really does need to change. A lot of us can see that, if you'd just give us a bit of credit.

Whether it's intentional or not, feminism make men feel like they're being attacked and (if you understand men at all) that is not conducive to change. Quite the opposite, in fact. That's going to make them dig in their heels and put up more barriers.

All we ask is that instead of kneejerking that you all just listen. Also feminists I know don't see gender difference as an essentialist/biological difference in the brain, rather as a social construct, so saying you "cannot change because penis" is usually fucking infuriating.  If people see gender differences as being hardwired, this totally causes a kneejerk in some people. If you add up unreliable books like Women are from Venus, Men are from Mars ect which have entered the Pop Science sphere in the last few decades, and into the popular conciousness and these essentialist ideas give the lie that men and women are almost a different fucking species as the justification for "and this is why there are inequalities".  Seeing the gender binary as a social construct, however usually means people have to think about societal memes and tropes as not being self evident truths.

To put ideas like privilege it in terms of the BIP, the small window in your cell is a small view on the world, it's a foot square that gives you only a certain view of the territory and the horizon. Now if a certain group can only see that part of the horizon, and the people outside the cell with privilege have a bigger window that shows the view from the privileged group or person's window and a whole bigger territory that the privileged just don't see or even have to see to get by, there's going to be a difference in worldview.  Getting past that difference means breaking out of that cell and trying to get one with a bigger window, that shows the same territory as the people in the non privilege cells. To do that it takes listening to the experiences of others and thinking about the implications of the difference between windows. Simply put, people with privilege don't see the experience of the people without, but you can bet your last can of beer that those without it see representations of those with privilege and their experience.

I can see how the technical terms of feminism can be daunting,  Its alien terminology (to most people, anyway) is also somewhat an intellectualisation of anger and frustration. Which is why when I talk about feminism to guys I tend not to use technical terms, but on the other hand it would be nice for some of you to read some basics and get to grips with the terminology a little, and try and meet us all halfway, because the technical terms are something that for feminists are a shorter way of outlining some very complex ideas, and conversations we have had over and over again amongst ourselves.

You don't need to grow a uterus to get us to stop complaining. What is needed is to listen to the experience of someone or a group of people that you don't usually see the big picture of, and think on that.

Innocent until proven guilty would be nice to feel secure enough to do, but there are some assholes out there that are making it harder for women to trust men as a whole group.  You factor in that most rape, sexual assault and violence against women is by someone they KNOW rather than a stranger, the "oh he's harmless really" response to the male friend in a social group that is a little handsy with the ladies, or worse, and there's a climate of not being taken seriously over serious matters, or being seen as just complaining for complaings sake, irrational, hysterical, overreacting and so on when trying to voice a beef with something, someone or a situation. On an individual level, of course, things are and can be different, and if you aren't a guy who just writes off the view and experiences of women or POC or disabled people, or LGBT folks, respects boundaries and isn't a PUA/creepy dude/Mr Handsy/Rapey guy then cool, we aren't talking about you.

What we need from the decent guys out there is backup, and backup that respects the non privileged's person's experience, like calling people on their sexist/racist/whateverist crap, telling Mr Handsy or Street Harrassment Guy to fucking pack it in rather than telling a woman that they are overreacting and harmless guy is harmless, and treating our frustrations as valid issues.

My housemates, for example, are guys who treat me differently (and in a bad way) when Payne isn't around. It may not be conscious, on their part, but it's pretty fucking galling none the less. They are also lazy and generally inconsiderate jerkasses to Payne too, but they are worse with me.     I basically get ignored when I ask them to help keep the place clean, but if Payne asks, he gets a slightly better result.  I fucking hate living with these guys because I'm like a non-entity or an annoyance here, despite hauling ass to make sure that they weren't homeless or having to move in with their parents, and doing most of the work and fronting about £1300 for the move. 

If I had just said "fuck em, lazy cocksuckers" I'd have a job by now and me and Payne could most likely afford a nicer place on our own.

They may not be concious of being assholes, but you don't have to be malicious to be an inconsiderate waste of fucking space.


Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 15, 2012, 12:47:32 pm
What we need from the decent guys out there is backup, and backup that respects the non privileged's person's experience, like calling people on their sexist/racist/whateverist crap, telling Mr Handsy or Street Harrassment Guy to fucking pack it in rather than telling a woman that they are overreacting and harmless guy is harmless, and treating our frustrations as valid issues.

This is it in a nutshell. And what I find... frustrating, but also quite useful, is that when I get told I'm being too emotional, too angry, too militant, too female (though they never quite come out and say that), male feminists/allies can make my exact points and actually stand a chance of being listened to. It's fucking annoying having to pander to people's bullshit biases, but hey. If there's even a slight chance that it might help someone to realise that patriarchy is actually pretty shit I'll use all the resources I've got.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on August 15, 2012, 01:03:31 pm
If they're refusing to understand why the term "feminism" is important, I don't know if I want them as an ally. I don't know that they can be an ally, because they're denying that we experience discrimination and say "what about me?"instead. *cue cis man tears*

If you're willing to turn away allies and swing-votes cos you're not sure if they're good enough to stand beside you then, tactically, I'm pretty sure your cause is as good as fucked. It's not about everybody getting it. Statistically, most people are idiots, they'll never get anything. They're either part of the solution or part of the problem. If you're perfectly happy to leave them as part of the problem or (even worse) make them part of the problem that they weren't to begin with by alienating them because they don't live up to some unrealistic ideal then what the fuck are you doing to solve the problem? Strikes me you're actually making it worse.

Amusing as I find that whole concept, it is kinda a shame.

Here's a suggestion - drop the whole condescending notion of "if you've never been a woman you can't possibly understand..."

1 - it alienates guys who otherwise might support your cause

2 - it's actually complete bullshit. You have to go through something to experience it, yes but to understand? To empathise? Fuck no. I wasn't in Auschwitz but do I understand what happened and why it was wrong? Duh! The whole "you can't possibly understand, you're a man" thing is, quite frankly, offensive. When I, like a lot of men (and probably women too) feel offended by a particularly condescending bullshit statement, the person making it ceases to be a person and becomes a target. Not arguing the rights or wrongs of this, merely stating pragmatic fact with regards the overall mission objective. The way I see it, the end result is what's important, not that we get there by a virtuous and righteous crusade. Fight dirty, compromise some of your unrealistic principles. Accept help wherever you find it. Never look a gift horse in the mouth. You want equal rights or do you want an ideal world?

Fight smart and we'll win.

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on August 15, 2012, 01:14:24 pm
All we ask is that instead of kneejerking that you all just listen. Also feminists I know don't see gender difference as an essentialist/biological difference in the brain, rather as a social construct, so saying you "cannot change because penis" is usually fucking infuriating.  If people see gender differences as being hardwired, this totally causes a kneejerk in some people. If you add up unreliable books like Women are from Venus, Men are from Mars ect which have entered the Pop Science sphere in the last few decades, and into the popular conciousness and these essentialist ideas give the lie that men and women are almost a different fucking species as the justification for "and this is why there are inequalities".  Seeing the gender binary as a social construct, however usually means people have to think about societal memes and tropes as not being self evident truths.

Maybe people are refusing to listen because of the kneejerk? Maybe the kneejerk is caused by the way that they're being asked to listen? Maybe a more diplomatic tack might make them more inclined to lend an ear?

But you shouldn't have to be diplomatic, right? And this is more important than getting the message across?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 15, 2012, 01:23:32 pm
it's actually complete bullshit. You have to go through something to experience it, yes but to understand? To empathise? Fuck no. I wasn't in Auschwitz but do I understand what happened and why it was wrong?

I don't actually think that any intellectual understanding of the horrors of Auschwitz is even remotely comparable to the utter, utter terror of actually living through it. Like, at all. Even the most imaginative person's "understanding and empathy" will summon approximately 1/1999th of the feeling than an actual memory of actual lived experience.

I'm not even going to touch the rest of your post, because every point you've made has already been raised, countered and refuted and at this point I can only assume that you are deliberately and willfully not absorbing what Garbo, Pixie and others are telling you.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 01:44:41 pm
Well, if I can't understand, then I'm not gonna try.

