Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Rolepgeek]

Well, Gav, what do you suggest, then? Because it sounds to me like you're coming up with problems, not solutions.

Regarding my statement addressed to Neonivek, I'll ask: do you honestly believe, then, that the proper way to go about handling racism against ethnic minorities in america is to focus on how some members of those minorities call white people crackers? Like, seriously, what kinda of fucked-up logic is that? It's a bit more pressing of a concern to handle sexism against women than sexism against men. Sexism against men doesn't typically result in death. Sexism against women quite often does.

For your first argument that isn't directed towards something I said, I just have to say that this makes no sense. If someone is being promiscuous in an irresponsible fashion, that doesn't need to be referred to be gender-specific terms. We don't even have terms for such right now, beyond 'asshole' or 'terrible person who is trying to spread STDs'.

As well, to your last argument, my point was thus; the typical idea is that men are strong, women are weak, and therefore men are in control of women. If women are also strong, that doesn't mean that men can't be in control, but it means they aren't naturally assumed to be so. That's the ideal. And yes, people can be idiots, but again, what the fuck do you suggest then? That we do nothing and sit on our hands because any action is worse than no action? That we focus on 'man problems' first?

Seriously, Gav, ignore all the responses you want to make to my arguments for the moment, and tell me what you think we should do, then, if all of our ideas are such utter shit.

[Neonivek]

Most of the sexism projected towards men isn't enforced (or created) by women but men Rolepgeek.

do you honestly believe, then, that the proper way to go about handling racism against ethnic minorities in america is to focus on how some members of those minorities call white people crackers?

Kind of unrelated given that this is the extreme opposite.

That we focus on 'man problems' first?

Why does this keep coming up? Who ever suggested this?

[GavJ]

do you honestly believe, then, that the proper way to go about handling racism against ethnic minorities in america is to focus on how some members of those minorities call white people crackers?

Focus (implied exclusively or majority?) on them? No... You simply condemn anybody who uses racial slurs and fight against all of them where they occur. Look down on people who use "cracker" and look down on people who use "nigger." Why would you just ignore one group of a bunch of racists??

Because NO, it's NOT a more pressing concern to stop this racism or sexism vs. that racism or sexism. A victim of a slur is a victim of a slur... If one is more common, then that just means the number of people you're condemning for one is larger. It's not a reason to ignore or pretend the non-majority slurs don't exist. Why?

As well, to your last argument, my point was thus; the typical idea is that men are strong, women are weak, and therefore men are in control of women. If women are also strong, that doesn't mean that men can't be in control, but it means they aren't naturally assumed to be so. That's the ideal. And yes, people can be idiots, but again, what the fuck do you suggest then? That we do nothing and sit on our hands because any action is worse than no action? That we focus on 'man problems' first?

I thought I was pretty clear about what to do instead: You fight against ALL of the slurs and falsehoods that occur, when they occur.

The example person I described -- if you taught them what was wrong whenever any of the wrong things happened, then they would have been taught that "men are not stronger than women" AND "women are not weaker than men" AND "men are not in control of women" then the person, no matter how dumb or clueless they are, doesn't have to draw those logical conclusions. Because you gave them all of the pieces instead of just assuming that a lifelong trained bigot would work out non-bigoted logic on their own (which is a poor assumption).

This doesn't require any sort of weird or bizarre logic or strategy. It's extraordinarily simple -- is something bigoted? Then fight it. The end.

As opposed to your plan, which appears to be: Is something bigoted? Well then stop and look up whether that thing is the bigotry of the majority or not, and if it is, fight it, if it isn't, just shrug and walk away? 

[Rolepgeek]

Thank you so much for misrepresenting my viewpoint. That always happens and I'm glad the trend continued.

Fight bigotry, yes. But how do you fight stereotypes that are positive? That isn't typically considered bigotry. Bigotry is when stereotypes are negative. My point was basically as such: you have two groups of people, one of whom is being severely oppressed by the other, which is in turn oppressing itself slightly. Rather than trying to split your energies between liberating both groups, you focus first on the group that is more oppressed, and shift your focus to the other group at a later point. It is a more productive use of your energies.

I'm not saying don't fight sexism when you see it. I'm saying it's not worth it to actively seek out sexism against men to fight(yet) because it is far less common and far less hurtful than sexism against women.

Finally, in all honesty, it's rare to find someone who is actively bigoted whose opinion can be changed. Ones who are accidentally so can sometimes be, as can those who have yet to be educated towards either direction. But a life-learned bigot will be difficult to persuade, especially due to the way the human psyche works; when our worldview is challenged, we instinctively oppose the challenge and become more entrenched in our worldview. Humans don't like being wrong.

[Neonivek]

But how do you fight stereotypes that are positive? That isn't typically considered bigotry. Bigotry is when stereotypes are negative.

How many harmful female stereotypes are "negative".

The idea that women are small innocent flowers that need to be protected... IS a "positive" stereotype. It is supposed to be a good thing.

The fact that women who sleep around are "loose" is because "women are pure and chaste"

[Rolepgeek]

Really. You consider 'needs to be protected' a positive stereotype?

You consider 'Women are bad at sports' to be a positive stereotype? How about 'women don't like video games'? Or 'women should pure/chaste'? How about 'Women are passive/acted upon'?

