Print

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

[Phmcw]

This is kind of my point: Why? They are people, too. I reject the notion of "I'm only intolerant to the intolerant", as you become one of the intolerants yourself. Hating nazi's or gaybashers makes you a bigot in my book. You don't have to agree with their ideas or actions (I'd rather you wouldn't...), but the concept of hating someone for his ideas, isn't that what we're fighting against?

Jews, nazis, gays, white, racists, assholes, muslims, atheists, women, male chauvinist pigs, white, black and the entire rainbow inbetween: you are all people, and all of equal worth in my regards, whether I agree with you or not. I also reserve the right (forum rules forbid me from doing so here, you're all safe) to insult all of those groups equally, using any ammunition possible. I do not make exceptions for "people with special needs" (well, except children, I'll insult them too but not as harshly), and shall blindly disregard any context of society that would affect said insult/joke.

No!

I know that it's a view that is common among progressive, but no. I'm willing to be tolerant, but only up to a certain point.
If someone's idea make him belittle women, black, white, Jew, homosexual or transsexual, then his idea are harming good peoples and he should renounce them. If he don't then he's an enemy and should be taken down.
I'm tolerant toward a lot of thing but up to a point I draw a line.

I've got into a lot of fight over these thing, especially when I was adolescent, don't expect me to be tolerant over intolerance.

However, I will always try to speak first.

Any comments on this? I never went into the social aspect really.

I personally, have no special problem over traditional role. But don't expect them to last : women these day study quite hard, and I'm observing a trend where the man tend to do more housekeeping while his girlfriend study. Maybe it's just next to me me though.

[blackmagechill]

I actually forgot to mention another reason why I don't know anything about feminism:I live in a an all male household. This may explain somethings (before you guys ask, single parent).

[Siquo]

*phew* I'm glad that's cleared up.

On that "right in the kisser" stuff, it's funny because she doesn't care. His "right in the kisser" isn't funny, the fact that he's posing as a badass and she just looks at him with that "oh you poor deluded man"-look, that bravado-that-covers-impotence, that's what makes it funny. It's quite a feminist show, that way. She's obviously the one who ultimately decides what happens, while he is desperately grasping on to old macho values.


The transphobia and hatred is sickening.

Of course, there's also the morality thing. If you find a given thing reprehensible, then mockery is often a valid avenue of attack

No, those people are ruining it for the people who mock for the sake of mocking. THIS sentence right here is saying: if you hate gays it's okay to mock them. Making up arguments why "gayness" is inherently worth of being mocked is easy, one can come up with all kinds of weak excuses for anything.

So no, please don't mock to attack. Ever. Especially if you think you have the moral highground, because then you can be certain you're wrong.

How are they contributing to a culture where the butts of your joke are victimized?
Is somebody you're speaking to likely to be offended?
Are you making the joke to express actual contempt for the subject, or are you just doing it as a means of small talk?

Don't care, Don't know and Neither. I'm kind of oblivious to society and the group around me.

Any comments on this? I never went into the social aspect really.

Pragmatism? Those roles were there for a reason, perhaps, taking generalisations into account. It just that one size does not fit all. I often cook, and clean the house more, and take care of the kid WAY more, than my father ever did. However, I do all heavy lifting because I is man, I do the handyman stuff because "handywoman" just doesn't sound right (and she can really eff up a wall with a drill  ), and I make (well, until her business kicks off) all the money. Traditional? Yes. But every aspect was analysed and talked about, there are no "default" roles anymore.

It's even harder with raising kids. After the whole unisex thing, right now children are even more enforced into gender-specific play. Girls get princesses, boys get cars. Now most young boys of friends of mine get to play with dolls, too, and mine gets to play with cars, and even if they do that sometimes, they tend to go to what is expected. The only resolution to all this is what we're doing already: make all alternatives optional, so they can choose themselves.
Now if we could do the same thing for adults, that'd be nice...

No! I know that it's a view that is common among progressive, but no. I'm willing to be tolerant, but only up to a certain point.

Oh I won't stand for that either, and will actively retaliate on any belittling I see, but that won't make the belittler less of a man.
I decouple worth from behaviour. To take YET ANOTHER (I'm starting to sound like Nikov and his wife here. Did I mention I have a kid? ) raising-example: we teach our daughter that she is always sweet. But sometimes she behaves bad. This means never saying: "you are bad" but always "you behave bad". This goes for grwon-ups as well

And now I'll resume my macho role and cook dinner for my family because that's how I roll I was told to do so a minute ago...

[Bauglir]

Of course, there's also the morality thing. If you find a given thing reprehensible, then mockery is often a valid avenue of attack

No, those people are ruining it for the people who mock for the sake of mocking. THIS sentence right here is saying: if you hate gays it's okay to mock them. Making up arguments why "gayness" is inherently worth of being mocked is easy, one can come up with all kinds of weak excuses for anything.

So no, please don't mock to attack. Ever. Especially if you think you have the moral highground, because then you can be certain you're wrong.

