The feminism/equality thread

[icklekitty]

What I find sad is that an increasing number of men are behaving like women, or as if they've been somehow castrated by a culture of misandry.WHERE ARE ALL THE BALLS?I am extremely grateful for my male friends though. I couldn't go back to ebing surrounded by women; i'd feel like an alien.

Admin edit: split from the relationships thread. Awkward split is awkward.

[Hula]

In short... NO.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_lh5fR4DMA

WELP.

I've come from a background where if I'm into someone, I'll generally put those feelings on the back burner in favour of protecting the friendship—it feels these days like guys are more likely to jump on things if they have the slightest attraction towards you, which is kind of lame. Especially when I haven't given any real indication that I'm into them ~that way~.

What happened to the days of agonising for months on end over whether or not the other person likes you the way you like them before you ever dream of making a move? Pfft.

[jibbleaoife]

That video's brilliant.

I'm kind of in that agonising-for-months-on-end-over-whether-or-not-the-person-likes-you-the-way-you-like-them thing at the moment actually. It's kind of just happened and came out of no where. We've just become good friends and talk all the time but have seen other people and not actually discussed how we feel about each other. I completely fancy him and i think he fancies me, but it's actually kind of fun seeing how it all pans out.

In many ways i think the most solid of relationships are born from a good friendship, i mean, if you're not friends how can you demonstrate a healthy level of authenticity? That said though, echoing Hula's sentiment, i tend to act as uninterested as possible in people i genuinely really like in order to protect the friendship or myself, such as now. Le sigh.

[Tea]

In short... NO.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_lh5fR4DMA
A video bluntly stating why, due to the city I live in (same as video), I'm unable to have male friends.
In university (in England) I had equal male/female friends. The guys knew I had a boyfriend, several of them had girlfriends, and none were the type to try an affair.
Fuck this culture.

[botley]

What I find sad is that an increasing number of men are behaving like women, or as if they've been somehow castrated by a culture of misandry.WHERE ARE ALL THE BALLS?
I see this kind of comment all over the place and I've no idea what it fucking means. "Behaving like women." Do you want men to behave like violent Neanderthals? Do you admire the "lad culture" but only when it is convenient and only from afar? Is the reason men and women are having difficulty relating because women can't figure out exactly what parts of the male psyche they'd prefer remain hidden?

[Mantra]

^Yeah, I was a little confused by that statement too. I can't even say whether I agree or not, because I don't understand it at all. In what way are men behaving like women?

[Tea]

From past posts, I've noticed Icklekitty having issues with men not being domineering enough; and yet, she's a fan of pegging.

[Hula]

From past posts, I've noticed Icklekitty having issues with men not being domineering enough; and yet, she's a fan of pegging.

Those two concepts aren't necessarily linked. I've known gay guys who are submissive in day-to-day life but play the role of the top in bed. Power in bed and power everywhere else are two entirely different beasts.

[icklekitty]

Those two concepts aren't necessarily linked. I've known gay guys who are submissive in day-to-day life but play the role of the top in bed. Power in bed and power everywhere else are two entirely different beasts.

Completely agree. And pegging doesn't necessarily mean the man becomes submissive. It'd imply that the woman is usually submissive during regular straight sex. For me, it just means that he's adventurous, and the g-spot is there after all.

By men behaving like women, I mean that they about how great you are but never ask you out (actions and words aren't related), they do the "relationship games" re: calling back, reading extraneous things into everything, or they generally act very needy/clingy and vague. These are traits I associate with women, and why I don't get on with most women. I also think this whole "girl power" thing has created a bit of a gender identity problem for men ("castrated by a culture of misandry". Lad culture is an offshoot of this problem - these are (by and large) NOT strong, confident men.

[Mantra]

By men behaving like women, I mean that they about how great you are but never ask you out (actions and words aren't related), they do the "relationship games" re: calling back, reading extraneous things into everything, or they generally act very needy/clingy and vague. These are traits I associate with women, and why I don't get on with most women. I also think this whole "girl power" thing has created a bit of a gender identity problem for men ("castrated by a culture of misandry". Lad culture is an offshoot of this problem - these are (by and large) NOT strong, confident men.

Well, the problem is that there's a lot of mixed signals out there, because people all want different things. It's not like there's some united front of women who have agreed upon a definitive set of guidelines for how a man should act with a woman he's interested in. Some women like it when guys are direct, others don't. Some women wish that guys were more "sensitive" in their relationships, others may find that kinda lame. Just depends on the person. I think a lot of guys are trying to figure out that perfect balance, which of course varies depending on who they're interested in. It's tricky.

Anyway, I hate it when women complain about some guy who won't ask them out. Just shut up and ask him out yourself.

[icklekitty]

Anyway, I hate it when women complain about some guy who won't ask them out. Just shut up and ask him out yourself.

In my case I wasn't interested enough to ask him out. He just kept talking about it and I was all "ok, are you going to ask me out or what? get to the point or go away" and then he continued to talk about it without actually asking. So I walked away, irritated. It must be a specifically relationshippy thing, because I never experience this kind of insane behaviour in other realms. I suppose I can't blame someone for assuming that I would react like the majority, but it is super irritating. Perhaps it's a useful tool for filtering in the end.


Serious replies to me teasing. Again, no anger. If you want to pick at it some more, feel free, but I'm not going to put anymore pointless posts in here.

I wasn't picking at it, I just had to ask you several times before you answered, and I wanted to know because I didn't know what you meant.

My "serious reply" wasn't aimed at you - it was a response to all the comments I got, and I wanted to talk about the topic some more. Joke leads inadvertently to discussion. Forum multi-achievement unlocked.

[theruiner]

Anyway, I hate it when women complain about some guy who won't ask them out. Just shut up and ask him out yourself.Yup.

Then again, I'm not huge on gender norms (i.e., I don't believe in them at all), so I don't buy into the whole "you have to act a certain way if you're this gender" stuff.

As far being friends with someone of the opposite sex, I did it for a long, long time with my best friend while I had feelings for her. It sucked, but what are you going to do? She was/is my best friend and I wouldn't give that up for anything.

[nin5in]

Anyway, I hate it when women complain about some guy who won't ask them out. Just shut up and ask him out yourself.

Exactly, I made the first move with my husband, and it has worked out pretty well for me.

On the topic of being friends with someone of the opposite sex: I believe you can do it if you really value the friendship. Every guy I have been friends with, I developed feelings for them. But I still continued being their friend. I'm just a hopeless romantic, so it is very easy for me to desire someone.

[littlemonkey613]

In short... NO.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_lh5fR4DMA Anyone think this is a result of how ridiculously dumb our culture is? Girls are raised to not want sex and boys are raised to want to have sex with everyone or they aren't really "straight" or "manly". What criteria is this using? If you've ever thought about having sex with that person? I'd bet a million the girls have had those same thoughts...... Why the hell would you define your friendship by that? Anyways I've had a ton of guy friends who have never even tried flirting with me. I guess I am just ugly :3. That being said all my close friends are very conscious of this horrible binary, so that might be why my experiences have been different.
I also think this whole "girl power" thing has created a bit of a gender identity problem for men ("castrated by a culture of misandry". Lad culture is an offshoot of this problem - these are (by and large) NOT strong, confident men. AAAHHH! This girl power thing? Are you perhaps referring to the drive to be equal? I honestly see this as logically unsound as talking about reverse racism.

I hate the idea that there is some inherent need for men to be nurtured into whatever definition of masculinity people have. I think the inherent problem comes from trying to strictly define masculinity to begin with. Feminism is not to blame here.

[icklekitty]

AAAHHH! This girl power thing? Are you perhaps referring to the drive to be equal? I honestly see this as logically unsound as talking about reverse racism.


Bra-burning, girl-power misandry is NOT the same as the feminist quest for a deconstructive world of multiplicity. It is not a matter of toppling the order so as to replace it - that amounts to the same thing in the end.

(Similarly, positive prejudice is not the same as true racial equality; equality is fair for all)

[littlemonkey613]

Bra-burning, girl-power misandry is NOT the same as the feminist quest for a deconstructive world of multiplicity. It is not a matter of toppling the order so as to replace it - that amounts to the same thing in the end.