Game point, SP wins.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: AFK on August 15, 2012, 01:45:50 pm

2 - it's actually complete bullshit. You have to go through something to experience it, yes but to understand? To empathise? Fuck no. I wasn't in Auschwitz but do I understand what happened and why it was wrong? Duh! The whole "you can't possibly understand, you're a man" thing is, quite frankly, offensive. When I, like a lot of men (and probably women too) feel offended by a particularly condescending bullshit statement, the person making it ceases to be a person and becomes a target. Not arguing the rights or wrongs of this, merely stating pragmatic fact with regards the overall mission objective. The way I see it, the end result is what's important, not that we get there by a virtuous and righteous crusade. Fight dirty, compromise some of your unrealistic principles. Accept help wherever you find it. Never look a gift horse in the mouth. You want equal rights or do you want an ideal world?

Fight smart and we'll win.


I don't have a whole lot to add to this discussion but wanted to echo this sentiment, particularly #2. 
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: AFK on August 15, 2012, 01:50:43 pm
it's actually complete bullshit. You have to go through something to experience it, yes but to understand? To empathise? Fuck no. I wasn't in Auschwitz but do I understand what happened and why it was wrong?

I don't actually think that any intellectual understanding of the horrors of Auschwitz is even remotely comparable to the utter, utter terror of actually living through it. Like, at all. Even the most imaginative person's "understanding and empathy" will summon approximately 1/1999th of the feeling than an actual memory of actual lived experience.

I'm not even going to touch the rest of your post, because every point you've made has already been raised, countered and refuted and at this point I can only assume that you are deliberately and willfully not absorbing what Garbo, Pixie and others are telling you.


That's bullshit.  Of course we can't fully understand the actual level of emotional and physical trauma suffered.  But we CAN, intellectually, understand, as Pent said, the ideas, the fundamentals, and the nature of what was happening, why, and why it was wrong. 


Otherwise, we should go ahead and cancel every history class everywhere forever.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 15, 2012, 02:00:12 pm
it's actually complete bullshit. You have to go through something to experience it, yes but to understand? To empathise? Fuck no. I wasn't in Auschwitz but do I understand what happened and why it was wrong?

I don't actually think that any intellectual understanding of the horrors of Auschwitz is even remotely comparable to the utter, utter terror of actually living through it. Like, at all. Even the most imaginative person's "understanding and empathy" will summon approximately 1/1999th of the feeling than an actual memory of actual lived experience.

I'm not even going to touch the rest of your post, because every point you've made has already been raised, countered and refuted and at this point I can only assume that you are deliberately and willfully not absorbing what Garbo, Pixie and others are telling you.


That's bullshit.  Of course we can't fully understand the actual level of emotional and physical trauma suffered.  But we CAN, intellectually, understand, as Pent said, the ideas, the fundamentals, and the nature of what was happening, why, and why it was wrong. 


Otherwise, we should go ahead and cancel every history class everywhere forever.

I think this http://www.shakesville.com/2009/08/terrible-bargain-we-have-regretfully.html (http://www.shakesville.com/2009/08/terrible-bargain-we-have-regretfully.html) has probably the best articulation of why "we understand intellectually!" is problematic as hell:
Quote
There are the occasions that men—intellectual men, clever men, engaged men—insist on playing devil's advocate, desirous of a debate on some aspect of feminist theory or reproductive rights or some other subject generally filed under the heading: Women's Issues. These intellectual, clever, engaged men want to endlessly probe my argument for weaknesses, want to wrestle over details, want to argue just for fun—and they wonder, these intellectual, clever, engaged men, why my voice keeps raising and why my face is flushed and why, after an hour of fighting my corner, hot tears burn the corners of my eyes. Why do you have to take this stuff so personally? ask the intellectual, clever, and engaged men, who have never considered that the content of the abstract exercise that's so much fun for them is the stuff of my life.

It's this simple: as a cis man, you have never had to experience life as a woman. I can't understand why so many men get so butthurt when we tell you this, as though we're excluding you from the magical club of oppression.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:07:40 pm
This has gone from a discussion about how men are also harmed by the patriarchy, to a rather interesting examination of views on language previously taken for granted, to an explanation of the following (from 3 users):

1.  Men can't understand.
2.  Men can't be trusted.
3.  Allies are not desired.  Put on the whole uniform or GTFO.
4.  "Decent men" are needed for support, which assumes that "decent" isn't the default position.
5.  Men somehow want to join the "club of the oppressed".

This conversation is now a self-parody, and cannot - in its present form - have any possible desirable outcome.  It is no longer about eglatarianism, it is now the sort of thing that is used as ammunition by people opposed to feminism.

The upside is, before it turned into a pissing contest, I got one good thing out of it (thanks, Garbo).

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on August 15, 2012, 02:15:46 pm
This has gone from a discussion about how men are also harmed by the patriarchy, to a rather interesting examination of views on language previously taken for granted, to an explanation of the following (from 3 users):

1.  Men can't understand.
2.  Men can't be trusted.
3.  Allies are not desired.  Put on the whole uniform or GTFO.
4.  "Decent men" are needed for support, which assumes that "decent" isn't the default position.
5.  Men somehow want to join the "club of the oppressed".

This conversation is now a self-parody, and cannot - in its present form - have any possible desirable outcome.  It is no longer about eglatarianism, it is now the sort of thing that is used as ammunition by people opposed to feminism.

The upside is, before it turned into a pissing contest, I got one good thing out of it (thanks, Garbo).

Perfectly fucking illustrated. Feminism is fucked and I'm not sure it's the patriarchy that's it's biggest enemy  :lulz:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:16:31 pm
This has gone from a discussion about how men are also harmed by the patriarchy, to a rather interesting examination of views on language previously taken for granted, to an explanation of the following (from 3 users):

1.  Men can't understand.
2.  Men can't be trusted.
3.  Allies are not desired.  Put on the whole uniform or GTFO.
4.  "Decent men" are needed for support, which assumes that "decent" isn't the default position.
5.  Men somehow want to join the "club of the oppressed".

This conversation is now a self-parody, and cannot - in its present form - have any possible desirable outcome.  It is no longer about eglatarianism, it is now the sort of thing that is used as ammunition by people opposed to feminism.

The upside is, before it turned into a pissing contest, I got one good thing out of it (thanks, Garbo).

Perfectly fucking illustrated. Feminism is fucked and I'm not sure it's the patriarchy that's it's biggest enemy  :lulz:

I disagree that feminism is fucked.  I said this conversation is fucked.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pæs on August 15, 2012, 02:22:07 pm
"Hey there, I see that you're currently victim to the horrors of Auschwitz. I can imagine how that must feel for you. While not a resident myself,  I am going to tell you all about Auschwitz as the local authority on Auschwitz. What's that? No, I think you're wrong about that detail. Why does that upset you? How come your side of the Auschwitz yay or nay argument is the best and I have to listen to you? If you want your situation to get better, you need to be more respectful towards people who aren't in Auschwitz when they explain Auschwitz to you.What do you mean I can't be an official Auschwitz ally if I go about misrepresenting Auschwitz and insist that the interpretation from within is somehow invalid?" to expand on the already fairly dangerous comparison.

Roger, I'm not reading that into it at all. Maybe I'm more familiar with the positions being represented here and there's a miscommunication I'm reading past. Comparing quotes of statements to those of replies and interpretations is a bit beyond the capabilities of my phone, but the thread reads like "men can absolutely be helpful and involved but cannot be primary sources on the experiences of women", "hey, fuck you for excluding me."
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pope Pixie Pickle on August 15, 2012, 02:24:44 pm
"Hey there, I see that you're currently victim to the horrors of Auschwitz. I can imagine how that must feel for you. While not a resident myself,  I am going to tell you all about Auschwitz as the local authority on Auschwitz. What's that? No, I think you're wrong about that detail. Why does that upset you? How come your side of the Auschwitz yay or nay argument is the best and I have to listen to you? If you want your situation to get better, you need to be more respectful towards people who aren't in Auschwitz when they explain Auschwitz to you.What do you mean I can't be an official Auschwitz ally if I go about misrepresenting Auschwitz and insist that the interpretation from within is somehow invalid?" to expand on the already fairly dangerous comparison.