You really need to include the context for this. I did go on to explicitly say that you have to be able to justify it. You can't just say, "I hate homosexuality, so I'm gonna insult and make fun of the entire concept." If you had a sound argument for hating them, then you could. And if that argument failed to convince people, they would be justified in continuing to argue with you about it, and whether or not you were justified in making fun of them would remain uncertain until a conclusion was reached. Of course, it'd be good form to apologize in the meantime anyway, because not being a dick is always a plus. And, I have to point out, I know of no such argument for this case, so I'm not actually condoning mockery of homosexuals for being homosexual.

How are they contributing to a culture where the butts of your joke are victimized?
Is somebody you're speaking to likely to be offended?
Are you making the joke to express actual contempt for the subject, or are you just doing it as a means of small talk?

Don't care, Don't know and Neither. I'm kind of oblivious to society and the group around me.

Admitting you have a problem is the first step in resolving it. It is, however, not also the last step. You don't necessarily have to devote effort to resolving it, nor does having that problem make you inherently a worse person; I don't mean to insist that you should be automatically cognizant of all social expectations around you all the time, and if you're not, then it's your fault. It may well not be a problem that's worth the effort for you to fix, and you're certainly not obligated to undergo radical personal change just to avoid upsetting others (it'd be pretty hypocritical to insist on that). But you should be willing to apologize when that problem causes pain for other people. There's a pretty huge difference between, "Sorry, I didn't know that I was hurting you, I'll try to do better in the future" (followed by actually doing that, to the extent you're reasonably able to), and "I didn't know I was hurting you, so I wasn't doing anything wrong and you really shouldn't be mad at me."

[Christes]

I'm a transhumanist. I believe technology can help fix all or nearly all social and biological problems, as well as economic and environmental. One of those problems, to me, is the arbitrary dichotomy between MALE and FEMALE. It's one of my sincerest hopes that eventually, technology will enable us to either switch between the two on the fly, or, more to the point, just get rid of GENDER and leave HUMAN in it's place.

That's really all I want. To eventually get to the point where we can honestly say that everyone views everyone else as HUMAN (read: Sentient, and therefore worthy of the highest respect), even if they're an A.I. or even a bloody alien. Or just a really smart dolphin. 

I've thought a lot about this as well.  It's too bad that I find a lot of the transhumanist goals to be a bit far-fetched (no offense intended here).  But I really do have the same "sincerest hope" I suppose.

[Africa]

I don't "getting rid of gender" is desirable, even if it were possible. Men and women, generally speaking, are built differently and think differently. Obviously they think the same in many ways too. We don't have to pretend that's not true to treat each other as equals, and you'd lose as much by trying to force everyone to be androgynous as you'd lose by forcing them to play out 1950's gender roles.

[Siquo]

Africa: What's different here? I don't know your gender. You are "intelligent" to me, as I don't even have proof that you're human.

"The bad thing about transhumanism is that transhumanists are so bad at being human." - Siquo

[The Doctor]

I don't "getting rid of gender" is desirable, even if it were possible. Men and women, generally speaking, are built differently and think differently. Obviously they think the same in many ways too. We don't have to pretend that's not true to treat each other as equals, and you'd lose as much by trying to force everyone to be androgynous as you'd lose by forcing them to play out 1950's gender roles.

I never said force everyone to be androgynous? Why would I do that, that's horrible! I'd never impinge on someones freedom to be who they want to be.

Which -includes- not having a gender.

[Leafsnail]

The thing about being able to change gender easily is that it might just result in the same level of misogyny only with an added pressure for women to change into men.

[Phmcw]

I don't "getting rid of gender" is desirable, even if it were possible. Men and women, generally speaking, are built differently and think differently. Obviously they think the same in many ways too. We don't have to pretend that's not true to treat each other as equals, and you'd lose as much by trying to force everyone to be androgynous as you'd lose by forcing them to play out 1950's gender roles.

True and false, both your wording are too vague, the correct one being "getting rid of the stigma put on the individual by their gender". Women are generally less good at lifting than men, but it doesn't mean that you should forbid a strong women the right to do a job involving lifting or put her at shame for doing it.
And you should put a man at shame for being too womanly. And actually, you'd best get rid of associating manliness and femininity with sex.

Being strong or being pretty should be available to both men and women. I want a world where manly and feminine are not associated with gender.

[Fenrir]

Being strong or being pretty should be available to both men and women. I want a world where manly and feminine are not associated with gender.

I do not see why, as being male and a capacity for strength are biologically linked. You may as well wish that gills were not associated with fish.

While swapping genders at will may well be desirable for some, such measures do not solve the problem. The problem lies with people that are too illogical in thought to recognize the capacity of the individual in question. If someone supposes that a woman is less valuable than a man, but he does so without any logical reason to suppose the same or, as is more likely, he supposes so without any thought at all, simply changing the woman into a man does not correct his erroneous thought, and he shall likely find something else to distort with his lack of reason. All that was done was to alter the world to avoid his ignorance. I do not wish to live in a world where bodies are altered merely to avoid the slings and arrows of an idiot's tongue.