(Similarly, positive prejudice is not the same as true racial equality; equality is fair for all)

I don't think bra-burning and misandry should be put in the same category, for obvious reasons. That implies that bra-burning takes things too far when in fact people that do that have a point and are actually right when they articulate why they think that clothing is oppressive and what not.

Where is all this misandry? In the world I live in feminism is still taboo, embarrassing to be apart of and associated with something dirty for most people. People who actually want women to take over and dominate men is a very very tiny minority, furthermore trying to topple strict definitions of masculinity are often interpreted as misandry because they scare people who will lose their power in this male dominated culture.

I would say in my experience 9.5/10 time what people interpret as male-hatred to me, is really just women trying to be seen as equal. People don't act the way they are "supposed" to act due to their gender and sexuality, and that scares people and gives them an easy target to blame society's problems on.

[icklekitty]

People don't act the way they are "supposed" to act due to their gender and sexuality

Exactly; people. Not women, all people.

I never referred to women doing anything. It's the culture and the language. The "girl power" mindset just wants to topple the status quo, but everyone's still trapped in their roles (albeit they would be different roles). Western culture (Eastern culture too, but let's talk about ours as we know it better) is as much misandric as mysogynistic - and the country you live in is perhaps the best example of this (I don't doubt that you have it worse than we do here). Men need to be liberated as much as women; this world has made them just as insecure, nervous, and scared as women. It's not "us vs them". Feminism is not girl power and it is not about womens' rights, it's people power.

"It is not a matter of toppling the order so as to replace it - that amounts to the same thing in the end" is a quote from The Sex Which Is Not One by Luce Irigaray (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luce_Irigaray). Feminism is about the discourse sexuality (masculine/feminine), not gender (man/woman) as it is being used popularly. Hence hence feminism, not womenism. In fact, as a branch of deconstruction, it seeks to dispel all binary definitions, where one sex is not defined by the other (indeed, to reach a point where there is no "one or the other"). Michel Foucault (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_History_of_Sexuality) went on to write some truly amazing things about human sexuality (he's a brilliant cultural theorist overall).
Griselda Pollock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griselda_Pollock), who taught me, often said that her proudest achievement was being a successful wife, mother, and feminist. I am comfortable and open with my sexuality and yet I like to live my life as if it were 60 years ago. Hi, I'm a feminist (Of Actual Feminism) who would like a big strong man to take her away from this big bad world. And someone who has the confidence (or indeed balls) to be comfortable in their own skin and act in a way that I therefore find tolerable is hard to come by.

[littlemonkey613]

Hi, I'm a feminist (Of Actual Feminism) who would like a big strong man to take her away from this big bad world. And someone who has the confidence (or indeed balls) to be comfortable in their own skin and act in a way that I therefore find tolerable is hard to come by.
Have you ever been called a hypocrite for this? I hear that kind of nonsense all the time. Bad example but like, "you can't want your boyfriend to hold the door open AND be a feminist." People that have that kind of idea drive me crazy and it shows they have no understanding of anything...

[Hula]

Mayhaps we need a feminism/equality thread? Seems like there are more than a few people who'd weigh in.

[icklekitty]

Yeah, sorry about this boner kill, especially as a lot of you have heard me yap about this before. A split would probably be wise.


Have you ever been called a hypocrite for this? I hear that kind of nonsense all the time. Bad example but like, "you can't want your boyfriend to hold the door open AND be a feminist." People that have that kind of idea drive me crazy and it shows they have no understanding of anything...


Never, although I have encountered women like you who say "but-but...women need to fight for their rights!" and it's clear to me that you don't understand what feminism is. I see a lot of outrage, buy not theoretical evidence for why this discourse is wrong and the popular media adoption of the word "feminism" for something else is right. A strong and confident man isn't necessarily a "hold the door open type" - see the quote you originally cited from me about lads. Similarly, feminism fights for the woman who wants to be feminine and submissive as much as the one who wants to wear trousers (incidentally, I don't own any trousers) and be independent. Feminism doesn't block off any avenue of sexuality. It's about saying yes to multiplicity. Gay and transgendered rights are feminist issues. Whether men can wear make-up is a feminist issue.

Would you have had a problem if I had wanted "a big strong woman to take me away from this big bag world"?

[MAD]

This needs its own thread. I'd love to comment but I would derail the topic even more.

[Elke]

Mayhaps we need a feminism/equality thread? Seems like there are more than a few people who'd weigh in.


Yes, please, because I'd love to join in but this is the relationship thread so...

[orestes]

Gay and transgendered rights are feminist issues. Whether men can wear make-up is a feminist issue.

THIS so hard.

[Hula]

^ YUP.

I really do like that quote from Andrej Pejic about it not being okay for men to be seen as feminine because being feminine is apparently a bad thing. Funny, really, how it's okay for women to be tomboys or exhibit masculine qualities (for the most part—I don't imagine it's enjoyable to be called a lesbian because you comport yourself in a 'manly' way in what is, essentially, a man's world) but the second a man steps out of the confines of his gender, shit hits the fan. One of the worst things a person can be in this world is a woman.

This is probably a random place to come out, but whatever—I'm trans. That means I identify by male pronouns even though I was born female. It feels like feminism is even more relevant to me now than ever because I know that sometimes men are the ones in the best position to lobby for equality. I've seen so many female-to-male transsexuals become complete chauvinist fucking pigs and distance themselves from their birth gender because even they think being a woman is a bad thing.

Society is wonderful.

[Rémy]

Just popping in to say that I disagree with the equating of feminism with gender equality in the title of this thread. Popular feminisms still have a lot of misandry issues to deal with. Feminism was and remains a great paradigm for pursuing women's emancipation. Not so much for pursuing gender equity.

[Hula]

'Feminism is a collection of movements (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_movement) aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism_and_equality) political, economic, and social rights and equal opportunities for women.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism#cite_note-0)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism#cite_note-1)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism#cite_note-2) Its concepts overlap with those of women's rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_rights). Feminism is mainly focused on women's issues, but because feminism seeks gender equality, some feminists argue that men's liberation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_liberation) is a necessary part of feminism, and that men are also harmed by sexism and gender roles. Feminists are "person[s] whose beliefs and behavior[s] are based on feminism."[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism#cite_note-3)'

So sayeth Wikipedia. I'm a feminist. I agree with the movement; I don't agree with the side of it that has come to the fore. It's like organised religion—is it the philosophy itself that's at fault, or the most vocal and influential figures representing it?

[orestes]

Remy, wouldn't you agree that that's an antiquated view of feminism? Nobody here is saying that to be a feminist you must abscond from wearing high heels, marriage, the male penis, blah blah blah. I think as a society we have a lot of misandry issues to deal with, period, regardless of sex or gender.

If shreena has an issue with the thread title, it can be changed. I don't have a problem expanding the subject to gender equality, especially since discussion will probably evolve to include GLBTQ issues.

[Rémy]

I'm more of a facts-on-the-ground kind of person. I'm not interested in theoretical debates about what 'true' feminism, Islam or Christianity might or might not be. I'm interested in the actions of self-identifying feminists, Muslims and Christians (hence why I specifically highlight popular feminisms), because that is what ultimately has the greatest impact on people's lives.

While I'm far from 100% in agreement with her, Quiet (http://quietgirlriot.wordpress.com/2011/04/28/against-feminisms/) Riot (http://goodmenproject.com/gender-sexuality/no-seriously-what-about-the-men/comment-page-1/#comment-58222) Girl (http://goodmenproject.com/gender-sexuality/rape-culture-and-other-feminist-myths/) always has very interesting things to say about the relationship between feminism and gender equality.

[icklekitty]

I agree with Remy that feminism and gender equality are separate but I'm not sure that the thread title needs to be changed...the only confusion might arise if people try to discuss racism etc here.....arguably these are shades of feminism too in that they fall under the wider bracket of deconstruction, but the two concepts are so intertwined that I think there's room for both. I agree that misandry is hideously overlooked, but rather than accept the asinine popular assimilation of feminism, it would be nice to have a space to refer to it in its proper sense.