Roger, I'm not reading that into it at all. Maybe I'm more familiar with the positions being represented here and there's a miscommunication I'm reading past. Comparing quotes of statements to those of replies and interpretations is a bit beyond the capabilities of my phone, but the thread reads like "men can absolutely be helpful and involved but cannot be primary sources on the experiences of women", "hey, fuck you for excluding me."
This!
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on August 15, 2012, 02:25:38 pm
"Hey there, I see that you're currently victim to the horrors of Auschwitz. I can imagine how that must feel for you. While not a resident myself,  I am going to tell you all about Auschwitz as the local authority on Auschwitz. What's that? No, I think you're wrong about that detail. Why does that upset you? How come your side of the Auschwitz yay or nay argument is the best and I have to listen to you? If you want your situation to get better, you need to be more respectful towards people who aren't in Auschwitz when they explain Auschwitz to you.What do you mean I can't be an official Auschwitz ally if I go about misrepresenting Auschwitz and insist that the interpretation from within is somehow invalid?" to expand on the already fairly dangerous comparison.

Roger, I'm not reading that into it at all. Maybe I'm more familiar with the positions being represented here and there's a miscommunication I'm reading past. Comparing quotes of statements to those of replies and interpretations is a bit beyond the capabilities of my phone, but the thread reads like "men can absolutely be helpful and involved but cannot be primary sources on the experiences of women", "hey, fuck you for excluding me."

What's that? You were actually in Auschwitz? And it's happening again? That's terrible, we need to fight these new monsters. What? Oh I can't possibly understand? You don't want my support? Fair enough. Enjoy them ovens when you get there.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: AFK on August 15, 2012, 02:26:43 pm
The language discussion is interesting.  Though, I posit that a discussion about PC-ing insults seems rather, awkward.  Insults, by their nature, are generally derived in such a way to instill a feeling of "not-worthiness" or "less-than".  I mean, that's why they are insults, that is what they are SUPPOSED to do.


That's not to suggest I condone language that has demeaning connotations to women, minorities, the mentally ill, etc.  But, then again, I'm the sort of person who tends to try to NOT insult people.  If someone pisses me off I'm more prone to tell them to fuck off and ignore them.


But, all that said, it has been a very interesting and educational discussion.  Good work spags!
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:27:25 pm
"Hey there, I see that you're currently victim to the horrors of Auschwitz. I can imagine how that must feel for you. While not a resident myself,  I am going to tell you all about Auschwitz as the local authority on Auschwitz. What's that? No, I think you're wrong about that detail. Why does that upset you? How come your side of the Auschwitz yay or nay argument is the best and I have to listen to you? If you want your situation to get better, you need to be more respectful towards people who aren't in Auschwitz when they explain Auschwitz to you.What do you mean I can't be an official Auschwitz ally if I go about misrepresenting Auschwitz and insist that the interpretation from within is somehow invalid?" to expand on the already fairly dangerous comparison.

Roger, I'm not reading that into it at all. Maybe I'm more familiar with the positions being represented here and there's a miscommunication I'm reading past. Comparing quotes of statements to those of replies and interpretations is a bit beyond the capabilities of my phone, but the thread reads like "men can absolutely be helpful and involved but cannot be primary sources on the experiences of women", "hey, fuck you for excluding me."

That, of course, has nothing to do with anything I said.

It does, however, bring up an interesting question:  Why are men supposed to be incapable of being primary sources on eglatarianism?  Or is the current definition (in this thread) of feminism gone from "eglatarianism" to "Women's historical and current problems"?

I've heard both definitions of feminism.  One is inclusive, and one is exclusive.  I prefer the inclusive version that states a goal of "all people of all genders, races, and orientations are and should be considered equal members in society". 
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:29:04 pm
"Hey there, I see that you're currently victim to the horrors of Auschwitz. I can imagine how that must feel for you. While not a resident myself,  I am going to tell you all about Auschwitz as the local authority on Auschwitz. What's that? No, I think you're wrong about that detail. Why does that upset you? How come your side of the Auschwitz yay or nay argument is the best and I have to listen to you? If you want your situation to get better, you need to be more respectful towards people who aren't in Auschwitz when they explain Auschwitz to you.What do you mean I can't be an official Auschwitz ally if I go about misrepresenting Auschwitz and insist that the interpretation from within is somehow invalid?" to expand on the already fairly dangerous comparison.

Roger, I'm not reading that into it at all. Maybe I'm more familiar with the positions being represented here and there's a miscommunication I'm reading past. Comparing quotes of statements to those of replies and interpretations is a bit beyond the capabilities of my phone, but the thread reads like "men can absolutely be helpful and involved but cannot be primary sources on the experiences of women", "hey, fuck you for excluding me."
This!

Right, then, if that's how I'm coming off, then I am neither suitable for this conversation or the general struggle it describes.  Signor Paisor can keep explaining my position for me, I guess, since he feels he is capable of stating what I really think.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 15, 2012, 02:30:20 pm
Roger, I'm not reading that into it at all. Maybe I'm more familiar with the positions being represented here and there's a miscommunication I'm reading past. Comparing quotes of statements to those of replies and interpretations is a bit beyond the capabilities of my phone, but the thread reads like "men can absolutely be helpful and involved but cannot be primary sources on the experiences of women", "hey, fuck you for excluding me."

OHAI.

From what I can see, the conversation was devolved into:
"Here are my preconceived notions that I'm going to use to explain why I think feminism is shit!"
"Your preconceived notions aren't actually correct; here's how it really is!"
"I'm going to argue your point by holding on to my preconceived notions."
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:37:00 pm
"Here are my preconceived notions that I'm going to use to explain why I think feminism is shit!"

Please quote where I said anything remotely close to that.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 15, 2012, 02:38:41 pm
"Hey there, I see that you're currently victim to the horrors of Auschwitz. I can imagine how that must feel for you. While not a resident myself,  I am going to tell you all about Auschwitz as the local authority on Auschwitz. What's that? No, I think you're wrong about that detail. Why does that upset you? How come your side of the Auschwitz yay or nay argument is the best and I have to listen to you? If you want your situation to get better, you need to be more respectful towards people who aren't in Auschwitz when they explain Auschwitz to you.What do you mean I can't be an official Auschwitz ally if I go about misrepresenting Auschwitz and insist that the interpretation from within is somehow invalid?" to expand on the already fairly dangerous comparison.

Roger, I'm not reading that into it at all. Maybe I'm more familiar with the positions being represented here and there's a miscommunication I'm reading past. Comparing quotes of statements to those of replies and interpretations is a bit beyond the capabilities of my phone, but the thread reads like "men can absolutely be helpful and involved but cannot be primary sources on the experiences of women", "hey, fuck you for excluding me."

That, of course, has nothing to do with anything I said.

It does, however, bring up an interesting question:  Why are men supposed to be incapable of being primary sources on eglatarianism?  Or is the current definition (in this thread) of feminism gone from "eglatarianism" to "Women's historical and current problems"?

I've heard both definitions of feminism.  One is inclusive, and one is exclusive.  I prefer the inclusive version that states a goal of "all people of all genders, races, and orientations are and should be considered equal members in society".

For me, feminism is intersectional. It acknowledges that while women are systemically oppressed by patriarchy, it's pretty shit for men too. Intersectional feminism also means I don't have to choose between Being A Woman and Being Queer at any given point for the purposes of activism. But (and this is more of a point for people who think that there's a finite amount of privilege to go around so YOU CAN'T HAVE MINE, which no one on this thread has done, but it's the easiest way for me to explain my point at 1.40am); feminism focuses on women's rights rather than the harm patriarchy does to all genders in much the same way the gay rights movement focuses on the queer community rather than people of all sexual orientations -- because when we don't have equal rights, the focus is on those who are suffering under that to bring them up to the level of the privileged.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 15, 2012, 02:41:55 pm
"Here are my preconceived notions that I'm going to use to explain why I think feminism is shit!"

Please quote where I said anything remotely close to that.

...you didn't? That was an overly-simplified version of the last two pages of this thread as I see them, which you weren't involved in (I think) until you called out the thread as turning into self-parody.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:43:25 pm
"Hey there, I see that you're currently victim to the horrors of Auschwitz. I can imagine how that must feel for you. While not a resident myself,  I am going to tell you all about Auschwitz as the local authority on Auschwitz. What's that? No, I think you're wrong about that detail. Why does that upset you? How come your side of the Auschwitz yay or nay argument is the best and I have to listen to you? If you want your situation to get better, you need to be more respectful towards people who aren't in Auschwitz when they explain Auschwitz to you.What do you mean I can't be an official Auschwitz ally if I go about misrepresenting Auschwitz and insist that the interpretation from within is somehow invalid?" to expand on the already fairly dangerous comparison.