Women would be compelled to become men simply to avoid persecution, even if they did want to be women.

[Glowcat]

Why is there this assumption that it will be women who are turned into men? That kind of technology is still a long way off into the future, and that's plenty of time for more women to gain power.

[Fenrir]

I presumed that we were discussing it in the context of the present social climate, as the above posts seemed to be doing that.

[Vector]

(I am male, by the way.  My profile doesn't specify a gender, and this is very intentional)

Yeah, I actually went back and removed mine after declaring "female" for a while.  It just seemed kind of pointless =)

I'm on the same page as you with the gender-neutral thing.

OT: Vector, I just saw the picture of you that was linked earlier.  You look exactly like one of my undergrad math professors.  Make of that what you will.

Haha, thanks!  I'll take that as a compliment.

Vector, I was actually mad at you for a little while because you seemed to be saying that sexism is only an issue that affects women because you're the ones being degraded when somebody uses feminine names as insults.  I can see why you'd be bothered by that, since it heavily implies that being a woman is bad but it really seemed like you were ignoring the fact that it's pretty much awful to have it implied that you're somehow a terrible person for not wanting to conform to gender roles, regardless of what gender you are.  I'm not any more, because it's stupid to be mad at somebody for being worried about issues that affect themselves.

I want to make this clear:

Sexism puts terrible expectations on everyone.  At the same time, it also "marks" women as lesser.  So, no, it affects everyone, but it affects women in certain ways that men don't get smacked around with, just as it does have some negative effects on men--like the issues that you just described.

I really need to get to bed instead of discussing about this, and I really need to read the rest of the thread.  Too bad I probably won't be on at all for a couple days.

I look forward to reading your comments when you come back =)

She said the obvious stuff (equal wages, no laws Against any gender), and then she went into the social aspect as well. It was pretty much that, in a family, certain roles work well, and, if those happen to be traditional gender roles, then why bother to avoid them? And then she said, as much as she hated this, traditional gender roles made her feel like a woman. Having someone out there under a truck while she was cooking made her feel good.
Any comments on this? I never went into the social aspect really.

Why bother to avoid them?  Because I, at the very least, am pretty much incapable of performing a woman's traditional gender role.  The effort it would take some people to avoid gender roles is the effort it would take me to conform to them.

There are all kinds of things that work well in a family.  To restrict them to traditional Western gender roles, when many other different experiments have been tried in other societies--and worked--is foolhardy, and forces people to conform to ideals that are dysfunctional for them, all in the name of "normalcy."

We need to write another social contract, which does not exclude other functional ways of being in favor of these silly, antiquated, monolithic ideals.

I do not see why, as being male and a capacity for strength are biologically linked. You may as well wish that gills were not associated with fish.

Physical strength is not the only thing associated with "being male."  So is courage.  So are intelligence, emotional strength, self-reliance.  Risk-taking.  Power.  Diligence.  Honor.  Problem-solving.  Aggression, competitiveness, individualism.  Endurance.

The feminine is associated with, generally, the opposite of those things plus nurturing and intuition.  Oh, and being pretty or something, yeah.  Also masochism, submissiveness, and passiveness (we got this from Freud, and it hasn't yet left the American collective intelligence).

Unfortunately, I, and many people I know, are much better at being manly than we are at being feminine.  Or, at the very least, I'm much better at picking and choosing from both as I choose.

Feminine women and manly men should not be persecuted or anything.  This is not the feminazi thread.  I would like a world where all of those good qualities are equally open to both women and men.  Where women and men are judged on their personal qualities, and not the stereotypes of their genders.  Where "feminine" and "masculine" qualities become, simply speaking, qualities, and we no longer make silly assumptions based on dreams of silly bits of flesh.  When one's genes only matter in projecting "who one is" whilst making medical considerations, and then only as necessary.

Let me put it this way: when I'm at my grandmother's house and something needs to be carried outside, she'll ask me to go get a man to come in and carry it.  I'm perfectly capable of carrying whatever she wants taken care of, and it'd be a waste of everyone's time for me to go get a dude.  But, rather than respecting my strength, she assumes I can't do it.

Same thing happened when I was moving out of the dorms in college.  My roommate apparently couldn't (or didn't want to) carry her microwave downstairs, and she and her friend were going to go get a man.  I carried it down for them.  They didn't need to get anyone at all...

I'm also, often, the default difficult-jar-opener.  But, looking at me and making assumptions, that quality is probably going to be completely ignored in favor of some vague, confusing ideas about That Stuff Womenfolk Do.

[Leafsnail]

Why is there this assumption that it will be women who are turned into men? That kind of technology is still a long way off into the future, and that's plenty of time for more women to gain power.

But "people will be able to change gender easily" was being floated as a solution to misogyny.

And yeah, the big point is "people should be judged on their own merits and what they want to do".