Basically, the very first thing I learned in sexual difference was:

sex: male/female
gender: man/woman
sexuality: masculine/feminine

Feminism is sexuality and gender equality - while equally and undeniably valid - is gender. I guess gender is the blanket term for a collection of sexualities, and in a way gender is the uber-binary of sexuality.

It's conventional thinking to state that sex is the only thing that doesn't change (it's a medical term). Obviously sex binary is also disappearing, but I'm personally not sure if stuff like being trans or intersex falls under sex or gender. I'm totally open to be convinced either way.

I also think Hula's point about how a man being feminine or being gay is so much more taboo than a woman being masculine or a lesbian (although the way it's accepted is fully irritating). Congratulations on coming to terms with your identity too, Hula. You're not the only trans person on this board, and while you're not going in the direction that I can actively offer help for (surprising number of links between mtw transitioning and having PCOS!), I totes support you.

[littlemonkey613]

Yeah, sorry about this boner kill, especially as a lot of you have heard me yap about this before. A split would probably be wise.




Never, although I have encountered women like you who say "but-but...women need to fight for their rights!" and it's clear to me that you don't understand what feminism is.

That's not very fair. :/ I completely misunderstood what you were saying before and if I didn't make it clear enough in the above post I agree with everything you are saying. Your original post didn't make all your thoughts clear, my bad because I judged based on little context. I said before the door open thing was a really bad example. I would never even attempt to strictly define a "strong man" because I don't even know what that means to me. Bottom line, I don't disagree with you at all.

My last post was supposed to imply that I support you and that anyone who thinks your being some sort of feminist hypocrite has it all wrong.
You even quoted me when I said people instead of just women or whatever. It was a conscious decision for me to use people because I do understand what feminism is. It's actually my passion so its a bit disheartening to hear that someone thinks I don't know what it is. That's why I'm trying to clear the air here.

[orestes]

Hula, do you identify as transgender or transsexual?

[xmd 5a]

Misogyny is so prevalent, accepted as mainstream and impossible to get away from in the media and society at large. I don't believe that any of the above apply to misandy (please correct me if I'm wrong). I've never felt singled out, victimised or scared to go outside based on my gender alone, whereas it seems I can't go a day without witnessing misogyny in some form. I'm not saying misandry doesn't exist or isn't an issue, but I personally believe educating others about and attempting to limit/eliminate misogyny (and homo-/transphobia) is a much more critical area of focus in today's society.

[Hula]

Hula, do you identify as transgender or transsexual?

Transgender. The definitions I've been socialised with always make me feel like 'transgender' is more of an umbrella term for people who identify outside their birth gender, whereas 'transsexual' to me feels more like what I'd be if I took steps to change my body (my sex) to be more like the gender I identify with. As for whether or not I'll actually do that, hah. It was a big enough deal coming to terms with the fact that all those years of trying to be a 'normal' girl were a waste of time and energy.

[orestes]

Good for you, my dear! <3

[theruiner]

Transgender. The definitions I've been socialised with always make me feel like 'transgender' is more of an umbrella term for people who identify outside their birth gender, whereas 'transsexual' to me feels more like what I'd be if I took steps to change my body (my sex) to be more like the gender I identify with. As for whether or not I'll actually do that, hah. It was a big enough deal coming to terms with the fact that all those years of trying to be a 'normal' girl were a waste of time and energy.Not to stray too far off topic (sorry), but I'm with you on that one. I use 'transgender' even though I might end up being a 'transsexual,' but until I'm actually sure that's what it is, and not some other gender disorder, I just use the word transgender, because it's an umbrella term.

[littlemonkey613]

Misogyny is so prevalent, accepted as mainstream and impossible to get away from in the media and society at large. I don't believe that any of the above apply to misandy (please correct me if I'm wrong). I've never felt singled out, victimised or scared to go outside based on my gender alone, whereas it seems I can't go a day without witnessing misogyny in some form. I'm not saying misandry doesn't exist or isn't an issue, but I personally believe educating others about and attempting to limit/eliminate misogyny (and homo-/transphobia) is a much more critical area of focus in today's society.

Yeah its quite horrible. Not a week goes by where I can walk in the street at night and not have some creepy car drive up to me and either cat call, say something disgustingly offensive, or ask me to get in the car. This happens even when I'm not walking alone.

[icklekitty]

Not to stray too far off topic (sorry), but I'm with you on that one. I use 'transgender' even though I might end up being a 'transsexual,' but until I'm actually sure that's what it is, and not some other gender disorder, I just use the word transgender, because it's an umbrella term.



Transgender. The definitions I've been socialised with always make me feel like 'transgender' is more of an umbrella term for people who identify outside their birth gender, whereas 'transsexual' to me feels more like what I'd be if I took steps to change my body (my sex) to be more like the gender I identify with. As for whether or not I'll actually do that, hah. It was a big enough deal coming to terms with the fact that all those years of trying to be a 'normal' girl were a waste of time and energy.

Probably a good time to bring up My Transsexual Summer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmrHZxIpGAA) (if you're in another country and can't see that, just google that phrase). Like you two, there are a couple of people on there that don't really desire to change their sex and are therefore transgender, and some for whom having the designated organs is essential. Shows how much of a spectrum it is - a rainbow as opposed to black and white. Until you brought it up I actually thought (probably naively given all the shit I wrote on the last page) transsexual and transgender were basically the same thing.





My last post was supposed to imply that I support you and that anyone who thinks your being some sort of feminist hypocrite has it all wrong.

Well as you can see I'm pretty vehement about it (and other things I stand for) so I can definitely take on those people! It's even a bit fun, sometimes. If I were someone on MTS I'd probably be Donna (http://www.channel4.com/programmes/my-transsexual-summer/articles/donna). I never get people driving up to me though, and I wear some pretty provocative stuff. I've only ever had gross behaviour from Indian guys (and this is also the only kind of racism I've ever encountered) where they look at me like some kind of unfathomable being and/or ask me where I come from and if I'm married. I haven't experienced it in LA either, but then I was always surrounded by people I knew.

[waffel]

I have always found the perception of gender and society interesting. I myself have been a victim of teasing from not fitting into one of the categories of gender my school mates had. I was eventually affixed with the title of tomboy and was then accepted into the general school society, since I finally had a label. As I got older it morphed into the "eccentric-might be lesbian" since I found none of my classmates date-able. As I look back it was very fascinating, though it hurt like hell at the time. I know I've taken tons of "gender tests" for shits and giggles and I get a neutral result every time. I don't consider myself transgendered either, I'm just me. I guess people are confused by the fact I have "masculine" and "feminine" personality traits and enjoy things that are considered boy or girl stuff. I'm not an subservient emotional wreck who needs someone to save me. Nor am I trying to be "one of the guys", I just act what feels natural, and I guess that intimidates/offends people. Though this can be applied to all things, since people are scared of/frustrated by something they can't understand or goes outside of their categories.

[theruiner]

Like you two, there are a couple of people on there that don't really desire to change their sex and are therefore transgender, and some for whom having the designated organs is essential.Just to clarify (and again going off-topic, sorry) but I don't know yet if I'm going to change my sex. It's a definite possibility, but I haven't figured it all out yet. I figure since transgender is a blanket term that kind of covers anyone who doesn't fall strictly into the "accepted" gender norms of society (at least that's my understanding of the definition), it's a good enough term until and unless I'm sure about things.

But yeah, there are definitely lots of different types of people who fall under the umbrella. And the gender norms of society absolutely do apply to men, too. That's why I can't be myself around most people. I have to behave a certain socially accepted way, at least for now.

[Hula]

And the gender norms of society absolutely do apply to men, too. That's why I can't be myself around most people. I have to behave a certain socially accepted way, at least for now.

To commandeer what you, theruiner, have said and continue to cleverly twist this conversation to the original topic—it's a lot easier for me to present in a way that fits my preferred gender than it is for the transwomen I've met in my town. I was going to this trans group every month for a while (too busy these days, unfortunately) and we met up for its second anniversary at a local gay bar. There were gay men in that bar heckling some of the transwomen. Granted, these were older men and thanks to societal conditioning they probably wouldn't be okay with the drag part of the gay scene either, but I was still stunned.