Roger, I'm not reading that into it at all. Maybe I'm more familiar with the positions being represented here and there's a miscommunication I'm reading past. Comparing quotes of statements to those of replies and interpretations is a bit beyond the capabilities of my phone, but the thread reads like "men can absolutely be helpful and involved but cannot be primary sources on the experiences of women", "hey, fuck you for excluding me."

That, of course, has nothing to do with anything I said.

It does, however, bring up an interesting question:  Why are men supposed to be incapable of being primary sources on eglatarianism?  Or is the current definition (in this thread) of feminism gone from "eglatarianism" to "Women's historical and current problems"?

I've heard both definitions of feminism.  One is inclusive, and one is exclusive.  I prefer the inclusive version that states a goal of "all people of all genders, races, and orientations are and should be considered equal members in society".

For me, feminism is intersectional. It acknowledges that while women are systemically oppressed by patriarchy, it's pretty shit for men too. Intersectional feminism also means I don't have to choose between Being A Woman and Being Queer at any given point for the purposes of activism. But (and this is more of a point for people who think that there's a finite amount of privilege to go around so YOU CAN'T HAVE MINE, which no one on this thread has done, but it's the easiest way for me to explain my point at 1.40am); feminism focuses on women's rights rather than the harm patriarchy does to all genders in much the same way the gay rights movement focuses on the queer community rather than people of all sexual orientations -- because when we don't have equal rights, the focus is on those who are suffering under that to bring them up to the level of the privileged.

Well, for me, I have now been told by Signor Paisor and yourself that I am a ball of preconceived notions, because those notions (that I never expressed in any way, shape, or form), because another poster who happens to be of my gender expressed those notions.

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pæs on August 15, 2012, 02:44:22 pm
Right, then, if that's how I'm coming off, then I am neither suitable for this conversation or the general struggle it describes.  Signor Paisor can keep explaining my position for me, I guess, since he feels he is capable of stating what I really think.

Care to highlight where I represented your position, accurately or not?
The only part of my post addressed to you was after I used your name to address you and the content of the quote there clearly (imo) referred to the thread, rather than to you.

I suggest that this another miscommunication. Would you like to examine that or make assumptions about MY intent and then bitch about how that's what I'm doing to you some more? Because the former is how biped approach conversation and the latter is for hypocrites and gives you little room for criticising the quality of the discussion.

you do realise that not all replies are replies to you?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:45:05 pm
"Here are my preconceived notions that I'm going to use to explain why I think feminism is shit!"

Please quote where I said anything remotely close to that.

...you didn't? That was an overly-simplified version of the last two pages of this thread as I see them, which you weren't involved in (I think) until you called out the thread as turning into self-parody.

How was what I said oversimplified?  Shall I present direct quotes?  Or would you prefer to simply continue issuing me my opinion?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:46:51 pm
Right, then, if that's how I'm coming off, then I am neither suitable for this conversation or the general struggle it describes.  Signor Paisor can keep explaining my position for me, I guess, since he feels he is capable of stating what I really think.

Care to highlight where I represented your position, accurately or not?
The only part of my post addressed to you was after I used your name to address you and the content of the quote there clearly (imo) referred to the thread, rather than to you.

I suggest that this another miscommunication. Would you like to examine that or make assumptions about MY intent and then bitch about how that's what I'm doing to you some more? Because the former is how biped approach conversation and the latter is for hypocrites and gives you little room for criticising the quality of the discussion.

you do realise that not all replies are replies to you?

Yes, I fucking do.  I also am just smart enough to read when people differentiate between "P3nt" and "all of you".  No such differentiation was made.

This isn't a conversation anymore.  It's just another stupid dominance game, played for points.

And the irony in THAT, in THIS subject, is too ticklish for words.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: AFK on August 15, 2012, 02:48:18 pm
I don't read ANYONE in this thread bashing Feminism, big F.  What I see are some expressing that any strain or version of feminism, little f, that is practiced to exclude men because they are men and don't have the experience of being women, is a strain that is probably too insular for it's own good.


I think ANY movement designed to better the lives of any subset of humans can be bettered by having people who aren't necessarily part of the affected group, but who have the passion and the skill sets to advance the cause.  The people from the affected group will have the unique experiential knowledge, but they may not have the advocacy or media savy that an "outsider" would have. 


It just helps to make a well-rounded and robust approach, as anyone who does any kind of grass roots work will tell you.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pæs on August 15, 2012, 02:51:04 pm
Well, for me, I have now been told by Signor Paisor and yourself that I am a ball of preconceived notions, because those notions (that I never expressed in any way, shape, or form), because another poster who happens to be of my gender expressed those notions.
"Here are my preconceived notions that I'm going to use to explain why I think feminism is shit!"

Please quote where I said anything remotely close to that.

...you didn't? That was an overly-simplified version of the last two pages of this thread as I see them, which you weren't involved in (I think) until you called out the thread as turning into self-parody.

How was what I said oversimplified?  Shall I present direct quotes?  Or would you prefer to simply continue issuing me my opinion?
If it were anyone else, I would call a strawman including claims of misrepresentation a fairly amusing troll. I'm STILL trying to examine where you are getting your bad data from, but operating on it any further is just going to read like deliberate dishonesty.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:51:39 pm
Well, for me, I have now been told by Signor Paisor and yourself that I am a ball of preconceived notions, because those notions (that I never expressed in any way, shape, or form), because another poster who happens to be of my gender expressed those notions.
"Here are my preconceived notions that I'm going to use to explain why I think feminism is shit!"

Please quote where I said anything remotely close to that.

...you didn't? That was an overly-simplified version of the last two pages of this thread as I see them, which you weren't involved in (I think) until you called out the thread as turning into self-parody.

How was what I said oversimplified?  Shall I present direct quotes?  Or would you prefer to simply continue issuing me my opinion?
If it were anyone else, I would call a strawman including claims of misrepresentation a fairly amusing troll. I'm STILL trying to examine where you are getting your bad data from, but operating on it any further is just going to read like deliberate dishonesty.

Well, then, I guess I'd better leave you folks to it.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 15, 2012, 02:53:04 pm
"Hey there, I see that you're currently victim to the horrors of Auschwitz. I can imagine how that must feel for you. While not a resident myself,  I am going to tell you all about Auschwitz as the local authority on Auschwitz. What's that? No, I think you're wrong about that detail. Why does that upset you? How come your side of the Auschwitz yay or nay argument is the best and I have to listen to you? If you want your situation to get better, you need to be more respectful towards people who aren't in Auschwitz when they explain Auschwitz to you.What do you mean I can't be an official Auschwitz ally if I go about misrepresenting Auschwitz and insist that the interpretation from within is somehow invalid?" to expand on the already fairly dangerous comparison.

Roger, I'm not reading that into it at all. Maybe I'm more familiar with the positions being represented here and there's a miscommunication I'm reading past. Comparing quotes of statements to those of replies and interpretations is a bit beyond the capabilities of my phone, but the thread reads like "men can absolutely be helpful and involved but cannot be primary sources on the experiences of women", "hey, fuck you for excluding me."

That, of course, has nothing to do with anything I said.

It does, however, bring up an interesting question:  Why are men supposed to be incapable of being primary sources on eglatarianism?  Or is the current definition (in this thread) of feminism gone from "eglatarianism" to "Women's historical and current problems"?

I've heard both definitions of feminism.  One is inclusive, and one is exclusive.  I prefer the inclusive version that states a goal of "all people of all genders, races, and orientations are and should be considered equal members in society".

For me, feminism is intersectional. It acknowledges that while women are systemically oppressed by patriarchy, it's pretty shit for men too. Intersectional feminism also means I don't have to choose between Being A Woman and Being Queer at any given point for the purposes of activism. But (and this is more of a point for people who think that there's a finite amount of privilege to go around so YOU CAN'T HAVE MINE, which no one on this thread has done, but it's the easiest way for me to explain my point at 1.40am); feminism focuses on women's rights rather than the harm patriarchy does to all genders in much the same way the gay rights movement focuses on the queer community rather than people of all sexual orientations -- because when we don't have equal rights, the focus is on those who are suffering under that to bring them up to the level of the privileged.