Neonivek, please stop focusing on semantics in a childish and rude attempt to get your way and distract from the real conversation. It's insulting to all of us and I am getting sick and tired of your bullshit. Yes, there are cases where it could be considered positive, or negative, or neither, or whatever, but that's not the fucking point. Stop trying to pretend it's the fucking point. God-fucking-damnit, dude. Seriously, you never actually respond to my posts; you just pick out these little tidbits that you can try and dissect instead of actually trying to contribute to the discussion. And it's been pissing me off, and I don't feel like putting up with it anymore. So stop. Make points that address the actual discussion instead of trying to waylay it. If you're going to address my posts, address them in full, with context, and at least fucking try to understand what I'm saying, instead of looking at the surface analogies and shit I use and poking at them to see if they can be broken down and toyed with. Maybe you honestly don't get it. But as it stands, it really just seems like you're being willfully obtuse and purposefully malevolent.

Please just fucking stop that shit, Neon. Seriously.

[Reelya]

Most of the sexism projected towards men isn't enforced (or created) by women but men Rolepgeek.

That poses an interesting question. Are things that are sexist to men not real sexism if men are the culprits?

There are definitely cases where girls/women are hindered from doing / achieving things due to peer pressure from other girls/women, for example peer pressure which prevents girls expressing an interest in guy/geeky stuff, whether that's maths, computing, chess etc. I'd argue that peer pressure from other girls is the #1 thing preventing more girls uptaking stereotypically male hobbies.

These cases, a fair chunk of the gender bias is enforced by women themselves, but we don't make the argument that women only have themselves to blame, we argue that patriarchy is entrenched, and that it makes no difference if the enforcers are male or female, it's still culturally-sanctioned sexism.

90-something percent of teachers at the elementary school level are women, we still blame these teachers for inculcating gendered stereotypes. They're not "excluded" from being part of the problem.

We cannot then also say "little boys are falling behind in reading" and then turn around and blame the little boys themselves for this plight. If it's sexist that girls fall behind in maths, which is mainly driven by peer pressure from other girls (and their almost entirely female teachers), then we also should see boys thinking it's "uncool" to read via peer pressure to be an example of sexism.

So, cultural sexism is sexism based on outcomes, not on the gender of the person enforcing the "rules": we can't really allow the "men did it to themselves" unless we also allow "women did it to themselves" as an equally valid line of argument.

[Neonivek]

Neonivek, please stop focusing on semantics.

If you think my statement was semantics it means you entirely missed my point.

[TD1]

I wonder if women sleeping around is worse than men doing it because, on an evolutionary level, women were once effectively brood mares supposed to mate with one male superior. Any break from mating with the strong, dominant male for the weaker, out cast male would produce lower grades of children.

[Reelya]

No, there's no direct evidence of that in human history. We could have been like chimps, but there's no reason we couldn't have been like bonobos either. They look the same, but totally different sexual dynamics.

Actually, I think the data kind of disputes the "harem" idea where only one alph male breeds with all the females in human evolution.

Gorillas seem to be strictly "harem"oriented, but it's much less clear in apes more closely related to humans. In a gorilla group, there's exactly one male, and his "wives". Lions or baboons are similar.

Chimps though, have multiple males which cooperate together to hunt and forage etc. The groups are fluid / dynamic, they have male heirarchy-dominance, but they also form alliances and the such - having more male allies helps a strong chimp maintain his dominant position. This sort of thing precludes what you see with gorillas.

[TD1]

As long as there is no direct evidence contradicting it, and a precedent has been set in many close relatives, then it is possible and my point stands.

[Rolepgeek]

Actually, interesting point on that subject, dwArf.

First, there's the fact that the penis may be evolved to scrape out semen of other males, to ensure the maximum likelihood for their own fertilization. There's the consideration that women tend to take longer to reach orgasm than men, though this is not always necessarily true.

Also, please stop using the 'no evidence against it' fallacy. That's not scientific. You don't assume something to be true until proven otherwise. That's a fallacy.

[Reelya]

There is no direct evidence of it in the closest-related species to humans, so it's not a valid point to say women were "brood mares" of a single male.

The problem with that is all known "brood mare" taking species have social groups with only one "alpha" in the herd. Other males basically don't go near the group at all, so there is no "sleeping around" dynamic: Gorillas, Lions, Baboons are examples.

Also, we don't really see that sort of thinking in pure hunter-gatherers, so it's almost certainly an offshoot of settled, agrarian societies.

Chimps are more dominance-oriented than bonobos, but even with them

Chimp mating tends to be promiscuous, with females mating with multiple males in her community during estrus.

So, in our closest relative with multiple males per group, with a male dominance heirqarchy, they have no instinct that says only the single "alpha" male breeds with all the females. In fact, they're polygamous.

[TD1]

There is a sleeping around dynamic. There are, as I said, outcast males who try to reproduce despite the lack of a "Herd." The alpha needs to watch out for these, as they won't challenge him.

Also, I was just wondering because humanity has a precedent for one man over many women, such as harems. Even men who had mistresses, etc. It was an idle musing.

[Reelya]

Chimps don't outcast males. Some species do, but our closest relatives do not. Since chimpanzee males don't have a single male with a personal "harem" and both their DNA and social structure is much, much more similar to ours than ours is to gorillas, there is little reason to think that our ancestors were like gorillas.

There is a sleeping around dynamic. There are, as I said, outcast males who try to reproduce despite the lack of a "Herd." The alpha needs to watch out for these, as they won't challenge him.

Also, I was just wondering because humanity has a precedent for one man over many women, such as harems. Even men who had mistresses, etc. It was an idle musing.

We only really see harems in relatively advanced cultures. Hunter gatherers: well there's really no such thing as a harem in any small band. Humans hunt in teams, as do chimps.