It seems like it's easier for me to also openly admit I'm a transman than it is for a lot of transwomen, as much in real life as online; being trans is a big deal in and of itself, but when you throw in that your preferred gender is female, that you want to go from being a ~red-blooded male~ to wearing dresses and growing your hair long, it's like it's a thousand times worse. And god forbid you announce you're a transman only to show that you still have a feminine side...

[Elke]

First of all: you go Hula! I'm glad that you're being yourself, whatever that is.

I wanted to say something about misandry, because I think pitting it against misogyny it's doomed to come out like not a big deal at all. But like people have said before: you can't reduce feminism to being just about women. Maybe first wave feminism was (though I'm not convinced of that either), but second and third wave feminism are as much about male stereotypes and breaking through the binary heteronormative matrix as what's currently dubbed queer studies.

Look at it this way: if the dominant idea is that a woman is weak and needs protecting, needs a strong provider; then the dominant idea is that man is strong and a providor, a protector. Men, for all the time that women were victimized and oppressed, were not allowed to be weak, were not allowed to fail, were not allowed to want or seek protection. Not only do we link violence and masculinity in a both a positive and a negative way with surprising ease, we don't seem to willing to face the consequence of the masculine mold: if a man who is deemed weak is mocked by his peers and possibly ostracized, then a man is going to do everything to not come across as weak. When faced with problems he can't solve, be it at home or at work, he might turn to those aspects of strength that are within his reach. The hyper prominent link between masculinity and brute force, physical strength and physical control, will ease the path towards violence, maybe even make it a logical next step in making sure weakness is covered up. [Not enough work has yet been done to verify this theory, but I do think it's a very interesting research path to follow.]
The violence that we see in men, directed not only at women but at other men, and that we condemn when it's misogynic or homophobic, might not be about asserting domincance or the sheer ability to use force; but about pure fear.
Just like women will try everything to fit the female stereotype, for instance by being beautiful or appearing nurturing; men will try everything to fit the male stereotype.

To liberate biological men from the confines of that matrix, is to liberate everyone, I think.

[sick among the pure]

This is probably a random place to come out, but whatever—I'm trans. That means I identify by male pronouns even though I was born female. It feels like feminism is even more relevant to me now than ever because I know that sometimes men are the ones in the best position to lobby for equality. I've seen so many female-to-male transsexuals become complete chauvinist fucking pigs and distance themselves from their birth gender because even they think being a woman is a bad thing.

Society is wonderful.

Same here (makes me wonder how many transpeople we have here) and I have come across a few people (online) that get that way after transitioning, both FtM and MtF. I can understand where it comes from, the intense hatred of being born the wrong sex could easily skew your view of that sex. That doesn't make it right, but I can understand why that happens sometimes. I don't personally feel that way about females, btw.

[icklekitty]

Men, for all the time that women were victimized and oppressed, were not allowed to be weak, were not allowed to fail, were not allowed to want or seek protection. Not only do we link violence and masculinity in a both a positive and a negative way with surprising ease, we don't seem to willing to face the consequence of the masculine mold: if a man who is deemed weak is mocked by his peers and possibly ostracized, then a man is going to do everything to not come across as weak. When faced with problems he can't solve, be it at home or at work, he might turn to those aspects of strength that are within his reach. The hyper prominent link between masculinity and brute force, physical strength and physical control, will ease the path towards violence, maybe even make it a logical next step in making sure weakness is covered up. [Not enough work has yet been done to verify this theory, but I do think it's a very interesting research path to follow.]
The violence that we see in men, directed not only at women but at other men, and that we condemn when it's misogynic or homophobic, might not be about asserting domincance or the sheer ability to use force; but about pure fear.
Just like women will try everything to fit the female stereotype, for instance by being beautiful or appearing nurturing; men will try everything to fit the male stereotype.

To liberate biological men from the confines of that matrix, is to liberate everyone, I think.

I couldn't agree more. Real men don't cry, real men don't talk about their problems, real men get on with it. So real men end up cheating on their wives, beating up people, and drinking themselves crazy. It's a real transcendent moment when you realise that a violent person isn't someone to be feared, they're someone in fear themselves.

I'm also reminded of those "strong women" that put on a front of being brave and holding their families together while hiding their own fear/abuse/pain. Most people either act out or behave bolshy when they're terrified. It makes me wonder if this has something to do with the fact that "behaving masculine" is the desirable thing, in that all that's happening is that the crisis is shifting rather than disappearing. The solution, as you say Elke, is to (re)invent the mechanics of sexuality altogether. Take away the chains of the existing rules, rather than assign aspiration to one extrinsic role.

[Elke]

I do think that it's migrating rather than actually disappearing. I see a lot of women around me who seem to think that being an independent woman means taking on some stereotypically masculine traits. I see that in a lot of my gay students, too, by the way: the gay boys and the gay girls and the gay inbetweeners - they all want to be men, in some respect, or how they think men would or should act. Because the link between masculinity and strength, strength and respect is so strong, imho.
On the other hand, I know from my own teaching experience that I get respect from my students in part because I try to be as honest with them as I can: when I feel like crap, I feel like crap; when someone is upset and it moves me, I don't mind if they see me cry... So I know that respect can not only be gained through being tough and hanging in there, on the contrary even, but still a lot of coworkers tell me I shouldn't show so much weakness to my students, because they won't respect me anymore.

I'm part of a duo heading our school's gender team, and we both go insane over the questions and problems thrown at us. For instance: our closeted gay principal doesn't want us to discuss homosexuality too much. It should be about gender, not orientation. So when I quickly ran through the terminology at our first meeting of the year, because we both felt we were just not using the terms correctly and that using them correctly is a starting point for changing things in the school, he started throwing daggers at me when I brought up sexual orientation because I wanted to explain how you can't use a persons sex or gender expression to guess at their orientation, but that our social gender codes do steer people to exploring or not exploring certain types of relationships based on their supposed gender roles. However, when I said: Assuming that little girly boys will one day come out as gay is probably as harmful as assuming little boyish boys won't, he almost cheered. Because, in his mind, that wipes the issue of orientation off the table.
The more I work on the issue of gender in education, the more I feel like it's such a futile effort - you can't change an entire culture by giving gender neutral examples in class. And on the other hand, I feel like we should put in so much more effort, because the existing codes are destroying people.
However, when we talk about it in the team, it's always about the obvious exceptions like How would we handle a transperson in our school? and never about the tiny little things, like Why does the principal kiss the women for new year, and not the men? Because, hey, let's all act normal.

The whole field of gender and education is focussed on neuroscience, though, which is not something I'm a big fan of. So while I'm itching to do something, science isn't really giving me anythign to do.

[allegro]

I believe ETS was down when Stephen Ira wrote this piece (http://supermattachine.wordpress.com/2011/09/19/why-chaz-bono-is-a-misogynist-who-does-not-represent-us/); I think it's really interesting (I had to go look up a few of the terms).

What do you all think?

[Elke]

Well, first of all, I'm not sure Chaz is making Chaz a spokesperson for the trans community (there's not even a real trans community, since a lot of transsexuals for instance identify completely with the binary gender of 'their choice', and cut all ties with other transpeople once they've had their surgeries completed). I think he's just the most accessible transgender for the media at the moment. I think he's also very clearly describing his journey, and how he feels right now. When he was doing interviews about being a lesbian, coming out as gay all those years ago, I seem to recall he was equally radical about that (he didn't do too many interviews, and most of them were about Cher, but I should probably look them up again).

However, one of the things that struck me is that all he's actually doing, is parroting the patented lgbt reply to questions about sexual orientation: But we can't help it, we're born this way. I remember a thread a whole while back where there was a discussion about the question whether you could even posit the hypothetical If homosexuality were a choice... because that's opening the doors to all kinds of therapies and whatnot.

I think biology is the easiest counterargument to give, and it's given everywhere nowadays. It's hormones, it's memes, it's birth defects... All of this is better than saying I don't know what it is, because that means you might be able to help it. That means it might be socialization, it might be upbrining, it might be nurture instead of nature, it might even be a choice. The horror!
It's why I hate the idea of Lady Gaga's Born This Way as some kind of queer anthem. It's reinforcing the idea that it's okay to be different, because you can't help it, not because it's simply okay.