Well, for me, I have now been told by Signor Paisor and yourself that I am a ball of preconceived notions, because those notions (that I never expressed in any way, shape, or form), because another poster who happens to be of my gender expressed those notions.

Roger, I do not believe that at any point (please quote me if I'm wrong, it's rather late here) I said that you, or all men, are "a ball of preconceived notions". I was paraphrasing the arguments being made in the thread thus far, none of which were made by you.

"Here are my preconceived notions that I'm going to use to explain why I think feminism is shit!"

Please quote where I said anything remotely close to that.

...you didn't? That was an overly-simplified version of the last two pages of this thread as I see them, which you weren't involved in (I think) until you called out the thread as turning into self-parody.

How was what I said oversimplified?  Shall I present direct quotes?  Or would you prefer to simply continue issuing me my opinion?

I was saying that what I said was oversimplified. Was that not clear from the fact that I was replying to something where you quoted said over-simplification directly?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pæs on August 15, 2012, 03:04:50 pm
Well, for me, I have now been told by Signor Paisor and yourself that I am a ball of preconceived notions, because those notions (that I never expressed in any way, shape, or form), because another poster who happens to be of my gender expressed those notions.
"Here are my preconceived notions that I'm going to use to explain why I think feminism is shit!"

Please quote where I said anything remotely close to that.

...you didn't? That was an overly-simplified version of the last two pages of this thread as I see them, which you weren't involved in (I think) until you called out the thread as turning into self-parody.

How was what I said oversimplified?  Shall I present direct quotes?  Or would you prefer to simply continue issuing me my opinion?
If it were anyone else, I would call a strawman including claims of misrepresentation a fairly amusing troll. I'm STILL trying to examine where you are getting your bad data from, but operating on it any further is just going to read like deliberate dishonesty.

Well, then, I guess I'd better leave you folks to it.
Um, okay then. If you ever want to come back and examine whether anyone actually issued you an opinion, I'm cool with discussing whatever issue we ran into here. It's the responses to those requests to stop and consider whether we are being clear with further "well, fine, tell me what I think" that would look like using claims of derailment to derail if I didn"t think you have more respect for the topic (which I do).
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pæs on August 15, 2012, 03:08:04 pm
I don't read ANYONE in this thread bashing Feminism, big F.  What I see are some expressing that any strain or version of feminism, little f, that is practiced to exclude men because they are men and don't have the experience of being women, is a strain that is probably too insular for it's own good.

Who is advocating the exclusion of men and will anyone with that point of contention quote the offending suggestion so it can be clarified or defended?
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pæs on August 15, 2012, 03:09:56 pm
Sleeping now.

Mebbe someone can repair this discussion so it's all pretty for me in the morning.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 03:16:36 pm
I don't read ANYONE in this thread bashing Feminism, big F.  What I see are some expressing that any strain or version of feminism, little f, that is practiced to exclude men because they are men and don't have the experience of being women, is a strain that is probably too insular for it's own good.

Who is advocating the exclusion of men and will anyone with that point of contention quote the offending suggestion so it can be clarified or defended?

Well, here's one:


The only thing I would add is that in my experience, the best male allies are the ones who come in knowing that they're going to have to earn trust from some feminists and just, you know, quietly do that instead of whining about how Really Really Nice They Are, Why Are You Oppressing Me With Your Mistrust.

To everyone who agrees with the above statement:

I am not fucking required to gain anyone's trust.  I am required as a biped to be an eglatarian, defined as "all human beings are equal and to be judged - when judgement is necessary - according to their individual merits".  I do not require that anyone trust me for me to do that.  I am not joining a club, or even an organization.  Your or anyone else's "trust" is meaningless in this context.  I am an elgatarian because it is the right thing to do.

So, you know, fuck this "alliance" business.  I am going to do what works, which is to set an example, and not tolerate inequality in my workplace, the crew I run, my family, my home, or my social circle.  Alliances lead to dominance games, and it's become fairly self-evident, at least in this group, that this becomes counterproductive and requires a uniform. 

So you can take your trust requirement and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.  I'm not doing this for you, and I do not require the approval of other feminists to be a feminist.

And if that's not good enough, then too fucking bad.

There are other examples upthread.  I can get into them, if you like.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pope Pixie Pickle on August 15, 2012, 03:18:09 pm
I don't read ANYONE in this thread bashing Feminism, big F.  What I see are some expressing that any strain or version of feminism, little f, that is practiced to exclude men because they are men and don't have the experience of being women, is a strain that is probably too insular for it's own good.


I think ANY movement designed to better the lives of any subset of humans can be bettered by having people who aren't necessarily part of the affected group, but who have the passion and the skill sets to advance the cause.  The people from the affected group will have the unique experiential knowledge, but they may not have the advocacy or media savy that an "outsider" would have. 


It just helps to make a well-rounded and robust approach, as anyone who does any kind of grass roots work will tell you.

I agree with this. The people with the privilege and the skills still need to listen to the main core of the movement/s, and take what they say seriously.

I'm about to compile a bunch of stuff that is designed for dude-peoples to grasp feminist ideas, and on how to be a good ally. I'm specifically choosing the less academic style of texts, without too much of the particular and specific-to-feminist-discussions language, as I have found that it can be an obstacle to some people. Terms such as patriarchy, rape culture and so on can come across as very loaded, and I'd like to avoid that as much as physically possible. What I want to do is to attempt to bypass the kneejerk reactions and get to a place of self analysis and contemplation. People may not entirely grasp a lived experience, but a teaspoon of understanding of that experience from those who haven't had it is better than none.  This is where I hope to get to initially, because that teaspoons worth of understanding is the basis for building on more and actually making progress.

Oh and Roger, i think most of the last 2 pages were referring to P3nt's take on it, rather than you.  You are a decent guy and it SHOULD be the default position, but in my experience, it's not always the case.   

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 03:24:41 pm
Oh and Roger, i think most of the last 2 pages were referring to P3nt's take on it, rather than you.  You are a decent guy and it SHOULD be the default position, but in my experience, it's not always the case.

Actually, I've spend most of my life as a bit of a monster.  I am about as "decent" as William Calley.

And I think you're working off of false positives, here.  In my experience, 80-90% of men are what you would call "decent"1.  The ones who AREN'T are the ones who get noticed.

I am not suggesting blind faith.  I am not suggesting you let strangers at parties mix your drinks out of your sight, any more than I'd suggest you tape a hundred pound note to your head and walk through London alleyways at night.  I AM suggesting that one key component of eglatarianism is that everyone is innocent until proven to be a swine (again, this does not preclude caution).


1  This doesn't include Phoenix.  They're up to their arseholes in religious weirdos there that make the Taliban look like Leo Buscaglia.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 15, 2012, 03:25:33 pm
Oh come on Spags, this was a really good conversation... let's not ruin it before 50 pages!!! :D

I keep seeing layers in the conversation of people talking past each other. The women are making some excellent points, the guys are making some excellent points... but both sides seem to be misinterpreting the intent behind those points (in my opinion).

First off, I have to say that if I had lived my whole life being treated differently because of my race, sex etc that would feel pretty shitty and I would be pissed off about it. So full points to the girls as to why this is an intense issue.

Secondly, if I go through my day thinking people are equal and treating people as equal and then some person says "Well, you say curse word X and therefore are a misogynist and are coming from 'privilege'" then I'm gonna get defensive.

In my opinion, its probably better for the health of this debate to recognize both of these points. The women might yell a bit louder or make some insulting remarks, because they've been abused by society. Anyone coming out of an abusive situation tends to yell pretty loudly about it, even if its not the best tactic for convincing other people. The guys might be a little defensive, especially if they are told subjective opinions as fact "If you say cunt/pussy etc you ARE a misogynist", "If you aren't a woman you CAN'T understand...", simply because they feel like they're being attacked and lumped in with the knuckle dragging, male monkeys that embarrass the hell out of the rest of us guys.

Cain said e-Prime would be useful in this and I think he's right. (though I didn't want to say it since me and e-Prime comments turn threads into hours of drift.)

But, lets compare:

"If you say cunt/pussy etc you ARE a misogynist"

"If you use cunt/pussy as a slur, you appear misogynistic to many women."