The fact is that a lot of things are natural, a lot of things are biology: rape, for instance, is biology. Warfare, violence, greed, selfishness, murder, territorial spats... they are all rooted in biology, but they are clearly not okay. And a lot of things we do approve of and even think of as human ideals, don't seem to be natural at all: monogamy springs to mind, as well as altriusm of Father Damianeque proportions, peace, amoral science and human equality.
Without wanting to bring up the very difficult nature/culture debate (which is difficult because gender is a large part of it), but pointing to biology simply doesn't cut it.

However, it's the dominant lgbt narrative, and so I don't see how you can blame a guy for actually using it.

[And, within the narrow confines of The World Accoring to Chaz, I've just proven myself to be at least partly female, because I obviously talk too much. Sorry for the rambling post.]

[botley]

I believe ETS was down when Stephen Ira wrote this piece (http://supermattachine.wordpress.com/2011/09/19/why-chaz-bono-is-a-misogynist-who-does-not-represent-us/); I think it's really interesting (I had to go look up a few of the terms).

What do you all think?
It starts with a slightly stuffy, overly academic way of looking at Chaz's quest to bring attention and understanding to the plight of trans people. Chaz used an example from "men" in the classic cis sense and Stephen took him literally to mean all self-identified men, trans and cis, which leads to a contradiction. I mean, score one point for academic rigor, but it only proves that most people don't yet have an everyday grasp of language that's evolved enough to really handle these distinctions in everyday discourse. Accommodating that by using a slightly fuzzy/un-evolved example just to make the point is different from being "prescriptivist" or exclusionary.

Like you, I had to look some definitions up as well. But that's because you and I are already sympathetic enough towards the issue and care enough to try and understand. You can't go on the national news and start throwing around all varieties of trans terminology before gaining the public's sympathy a little; this topic is confusing and not well covered by the media yet. The first step towards acceptance is getting people on a broad spectrum to accept that these issues exist and are a real problem, not forcing them to use the proper group-specific pronoun.

It's hard to grasp for people who can't even begin to imagine a non-binary gender system that someone could identify as neither a man or a woman, or both man and woman, or some fluid combination. Right now I can't even imagine how a reporter in the mainstream media who understands that and can write in such a way to communicate the heart of the piece could do it without alienating some non-binary identifiers. Did the ABC piece also incorporate misogynistic attitudes? Yes. Does that mean Chaz is misogynist? I don't know because I've never met him and have no idea if that's a true representation of his character. Was I shocked when I read Chaz's "birth defect" example? Yes, but well-meaning people make insensitive remarks like that all the time. Those were careless remarks and, rightly or wrongly, he's being brought down a peg for making them.

But I would have thought, in the wake of his "outing", that Ira would have more empathy for Chaz because they've both had what I can only imagine are harrowing confrontations with how the mass media machine works; maybe that Ira would cut Chaz some slack for the way his examples (while not academically correct and certainly incomplete) weren't meant to be true representations of everyone. Ira can't have it both ways: he doesn't want to have limiting terms and examples pushed on trans people as a whole, but he also feels comfortable labelling Chaz "a misogynist" for some remarks that whether Chaz wanted them in print or not are now somehow his defining moment as a spokesperson.

[Aaron]

"It is not a matter of toppling the order so as to replace it - that amounts to the same thing in the end" is a quote from The Sex Which Is Not One by Luce Irigaray (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luce_Irigaray). Feminism is about the discourse sexuality (masculine/feminine), not gender (man/woman) as it is being used popularly. Hence hence feminism, not womenism. In fact, as a branch of deconstruction, it seeks to dispel all binary definitions, where one sex is not defined by the other (indeed, to reach a point where there is no "one or the other"). Michel Foucault (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_History_of_Sexuality) went on to write some truly amazing things about human sexuality (he's a brilliant cultural theorist overall).
Griselda Pollock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griselda_Pollock), who taught me, often said that her proudest achievement was being a successful wife, mother, and feminist. I am comfortable and open with my sexuality and yet I like to live my life as if it were 60 years ago. Hi, I'm a feminist (Of Actual Feminism) who would like a big strong man to take her away from this big bad world. And someone who has the confidence (or indeed balls) to be comfortable in their own skin and act in a way that I therefore find tolerable is hard to come by.

I love reading this thread because--full disclosure--a big part of my major in college is gender and queer studies (the others are critical race studies, and postcolonial studies). I can't tell you how happy I was to see Irigaray mentioned. She's one of my favorite theorists (along with Foucault, of course, whose theories permeate my entire field of study--critical theory and social justice). It is true that there are many feminisms out there, some more gender-centric than others. But there's a reason it is called "feminism", still, and that's because the immediate liberation is for women. But, like colonialism, and other forms of oppression, the very first thing that the movement fails to recognize is that the oppressors truly end up oppressing themselves as much or more than the oppressed. Both in that men are forced into their own binary role, and everything else mentioned in this thread, but also in the moral cost of being male (or white, or heterosexual, etc.) and existing only to prop up the patriarchal, racist, heterosexist structures of power in society. To borrow a term from Frantz Fanon, men (especially white men) are reduced to what Fanon called "enfranchised slaves", meaning they have the illusion of investment in society, that they will benefit from the status quo, and may not be actively prejudiced, but are not actively anti-sexist, or anti-racist, etc., but in reality, are being used by the same structures of power for that very purpose. To prop up the system. The Sex Which is Not One, which you refer to, icklekitty, is really wonderful, and I encourage everyone to read the chapter entitled Women On The Market (http://caringlabor.wordpress.com/2010/11/10/luce-irigaray-women-on-the-market) for an amazing anthropological lens into just the kind of feminism that I think is most important.

[icklekitty]

I believe ETS was down when Stephen Ira wrote this piece (http://supermattachine.wordpress.com/2011/09/19/why-chaz-bono-is-a-misogynist-who-does-not-represent-us/); I think it's really interesting (I had to go look up a few of the terms).

What do you all think?

Given what the people above has said, he shouldn't be referring to himself as transgendered but transsexual if the physical components are this important for him (I think). Also:

“I think of it as hormones that, you know, went in the brain but not in the body, and that’s all being transgender is. It’s just that the sex of your body and the gender of the brain don’t match up.”

is just plain wrong on so many levels. Sex and gender aren't there to "match up". And I naturally have more testosterone in my body than oestrogen, but I have absolutely no desire to make my sex "match up" with that; quite the opposite. I am not trans anything.

I've got to admit that I also find women who talk for ages boring too. But it's the result of having more testosterone in your body?! I don't know if this also implies that all men who can tolerate a woman talking should get a hormone test and if there isn't enough testosterone "in his brain" be advised to have a sex change. The high sex drive thing I don't think can be true either - his girlfriend says the sex is more frequent. So his sex drive still matches hers. Ask any straight man out there whether it's his sex drive that dictates the sex life between him and his partner(!) Getting over the problems of hormone treatment and becoming comfortable with your body is probably what helped that, IMO.

HOWEVER - it's a slight leap to say that Chaz is being prescriptive. A bit misinformed and not the best articulated person, yes. Sure, he could have made it more explicit that he was only talking about his experience, but similarly, in the context of his interview, I'm not sure that you would generally deduce that he was saying "and therefore this is how all transpeople feel". There's always a danger that people are going to see these sorts of explanations as blanket terms. Arguably if you're in the public eye it's a great opportunity to represent your people, but given how subjective each of these experiences are and given how stressful and scary it is, the extra pressure of being obliged to be a figurehead for his cause shouldn't be expected of him.

A lot of people seem to misconstrue personal expressions as prescriptivism in general - but that's not for here.


I love reading this thread because--full disclosure--a big part of my major in college is gender and queer studies (the others are critical race studies, and postcolonial studies). I can't tell you how happy I was to see Irigaray mentioned. She's one of my favorite theorists (along with Foucault, of course, whose theories permeate my entire field of study--critical theory and social justice).

Your course sounds a lot like my undergrad - this was my course (http://www.leeds.ac.uk/fine_art/01_Undergraduate/Cultural_Studies/cs_ug_1.html#cs).

[orestes]

It starts with a slightly stuffy, overly academic way of looking at Chaz's quest to bring attention and understanding to the plight of trans people. Chaz used an example from "men" in the classic cis sense and Stephen took him literally to mean all self-identified men, trans and cis, which leads to a contradiction. I mean, score one point for academic rigor, but it only proves that most people don't yet have an everyday grasp of language that's evolved enough to really handle these distinctions in everyday discourse. Accommodating that by using a slightly fuzzy/un-evolved example just to make the point is different from being "prescriptivist" or exclusionary.

Like you, I had to look some definitions up as well. But that's because you and I are already sympathetic enough towards the issue and care enough to try and understand. You can't go on the national news and start throwing around all varieties of trans terminology before gaining the public's sympathy a little; this topic is confusing and not well covered by the media yet. The first step towards acceptance is getting people on a broad spectrum to accept that these issues exist and are a real problem, not forcing them to use the proper group-specific pronoun.

It's hard to grasp for people who can't even begin to imagine a non-binary gender system that someone could identify as neither a man or a woman, or both man and woman, or some fluid combination. Right now I can't even imagine how a reporter in the mainstream media who understands that and can write in such a way to communicate the heart of the piece could do it without alienating some non-binary identifiers. Did the ABC piece also incorporate misogynistic attitudes? Yes. Does that mean Chaz is misogynist? I don't know because I've never met him and have no idea if that's a true representation of his character. Was I shocked when I read Chaz's "birth defect" example? Yes, but well-meaning people make insensitive remarks like that all the time. Those were careless remarks and, rightly or wrongly, he's being brought down a peg for making them.

But I would have thought, in the wake of his "outing", that Ira would have more empathy for Chaz because they've both had what I can only imagine are harrowing confrontations with how the mass media machine works; maybe that Ira would cut Chaz some slack for the way his examples (while not academically correct and certainly incomplete) weren't meant to be true representations of everyone. Ira can't have it both ways: he doesn't want to have limiting terms and examples pushed on trans people as a whole, but he also feels comfortable labelling Chaz "a misogynist" for some remarks that whether Chaz wanted them in print or not are now somehow his defining moment as a spokesperson.

For the mainstream media, transgender and transsexuality is a gray area so when it is highlighted it is often with embarrassing results, as evidenced by this ABC segment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkMmYPbbOd4

Such insensitive and rude questions to ask.

Also, if I have to hear Aerosmith's "Dude Looks Like a Lady" one more time, I'll puke.

[orestes]

Amazing read. (http://togetherforjacksoncountykids.tumblr.com/post/14314184651/one-teachers-approach-to-preventing-gender-bullying-in)

[halloween]

Amazing read. (http://togetherforjacksoncountykids.tumblr.com/post/14314184651/one-teachers-approach-to-preventing-gender-bullying-in)

Damn, that really is awesome.

[theruiner]

That is incredible. Thank you for sharing, Orestes!

[Elke]

That's a very interesting example of how it can be done. I'm going to make this reading material for our next gender team meeting. Thank you!

[icklekitty]

They're thinking of implementing this here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/8944209/Schoolchildren-could-be-given-lessons-in-being-transgender.html

[Alexandros]

Amazing read. (http://togetherforjacksoncountykids.tumblr.com/post/14314184651/one-teachers-approach-to-preventing-gender-bullying-in)

What saddens me is that many people who read this are bound to be outraged by the "corrupting" methods of the teacher.

[Tea]

I find it quite fascinating, and a good argument for the truth behind gender/sexual differences, that you can see it in brain structures. (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20032-transsexual-differences-caught-on-brain-scan.html)

What do people here think about the process of delaying puberty to give a chance at gender change?

[Hula]

I find it quite fascinating, and a good argument for the truth behind gender/sexual differences, that you can see it in brain structures. (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20032-transsexual-differences-caught-on-brain-scan.html)

What do people here think about the process of delaying puberty to give a chance at gender change?

I'm for it, to a certain extent. I follow a lot of FTMs on Tumblr and one of them isn't yet on T, but has been taking hormone blockers for months to prevent oestrogen building up in his system; the results are about as radical as if he'd been taking testosterone in that time because he's quite young, so his body seems to be doing its own thing and filling in where transitional therapy would've.

[theruiner]

I find it quite fascinating, and a good argument for the truth behind gender/sexual differences, that you can see it in brain structures. (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20032-transsexual-differences-caught-on-brain-scan.html)

What do people here think about the process of delaying puberty to give a chance at gender change?That's such a tricky question, and one I'm on the fence about.

The only thing that would concern me about delaying puberty, as great as the benefits are, would be the risks. This is not something I've really researched, admittedly. If there are some sort of permanent changes that can arise from even that, I'm not so sure it's a good idea. On the other hand, it would have been a GODSEND for me, for example, because now I've got broad shoulders, big hands and, the coup de grâce, hair on my chest and abdomen (a lot of it) and that's going to cost me upwards of ten grand to get rid of, on top of the probably 15 to 20 thousand it'll cost to actually transition. And for me that literally might be what stops me from transitioning, because I don't know that I can ever swing that. So there are real, tangible and BIG advantages to delaying puberty for someone who ultimately decides that transition is the way they want to go.

[icklekitty]

My friend wrote something hilarious on the Internet which you might enjoy http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/04/30/gendered-marketing-its-not-just-for-girls/

[Elke]

Notre Dame's real dead woman (http://www.salon.com/2013/01/17/notre_dames_double_standard)

It's not as big a story as the Indian rape scandal, and perhaps that makes it infinitely more interesting.

[hobochic]

"GirlWritesWhat" explains why she is in favor of gender equality but refuses to call herself a feminist:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqEeCCuFFO8

[aggroculture]

http://manboobz.com/
This makes me chuckle/cringe.

[littlemonkey613]

"GirlWritesWhat" explains why she is in favor of gender equality but refuses to call herself a feminist:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqEeCCuFFO8

I fucking hate this. I'm going to write a giant post about it soon. No no no no no. I find it hard to believe that this person has really delved deep into feminist theory since the generalizations are so staggering. This video completely ignores the great work of so many feminist theorists who understand better than this lady, the way systems of dominance overlap, intersect and become paradoxical. I hate this line of thought people take that implies oppression somehow debunks the existence of other systematic oppression. Feminism is important because it reveals specifics about our society that would otherwise go unnoticed or be even more extremely difficult to deconstruct. It's more of a living breathing study of oppression than a blanket ideology.

[Hula]

In my experience, people dismiss feminism far too quickly. I was involved in a gaming group for a while, which was (predictably, I guess) populated for the most part by guys. A lot of those guys were very obnoxious, very opinionated, and very quick to jump on me when they found out I was a feminist. It was the first time I ever came across a group of males of the age 18+ who were disparaging of feminism because of all the 'bad' it did for women's rights and yet could turn around five minutes later and make the most sexist of comments.

It annoys me even more when women who actively campaign for equality cite feminism as a bad thing. People who call themselves feminists are trying to do the same things you're trying to do! Even if you don't agree with things that people who call themselves feminists have done, you're not doing anyone any good by badmouthing the cause as a whole. Sure, there are shitty feminists out there. There are feminists who completely ignore or erase the experiences of women of colour, transwomen, etc. Not everyone is like that, though.

[allegro]

How is feminism "bad" for women's rights? Those young people are obviously misinformed or haven't done their homework.

[icklekitty]

I think a lot of these people are taking the media's definition of feminism, which is not fucking feminism. It's status quo flipping.

[xmd 5a]

"I'm not a feminist but..." is like the bizzaro version of "I'm not racist but..."
In my experience most of what follows those statements is exactly what the speaker is professing not to be.

It really pisses me off that the word feminist is used like an insult (often coupled with an ugly misogynist slur). It's just as childish as using "gay" as a pejorative. Since when is equality/self-determination a bad thing?

[aggroculture]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/20/naked-female-warrior-femen-topless-protesters
Opinions on FEMEN? I don't really know what to think. I am a bit confused, if intrigued.

[aggroculture]

Maybe time to revive this thread?