The first is an opinion, being presented as fact. The second is fact being presented as fact.

That being said, I think especially here in this debate that getting defensive and digging in your heels as a guy isn't really useful. I may get shit on for this (and I hope not because I'm not trying to be misogynistic here) but if you're dealing with people that have been abused, you gotta make some allowances for behavior. Women have been abused, they're pissed, they might say shit that sounds like angry accusations and might even hurt, but FFS, let it go. Read through the anger and see what they're trying to say. I for one have been enjoying the hell out of this thread and the earlier one. It's really made me focus on a topic I hadn't paid much attention to previously.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Placid Dingo on August 15, 2012, 03:27:29 pm
it's actually complete bullshit. You have to go through something to experience it, yes but to understand? To empathise? Fuck no. I wasn't in Auschwitz but do I understand what happened and why it was wrong?

I don't actually think that any intellectual understanding of the horrors of Auschwitz is even remotely comparable to the utter, utter terror of actually living through it. Like, at all. Even the most imaginative person's "understanding and empathy" will summon approximately 1/1999th of the feeling than an actual memory of actual lived experience.

I'm not even going to touch the rest of your post, because every point you've made has already been raised, countered and refuted and at this point I can only assume that you are deliberately and willfully not absorbing what Garbo, Pixie and others are telling you.


That's bullshit.  Of course we can't fully understand the actual level of emotional and physical trauma suffered.  But we CAN, intellectually, understand, as Pent said, the ideas, the fundamentals, and the nature of what was happening, why, and why it was wrong. 


Otherwise, we should go ahead and cancel every history class everywhere forever.

I think this http://www.shakesville.com/2009/08/terrible-bargain-we-have-regretfully.html (http://www.shakesville.com/2009/08/terrible-bargain-we-have-regretfully.html) has probably the best articulation of why "we understand intellectually!" is problematic as hell:
Quote
There are the occasions that men—intellectual men, clever men, engaged men—insist on playing devil's advocate, desirous of a debate on some aspect of feminist theory or reproductive rights or some other subject generally filed under the heading: Women's Issues. These intellectual, clever, engaged men want to endlessly probe my argument for weaknesses, want to wrestle over details, want to argue just for fun—and they wonder, these intellectual, clever, engaged men, why my voice keeps raising and why my face is flushed and why, after an hour of fighting my corner, hot tears burn the corners of my eyes. Why do you have to take this stuff so personally? ask the intellectual, clever, and engaged men, who have never considered that the content of the abstract exercise that's so much fun for them is the stuff of my life.

It's this simple: as a cis man, you have never had to experience life as a woman. I can't understand why so many men get so butthurt when we tell you this, as though we're excluding you from the magical club of oppression.

I think it was around here Paes. Personally I suspect the example given is a bad one as the men in question are not so much trying to assume that they can understand the experience of being a woman as just being shithouse at being empathetic.

Empathy is an emotional understanding, really. And some things don't have an obvious emotional impact. For example, dudes always coming onto me is such a foreign concept as far as a negative goes because in the opposite scenario, if I'm always getting cracked onto by women, I'd be over the moon. So it takes those conversations with women to be able to understand where a perspective comes from, for a woman. But I don't know how that means that a man, listening to a woman, empathetic and intellectually understanding of a situation, is unable to 'truely understand' well enough to be an effective part of Feminism. I don't if that's what's being suggested, but I suspect something similar to that is what's being conveyed.

Also, I sleep now too.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pope Pixie Pickle on August 15, 2012, 03:31:21 pm

To everyone who agrees with the above statement:

I am not fucking required to gain anyone's trust.  I am required as a biped to be an eglatarian, defined as "all human beings are equal and to be judged - when judgement is necessary - according to their individual merits".  I do not require that anyone trust me for me to do that.  I am not joining a club, or even an organization.  Your or anyone else's "trust" is meaningless in this context.  I am an elgatarian because it is the right thing to do.

So, you know, fuck this "alliance" business.  I am going to do what works, which is to set an example, and not tolerate inequality in my workplace, the crew I run, my family, my home, or my social circle.
  Alliances lead to dominance games, and it's become fairly self-evident, at least in this group, that this becomes counterproductive and requires a uniform. 

So you can take your trust requirement and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.  I'm not doing this for you.

And if that's not good enough, then too fucking bad.

There are other examples upthread.  I can get into them, if you like.

As to the bolded bit...

You're already riding the correct motorcycle as an ally as far as I am concerned. YOU already get it, and you aren't demanding cookies for being decent, which is awesome.

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2092/1996389857_3a0843ad03.jpg)

Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 15, 2012, 03:38:17 pm
I don't read ANYONE in this thread bashing Feminism, big F.  What I see are some expressing that any strain or version of feminism, little f, that is practiced to exclude men because they are men and don't have the experience of being women, is a strain that is probably too insular for it's own good.

Who is advocating the exclusion of men and will anyone with that point of contention quote the offending suggestion so it can be clarified or defended?

Well, here's one:


The only thing I would add is that in my experience, the best male allies are the ones who come in knowing that they're going to have to earn trust from some feminists and just, you know, quietly do that instead of whining about how Really Really Nice They Are, Why Are You Oppressing Me With Your Mistrust.

To everyone who agrees with the above statement:

I am not fucking required to gain anyone's trust.  I am required as a biped to be an eglatarian, defined as "all human beings are equal and to be judged - when judgement is necessary - according to their individual merits".  I do not require that anyone trust me for me to do that.  I am not joining a club, or even an organization.  Your or anyone else's "trust" is meaningless in this context.  I am an elgatarian because it is the right thing to do.

So, you know, fuck this "alliance" business.  I am going to do what works, which is to set an example, and not tolerate inequality in my workplace, the crew I run, my family, my home, or my social circle.  Alliances lead to dominance games, and it's become fairly self-evident, at least in this group, that this becomes counterproductive and requires a uniform. 

So you can take your trust requirement and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.  I'm not doing this for you, and I do not require the approval of other feminists to be a feminist.

And if that's not good enough, then too fucking bad.

There are other examples upthread.  I can get into them, if you like.

Right. I thought the meaning of that quote was fairly clear based on the context it was posted in, but in case not, let me restate my position.

Men who come into feminist spaces should not immediately expect, nor feel entitled to, the blind faith or trust that they will be a Good Male Feminist* from the get-go.

Even restating that, considering my statement was "the best male allies", which well and truly allows for the participation of men in feminism, I'm really unclear as to how this is evidence of my advocation the exclusion of men.

*There's an interesting discussion to be had around the fact that we hold cis male feminists to a higher standard than pretty much anyone else, rightly or wrongly, but it's probably a discussion for another thread.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 15, 2012, 03:42:46 pm
I think Dingo made a good point. Just because I can't intimately and completely share the same reality with with women on this topic, doesn't mean I can't empathize that our society is shitty towards women in general. Just because women may seem a little aggressively accusatory towards guys on this topic, doesn't mean we should drop trying to empathize. However, just because the guys can't completely understand the experience, doesn't mean that they can't "get it".

Signora also made a good point in clearing up what was intended, because I read the original comment as Roger did. Thanks for that.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Signora Pæsior on August 15, 2012, 03:46:24 pm
But I don't know how that means that a man, listening to a woman, empathetic and intellectually understanding of a situation, is unable to 'truely understand' well enough to be an effective part of Feminism. I don't if that's what's being suggested, but I suspect something similar to that is what's being conveyed.

I certainly didn't mean to suggest that men cannot truly understand enough to be an effective part of feminism. What I was trying to point out (poorly, it seems) is that a man's intellectual, empathetic understanding should always take a back seat in feminist discussions to the actual lived experiences of women.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Pope Pixie Pickle on August 15, 2012, 03:52:21 pm
Oh and Roger, i think most of the last 2 pages were referring to P3nt's take on it, rather than you.  You are a decent guy and it SHOULD be the default position, but in my experience, it's not always the case.

And I think you're working off of false positives, here.  In my experience, 80-90% of men are what you would call "decent"1.  The ones who AREN'T are the ones who get noticed.


In certain situations, a false positive is better than the outcome of failing to spot someone who is dangerous.  It sucks to be the false positive, for sure, but if it's a choice between reading someone too harshly, or not reading a fucking asshole harshly enough, I'm sorry I had to bail on the hidden decent person, but the asshole doesn't usually overtly advertise his assholeness. If it comes down to my basic survival and well being I'm going to act on the false positive.

http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/meet-the-predators/

This article pretty much explains why.


Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 15, 2012, 03:54:19 pm
The following is a rationalization that my brain came up with. I know it's not right in spite of there being a little truth to it, but I thought I'd offer it up as an example of a way that patriarchal ideas can manifest. I'm also depositing it here for the sake of dissection.

Women tend to be physically smaller and have less upper body strength than men, so why is it such a no-no to link femininity to weakness? On one hand I hear women saying that men don't understand how inequality in strength and size fuels feelings of vulnerability around men, yet women seem to not want womanhood or femininity otherwise linked with weakness.

Unfortunately, it's entirely appropriate for women to be concerned about being physically overpowered as it's basic fact that most men are stronger than most women. For the average man, such a concern is less warranted as he's likely to have a more even match when push comes to shove. So when guys disparage one another using words conceptually linked to women it seems less about putting women down and more an inference that what is an appropriate concern for a woman is often not an appropriate concern for man.

OK, I'm going to do one of those comparisons that people hate so much. Before I do, I want to make clear that I am doing this purely because I find it incredibly effective in highlighting the issue in terms that most of us are already familiar with, and not because I in any way think you endorse these views.

Quote
Blacks tend to be lower income and have less material wealth than whites, so why is it such a no-no to link blackness to poverty? On one hand I hear blacks saying that whites don't understand how inequality in income and assets fuels feelings of oppression and disparity around whites, yet blacks seem to not want African origins or dark skin otherwise linked with poverty.

Unfortunately, it's entirely appropriate for blacks to be concerned about being economically discriminated against as it's basic fact that most whites are paid more than most blacks. For the average white person, such a concern is less warranted as they're likely to have a more even match when applying for work. So when whites disparage one another using words conceptually linked to blacks it seems less about putting blacks down and more an inference that what is an appropriate concern for a black person is often not an appropriate concern for a white person.

Question (not gauntlet): Aren't there more poor Blacks because of a rigged social/economic system? If everybody had the same advantages here, the numbers would be different, obviously. Men don't have more upper-body strength because of better nutrition or because gyms keep women out, so I'm not sure about this analogy.

I don't have a problem with being seen as inherently physically weaker, it doesn't mean "inferior" anyway. We have other things we tend to do better, we're just as good, but not identical. I like being able to ask guys to to heavy lifting because they know it's easier for them. It would be another story if I'd grown up watching boys get better food and play outdoors while I was locked in a room mending socks or something.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 15, 2012, 03:55:09 pm
But I don't know how that means that a man, listening to a woman, empathetic and intellectually understanding of a situation, is unable to 'truely understand' well enough to be an effective part of Feminism. I don't if that's what's being suggested, but I suspect something similar to that is what's being conveyed.

I certainly didn't mean to suggest that men cannot truly understand enough to be an effective part of feminism. What I was trying to point out (poorly, it seems) is that a man's intellectual, empathetic understanding should always take a back seat in feminist discussions to the actual lived experiences of women.

I think back seat might be a poor word choice there.*

Experience and empathy are not the same thing. They shouldn't need to compete for the drivers seat. Discussions about experience should be discussions about experience, discussions about "how to fix it" or "support" should provide an equal playing ground. An empathetic guy should be able to listen and modify their position if someone says "I understand what you're saying but in my experience..."  When we're discussing solutions, though, inclusion seems preferable to exclusion or discrimination.



* I swear I won't make some comment about getting in the back seat with a feminist experience  :argh!:
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 15, 2012, 04:06:23 pm
Also, just to reiterate, if we are trying to look at things from an evidential perspective, the Webster 1913 etymology of the variance "pussy" as a derogatory term derived from "pursy" occurred only in that single edition and was removed from subsequent editions, and has no other support. It seems like a funny thing to latch onto so hard, and reminds me of when in the early 1990's it was common for grrrl power chicks to latch onto the widely-repeated piece of (erroneous) folklore that "Cunt" was actually derived from Sumerian "Kundi" and means "Goddess".

FYI, erroneous and invented etymologies are typically removed from dictionaries when further research finds no support for them. A typical red flag for an erroneous or invented etymology is when there are no other sources or references, and the entry is removed from subsequent editions rather than being adopted into subsequent editions and other dictionaries.

As I mentioned, it was incredibly common for dictionary editors of that time to "pad" their content with inventive etymologies in order to create a selling point for their dictionary.

This probably explains the "cunt is derived from the same root as cunning or ken" thing that I saw some years ago, and can't find now. Thanks.  :)
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on August 15, 2012, 04:10:13 pm
Being oppressed is traumatic and obviously terrible. But it also can have the effect of turning people sour and seeking revenge. This is fact, and nobody is above it. See: ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY. Being oppressed does not lend itself to giving a balanced view of the situation even if that oppression ends. Whole nations of humans have formed for the specific purpose of seeking revenge for oppression - and they do it, and they're no better than their oppressors were, but they don't see it, because their ability to be fair has been violated and destroyed by the original oppression.

I'm not saying feminism is necessarily going to go down this path, but it's possible (and you can't really say it's impossible without being self-righteous and just plain wrong). So it seems to me that feminism needs detached, outside opinions and observations in order to keep that possibility in check.

Saying things like "men don't/can't understand" or "a man's view is inherently inferior or inadequate" or that it must "take a back seat" to a woman's opinions is evidence of that counter-oppressive possibility.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: AFK on August 15, 2012, 04:10:34 pm
But I don't know how that means that a man, listening to a woman, empathetic and intellectually understanding of a situation, is unable to 'truely understand' well enough to be an effective part of Feminism. I don't if that's what's being suggested, but I suspect something similar to that is what's being conveyed.

I certainly didn't mean to suggest that men cannot truly understand enough to be an effective part of feminism. What I was trying to point out (poorly, it seems) is that a man's intellectual, empathetic understanding should always take a back seat in feminist discussions to the actual lived experiences of women.

I think back seat might be a poor word choice there.*

Experience and empathy are not the same thing. They shouldn't need to compete for the drivers seat. Discussions about experience should be discussions about experience, discussions about "how to fix it" or "support" should provide an equal playing ground. An empathetic guy should be able to listen and modify their position if someone says "I understand what you're saying but in my experience..."  When we're discussing solutions, though, inclusion seems preferable to exclusion or discrimination.



* I swear I won't make some comment about getting in the back seat with a feminist experience  :argh!:


THIS well said.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:15:24 pm
I don't read ANYONE in this thread bashing Feminism, big F.  What I see are some expressing that any strain or version of feminism, little f, that is practiced to exclude men because they are men and don't have the experience of being women, is a strain that is probably too insular for it's own good.

Who is advocating the exclusion of men and will anyone with that point of contention quote the offending suggestion so it can be clarified or defended?

Well, here's one:


The only thing I would add is that in my experience, the best male allies are the ones who come in knowing that they're going to have to earn trust from some feminists and just, you know, quietly do that instead of whining about how Really Really Nice They Are, Why Are You Oppressing Me With Your Mistrust.

To everyone who agrees with the above statement:

I am not fucking required to gain anyone's trust.  I am required as a biped to be an eglatarian, defined as "all human beings are equal and to be judged - when judgement is necessary - according to their individual merits".  I do not require that anyone trust me for me to do that.  I am not joining a club, or even an organization.  Your or anyone else's "trust" is meaningless in this context.  I am an elgatarian because it is the right thing to do.

So, you know, fuck this "alliance" business.  I am going to do what works, which is to set an example, and not tolerate inequality in my workplace, the crew I run, my family, my home, or my social circle.  Alliances lead to dominance games, and it's become fairly self-evident, at least in this group, that this becomes counterproductive and requires a uniform. 

So you can take your trust requirement and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.  I'm not doing this for you, and I do not require the approval of other feminists to be a feminist.

And if that's not good enough, then too fucking bad.

There are other examples upthread.  I can get into them, if you like.

Right. I thought the meaning of that quote was fairly clear based on the context it was posted in, but in case not, let me restate my position.

Men who come into feminist spaces should not immediately expect, nor feel entitled to, the blind faith or trust that they will be a Good Male Feminist* from the get-go.

Even restating that, considering my statement was "the best male allies", which well and truly allows for the participation of men in feminism, I'm really unclear as to how this is evidence of my advocation the exclusion of men.