This is a pretty good article on liberal white feminism and "leaning in": http://www.racismreview.com/blog/2014/03/18/white-corporate-feminism/

Also, I guess I got my answer on FEMEN: (NSFW):
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/the-man-who-made-femen-new-film-outs-victor-svyatski-as-the-mastermind-behind-the-protest-group-and-its-breastbaring-stunts-8797042.html

[Volband]

Of course this thread exists... Checking icklekitty's posts on the first page gave me cancer, because she was bashing me for essentially the same level of thoughts she had. And guess who was the most offended in the other thread? Well, I give her the benefit of doubt (for the sake of my own health and sanity), because 2,5 years passed since then, so maybe the world turned with her.

Anyway: "The “ladies” at Stormfront are in favor of the right to equal pay for equal work, the right to have an abortion (although they’re conflicted about terminating pregnancies that would result in the birth of a white child)"

I almost vomited in my mouth, but then I remembered I'm on a journey to gain weight, so held my ground. That sentence is even funnier when you realize we are not in 1914, but 2014.

[icklekitty]

It was a split from another thread so the context is removed and it doesn't say what you said. Gender is not binary.

[Volband]

I read deeper in this thread, and I guess you are right, it was out of context, but it was still a sexist situation. Basically you expected him to "man up"; you could've easily asked him about his intentions, but a man should be confident, right?


What saddens me is that many people who read this are bound to be outraged by the "corrupting" methods of the teacher.
And holy shit that article - and the 100% positive reactions to it - just blew my mind. What saddens Me, that there are people who are saddened by the fact someone would find that method corrupting.

"It's okay to be different" and every one of you just went crazy over it, because she's such an open-minded angel. I do not doubt her good intentions, but seriously, not even one of you said that MAYBE - just maybe - it's a bit too much? It's not amazing, it's the beginning of an era where your 13 years old son will wear dresses and make up, and you will face a crossroad. What will you say?
1. I'm sorry, you can't dress like that - because you think it's wrong
2. I'm sorry, you can't dress like that - because you are afraid he'll be mocked to death
3. You look gorgeous darling - because you think you are so ahead of your time

Am I exaggerating? I honestly don't know, because I can't predict such an unnatural and forced society shift, but this is how I envision it.

I find it scary how trying to be open-minded can turn into being so narrow-minded. Ally should wear Tony Hawk shirts without getting bullied, and everyone who bullies her should be talked with. I whole-heartedly agree. Then we skip some paragraphs and it's okay for boys to polish their nails*, and let's talk about same sex marriage, cuz why the fuck not, we might as well, right?

Let me get one thing clear: what is your opinion about being gay (or trans- anything)?
1. It's a normal thing
2. It's an abnormal thing

I know you could cheat by learning biology for example, but I'm genuenly interested, because I have a gut feeling that some of you might pick 1. No, it's not a normal thing, and while we shoud accept and tolerate it (like we should treat every sick people the same, whether it's a physical or mental disability), we should not advertise it as being normal. Is that guy with only one leg normal? No, but he can be just as a great guy as someone with two legs. Is that autistic girl normal? No, she's not, but she can be just as a great girl as someone without suck a condition. Is that gay couple normal? No, they are not, but they can be just as a great companion to hang out with as any straight couple.

So, if you are gonna teach the young ones about same sex marriage being okay, you should also add howewer that it's NOT normal. That is if you don't want to raise distorted children who will spend a good portion of their time at psychologists or psychiatrists. When your little boy will have no fucking idea what does girl and boy mean, because he is a person, not a boy, then you will have some serious shit to deal with. It's all puking rainbows and butterflies to the outside with this "polish your nails son, go ahead, you are not a boy, you are a beautiful person", but in reality you are just raping his (or her, or its, or make up a 4th one, really) mind.

Yesterday I almost said males should support feminism more, because - no matter how ironic that is -, only then it would get faster and bigger results, but reading this article and witnessing the reactions to it completely changed my mind. I don't want to live in a world where I'm a goddamned sexist asshole for buying a car to my son, or a barbie to my daughter, or where I should not treat them differently. To be honest I wouldn't even let such people to raise a child, because he/she is not a lab rat, and there are enormous consequences of how you raise someone. We should work towards a society that's accepting, and not ruining it, and blurring every line until people just stand there wondering "what the fuck am I?".

It's sick how lifting up women and fighting for their equal respect in society can turn into such an abomination.

*And don't give me that rockstar crap, because how on earth will you teach someone that polishing your nails black can be manly, but pink is girlish. "Why is black manly? Why is pink girlish?" - he might ask, for very good reasons, because the whole damn time you were polluting that poor boy's mind with trying to erase genders from his conscious, then all of a sudden, there ARE differences, and there ARE rights or wrongs.

[aggroculture]

Why is it so important for you to be "normal"? I sometimes feel I've wasted my life trying to fit in, to be "normal" so I can be accepted and loved by everyone. Guess what? It didn't happen.
And also: gay animals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals Very normal.

[icklekitty]

I read deeper in this thread, and I guess you are right, it was out of context, but it was still a sexist situation. Basically you expected him to "man up"; you could've easily asked him about his intentions, but a man should be confident, right?

A male is not born a Man. Gender is not binary.

There is a difference between having a feeling and being prescriptive.

[playwithfire]

There is a difference between common and normal, Volband. Being gay is perfectly normal.

And who the hell cares if your kid wants to wear nail polish? Seriously. Teach your child to respect themselves and others, to think critically and be responsible.

And if you think supporting your child's expression is “erasing gender, " I really don't understand. Gender roles are everywhere.

[Volband]

Why is it so important for you to be "normal"? I sometimes feel I've wasted my life trying to fit in, to be "normal" so I can be accepted and loved by everyone. Guess what? It didn't happen.
And also: gay animals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals Very normal.
I just read it yesterday! But it only proves that animals can be abnormal as well. They can have sick infants too, nothing new. I don't know why do you fight against the tide here, when it should be clear for everyone that if homosexuality was normal, only plants would exist. In our very core, we want two things: survive and reproduce. That is normal. Anything that would interfere with this is due to some kind of abnormal condition, like depression or homosexuality. It's not something you choose, no one ever said "Hmm, I guess I'll be depressed/homosexual!".

But let's define normal, before I could answer your question. What you refer here is probably "being girly" for you, when you probably found "boyish" stuff more interesting. It's cool if you want to play with cars instead of dolls (just to keep it simple), it's not cool that someone wants to wsh yor mind that a.) you are a girl, you CANT play with those b.) you are nothing, you are a person, you can do whatever you want (except murder and such, ofc.).

The normal thing for me would be if we'd be in an agreement where we only argued about where to draw the line (like accepting that pink nail polish is not okay for a boy), and not that we should even draw a line, or if a genetic flaw that results in a couple that is incapable of reproduction is normal or not.

There are interesting topics, like whether girls should shave their armpits, or how manly a boy/man needs to be, but it's hard to get there, when you dig an article that encourages erasing the "me" from the individual. Today a boy feels good if he can protect his girlfriend, and his girlfriend feels good that he can rest in the safety of his bf's arms. That article creates a tomorrow, where not only no one knows what should they do, they don't even know how to feel about what others are doing to them.

[Volband]

There is a difference between common and normal, Volband. Being gay is perfectly normal.

And who the hell cares if your kid wants to wear nail polish? Seriously. Teach your child to respect themselves and others, to think critically and be responsible.

And if you think supporting your child's expression is “erasing gender, " I really don't understand. Gender roles are everywhere.
Again, it's not normal. We can search for another adjective to make everyone feel better.

A kid wants to do a lot of things. Try to be a yes-man during his or her early yars and lets see how she/he turns out later on.

Gender roles are only there everywhere, because this society was still raised in a world where there are boys and girls. Why do I not think of wearing a bikini top? I don't know, that's how I was raised. Maybe once I wanted to, but my parents said it's something only a girl would wear, so I stopped yearning for it.

[aggroculture]

What tells you sex is only for procreation? If that were the case we should only fuck when we want a child (here is where I get to send a big "fuck you" to Paul of Tarsus - single-handedly responsible for ruining sex for 2000 years).
What about sex, for purely pleasure? Most sex that most humans will ever have will not result in a pregnancy.


Your idea of "normal" is an assumption, a prejudice, an opinion, the product of an ideology, nothing more.

[Volband]

What tells you sex is only for procreation? If that were the case we should only fuck when we want a child (here is where I get to send a big "fuck you" to Paul of Tarsus - single-handedly responsible for ruining sex for 2000 years).
What about sex, for purely pleasure? Most sex that most humans will ever have will not result in a pregnancy.