*There's an interesting discussion to be had around the fact that we hold cis male feminists to a higher standard than pretty much anyone else, rightly or wrongly, but it's probably a discussion for another thread.

I'm taking issue with "male allies" or even "allies".  Either you're an eglatarian (in which case "allies" is a useless term) or you're not (in which case you can't be allies, because there's nothing in common to ally over).

I am a "CIS male".  This is utterly irrelevant as to whether or not I am an elgatarian.  And I don't see any "feminist space".  I see people who want to be recognized as people and/or who recognize other people as people.  There is no "space" here to enter.  There is no territory upon which to infringe.  You are, or you aren't.  Nothing else matters.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:18:51 pm
Oh and Roger, i think most of the last 2 pages were referring to P3nt's take on it, rather than you.  You are a decent guy and it SHOULD be the default position, but in my experience, it's not always the case.

And I think you're working off of false positives, here.  In my experience, 80-90% of men are what you would call "decent"1.  The ones who AREN'T are the ones who get noticed.


In certain situations, a false positive is better than the outcome of failing to spot someone who is dangerous.  It sucks to be the false positive, for sure, but if it's a choice between reading someone too harshly, or not reading a fucking asshole harshly enough, I'm sorry I had to bail on the hidden decent person, but the asshole doesn't usually overtly advertise his assholeness. If it comes down to my basic survival and well being I'm going to act on the false positive.

http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/meet-the-predators/

This article pretty much explains why.

As I said, caution is always advisable...But looking at the balance of any group as "probably swine" is a trap.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 15, 2012, 04:20:38 pm
Does the intention of these things matter? Theyre both opposing prejudice using parody or humour, but do they ultimately just buy into the existing structures? Or is it just too easy to lose control of the message once it goes into the wild?

Oh hey, this reminds me of something I was going to say earlier in the thread, but I forgot. I come from a land down undah, and I think it would be fair to say that most high schoolers here have no real understanding of the incredibly complex and fraught racial relations in the United States. I mean, sure, we learn about the Civil Rights movement in history and To Kill a Mockingbird is usually taught in English at some level, but a lot of that more insidious stuff we really have no clue about.

Anyway, when I was twelve or thirteen, one of the many trends in our high school became to use the word "n***er" as a synonym for "steal". And in, "Oi, you n***ered my eraser!" or "I totally n***ered this eyeshadow from the chemist". Now, were we consciously and actively saying 'black people steal and that's why this is a valid comparison'? Fuck no. Most of us had never even heard the word used in a derogatory manner towards a black person; we certainly weren't aware of the power the n-word has in the States. We were ignorant little morons who thought we were being edgy. And a space alien who was dropped into my third form science class who saw someone grab my pencil sharpener off my desk and heard me yell "stop n***ering my stuff!" would come to the reasonable conclusion that "n***er" means "take with asking permission" with no cultural context for comparison.

None of which changes the fact that I think about it now and want to smack 12-year-old Signora quite hard in the back of the head. I guess my point, if I haven't lost it, is: sure, contextually, what we were saying was not an active message of hate, but that doesn't change the fact that the language we were using was hateful and oppressive.
I think you might be my favorite noob since Phoxxy or Waffles.

I'm not 100% sure I know who either of them are (so many naaaaames, I'm still getting my head around y'all), so I'm going to pretend this is a Good Thing whether it actually is or not. :lulz:

It's a Very Good thing. Srs!  :)
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:21:11 pm
Also, it occurs to me that the "CIS" thing is worth exploring here, as it fits in nicely with the original topic.

CIS makes no difference at all.  Gender orientation is utterly meaningless, as is anything else, in determining whether or not someone believes that ALL people are equally human.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 15, 2012, 04:23:51 pm
So back to vex's point...when a man confronts these ideas, it seems like what is being asked of him is to act entirely counter to his nature.  To ask a man to change certain views that are deeply rooted is asking a lot...I guess you'd have to be a really strong man to be able to confront one's own fundamental assumptions. And it CAN be done, but I doubt in a mass amount.

With that in mind, it seems that the direct approach can only take a culture so far.  I think a real effectual change comes through slowly nipping away at the structure and tweaking this idea here and destroying that injustice there. Kind of like the parable The Camel's Nose In The Tent (http://camelphotos.com/tales_nose.html).  Now I agree that Feminism does do that, but it also tends to alienate men who matter by setting up an opposition.  The men who matter are ALL men, not just the few who think for themselves.


This is why I get wound up whenever feminism comes up. It always comes down to - I'm a dumbfuck who can never possibly understand because I was born with a dick and privilege and my whole brain comes with built in misogyny and, although that can never change because I'm, y'know, a male, I'm in the wrong and damn well should fucking change. Even though I can't. It's like - what the fuck do you people want from me? I need to grow a uterus before you'll quit complaining at me?

And all I end up do is yelling "For fucksake - innocent until proven guilty. Just fucking trust me already!" but there's no way to yell that without coming across like an asshole and part of the problem and reinforcing the fact that men just don't get it. Can never get it. So it always comes down to this - feminism is a conversation for women, directed at men and that's a fucking shame, cos it's never going to work and shit really does need to change. A lot of us can see that, if you'd just give us a bit of credit.

Whether it's intentional or not, feminism make men feel like they're being attacked and (if you understand men at all) that is not conducive to change. Quite the opposite, in fact. That's going to make them dig in their heels and put up more barriers.

The many, many, many men who are joining the feminist movement and identifying as feminist, and the many many men who are joining the anti-rape-culture movement, don't seem to agree with you, so it is more than a bit possible that your reaction does not represent or define the reaction of men as a whole.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 15, 2012, 04:30:15 pm
"Hey there, I see that you're currently victim to the horrors of Auschwitz. I can imagine how that must feel for you. While not a resident myself,  I am going to tell you all about Auschwitz as the local authority on Auschwitz. What's that? No, I think you're wrong about that detail. Why does that upset you? How come your side of the Auschwitz yay or nay argument is the best and I have to listen to you? If you want your situation to get better, you need to be more respectful towards people who aren't in Auschwitz when they explain Auschwitz to you.What do you mean I can't be an official Auschwitz ally if I go about misrepresenting Auschwitz and insist that the interpretation from within is somehow invalid?" to expand on the already fairly dangerous comparison.

Roger, I'm not reading that into it at all. Maybe I'm more familiar with the positions being represented here and there's a miscommunication I'm reading past. Comparing quotes of statements to those of replies and interpretations is a bit beyond the capabilities of my phone, but the thread reads like "men can absolutely be helpful and involved but cannot be primary sources on the experiences of women", "hey, fuck you for excluding me."

ANNNNND... Godwin.  :horrormirth:

This begs the question whether contemporary feminism is for everybody, as people or claiming, or just women? Everybody wasn't in Auschwitz.
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on August 15, 2012, 04:35:31 pm
Yes but can men join as equals, intellectually and otherwise? Or are men expected to join as foot soldiers and solidarity trophies, expected to place their own beliefs and experiences and ideas on a lower level than women's? If that's the kind of joining I would have to do, then no thanks. I understand that the experience of being a woman can only be had by women (though there's some wiggle-room there), but a heartfelt understanding and empathy with women can be had by anyone, and anyone can have valid observations and ideas about how to improve things. It turns a lot of men off even trying, and turns a few of them against feminism, to just say, "lol you're a man what do you know."
Title: Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:36:20 pm

To everyone who agrees with the above statement:

I am not fucking required to gain anyone's trust.  I am required as a biped to be an eglatarian, defined as "all human beings are equal and to be judged - when judgement is necessary - according to their individual merits".  I do not require that anyone trust me for me to do that.  I am not joining a club, or even an organization.  Your or anyone else's "trust" is meaningless in this context.  I am an elgatarian because it is the right thing to do.

So, you know, fuck this "alliance" business.  I am going to do what works, which is to set an example, and not tolerate inequality in my workplace, the crew I run, my family, my home, or my social circle.
  Alliances lead to dominance games, and it's become fairly self-evident, at least in this group, that this becomes counterproductive and requires a uniform. 

So you can take your trust requirement and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.  I'm not doing this for you.

And if that's not good enough, then too fucking bad.

There are other examples upthread.  I can get into them, if you like.

As to the bol