Your idea of "normal" is an assumption, a prejudice, an opinion, the product of an ideology, nothing more.
What you are talking about is bisexuality. If you are homosexual you only seek a partner from your own sex, thus you can not produce a new entity.

My idea of normal is backed by evolution, and this is one of those rare examples where evolution and religion are pretty much on the same side, at least in terms of accepting what normal is in this case. If being homosexual (and only homosexual, I don't care if some bull wants to screw another one for his own joy) would be normal, then the fact we exist today is all thanks to a series of super lucky coin tosses, because we could've easily went extinct by not being able to reproduce.

[playwithfire]

Ohhhh my god. Humans do so many things beyond our supposed evolutionary purpose. Being homosexual, by your argument, isn't any more “abnormal" than watching TV. Something for pleasure and not a survival drive.

Sex does NOT happen purely for reproduction. Stahp.

[Mantra]

No, it's not a normal thing, and while we shoud accept and tolerate it (like we should treat every sick people the same, whether it's a physical or mental disability), we should not advertise it as being normal. Is that guy with only one leg normal? No, but he can be just as a great guy as someone with two legs. Is that autistic girl normal? No, she's not, but she can be just as a great girl as someone without suck a condition. Is that gay couple normal? No, they are not, but they can be just as a great companion to hang out with as any straight couple.

What you're describing is sort of like a gender/sexuality version of "Separate But Equal" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_but_equal) (maybe you could call it "Abnormal But Tolerated"?) and it simply doesn't work. You can't call someone "weird" and then turn around and claim to be "tolerating" them. The very act of calling them abnormal is intolerant, because it draws a line in the sand and places you on the inside and them on the outside. It's inherently hostile. And as soon as you label a group of people like that they will be oppressed, because that "weird" label is used both as a motivator and as a justification for abuse.

[Fixer808]

What you are talking about is bisexuality. If you are homosexual you only seek a partner from your own sex, thus you can not produce a new entity.

My idea of normal is backed by evolution, and this is one of those rare examples where evolution and religion are pretty much on the same side, at least in terms of accepting what normal is in this case. If being homosexual (and only homosexual, I don't care if some bull wants to screw another one for his own joy) would be normal, then the fact we exist today is all thanks to a series of super lucky coin tosses, because we could've easily went extinct by not being able to reproduce.

I suppose, by that reasoning, people like me (heterosexual, do not in any way want to reproduce) are abnormal as well, because I'm obviously not perpetuating the species.

[allegro]

"Normal" means "according with, constituting, or not deviating from the norm"

Norm: standard, model, or pattern regarded as typical

Normal:

"1. conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.
2. serving to establish a standard"

[playwithfire]

There is/can be ***depending on your chosen definition*** a difference between common and normal. In addition to "conforming to the standard or common type," it can also mean something occurring naturally (like homosexual behavior). The quick summary (not the full definition with the multiple possible meanings) from Merriam-Webster says "usual or ordinary, not strange, mentally or physically healthy." Homosexual behavior is at least half of those.

Is he saying being gay is uncommon, or that being gay/homosexual behavior is unnatural and strange?

[allegro]

I have no idea. I keep seeing "not normal" as if this is a bad thing, which is not true. It just means not the norm. Period. Even when used in the context of mental health, it means not the norm. Common, normal: same thing.

But it doesn't necessarily mean UNHEALTHY.

Society incorrectly defines "abnormal" as always meaning "unhealthy." Because we want everything to be normal. "That's not normal!"

Even if we're talking about "abnormal" cell growth, we're not necessarily talking about cancer or something deadly or unhealthy.

But women weren't allowed to wear pants on the floor of the US Senate until new IL Senator Carol Moseley Braun showed up in a pair of pants one day because she didn't know it wasn't normal.

Homosexuality isn't "normal" by common standards, no. But that doesn't make it unhealthy or unacceptable. And the longer it's around, the more "normal" it will become. To society, anyway. To anthropologists, maybe not so much.

[playwithfire]

True.

I will say that it's funny to me to think of homosexuality as uncommon given the queer fantasia I live in. I know it's not like that everywhere, but that's my normal.

[allegro]

By reproductive standards, it's not "normal."

But, I don't have kids, so I'm not "normal," either.

I think the point here is that a little boy wearing pink nail polish to school isn't normal, but it's not indicative of any underlying problem, nor is it unhealthy. However, because it is not normal it would most likely lead to lots of difficulty for that boy, because children tend to shun and even bully and abuse other children who are not normal. So parents are faced with a terrible dilemma: encourage your child to be free to be himself but risk being bullied and abused, or teach your child about what is "normal." The color pink was not created for females, of course; but Western society has defined it as such, at least current Western society, and we are forced to conform or be punished.

When a mother cries because her son is a homosexual, she isn't necessarily crying because she thinks he's a sinner; sometimes she's crying because she knows he will suffer because he does not conform to society's norms and cannot enjoy the same freedoms that straight couples enjoy, and can even be beaten or killed for not being seen as "normal."

[Alexandros]

IAnd holy shit that article - and the 100% positive reactions to it - just blew my mind. What saddens Me, that there are people who are saddened by the fact someone would find that method corrupting.

"It's okay to be different" and every one of you just went crazy over it, because she's such an open-minded angel. I do not doubt her good intentions, but seriously, not even one of you said that MAYBE - just maybe - it's a bit too much?

[...]



I think I can safely say that no, it would not be too much. That teacher was not forcing anyone to be what they didn't want, but was encouraging children to be more accepting of certain behavioural traits in themselves and others, traits that do not harm them in any conceivable way other than the societal bias this very type of lesson is trying to mitigate. I wouldn't say this will lead more people to the psychologist, but rather the exact opposite!

It is easy to say that homosexuality is not normal from an evolutionary perspective, in the sense that it does not lead to species propagation; but this is a superficial way of looking into evolution. Homosexuality has probably been with us for a long time (millions of years) and, as others pointed out, it is also present in other animals. This means that the gene or genes responsible for it (or rather, favouring it) have actually been propagating through the generations. Since the only perceived "abnormal" or "negative" effect of homosexuality (from a gene perspective) is a decreased chance of offspring, their mere existence after all these years is proof that this is actually not that important a factor.

Secondly, comparing homosexuality to a disability (in the sense that it occurs and should be accepted, but it is an abnormal/unhealthy state of being) is also wrong because again, the only conceivable negative effect on the individual is a decreased chance of offspring, which is a de facto invalid argument. Any other negative effects the individual might suffer stem from how other people treat them, which is different in various societies around the globe. Some are much more accepting than others.

Anyway, to conclude: I think you're taking this to the extreme. Your arguments are based on a fictitious society where children are forced to challenge their sexuality, but it's more like they are left to discover it themselves, without preconceptions. No, society will not devolve into an unhappy, gender-confused dystopia just because children are educated to be who they want to be without feeling inferior. Nobody should be forced to be what they are not, mind you, only learn to accept that differences in behaviour occur and are not the defining characteristics of a person any more than favourite hobbies or foods are. If gender roles and stereotypes are challenged, so be it. It is my view that, in a scenario of complete acceptance, challenges will come where there is room for them to manifest, i.e. where natural behaviour and interaction with others leads us. Eventually roles will settle down to a new equilibrium, and nobody will be the worse for it.

[Volband]

@allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76); @Fixer808 (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=43): You don't want any children as of now, you could never know if it will kick in or not. You are not aware of your survival instincts either. You might fantasize about suicide, then in the next moment, when someone is choking you, you turn into an animal, who tries everything to survive. It's coded in you. I don't know how old you are, but unless you are 50, you could always change your mind.

All right, homosexuaity is normal; what I'm more interested in, would you imply to your children that they are supposed to get intimate with the other gender? I.e, would you say things to your son "when you'll have a wife", "if you have any questions how to ask a girl out...", etc., or would you stay neutral by saying "when you'll be married"; "if you have any questions about how to ask someone out..."? My nightmare is if you'd say the latter, and it would show that it already started. Howewer, if you would say the former, you'd kinda go back on your words, because both - sexuality - are normal, and you should not tell an individual human being whether he will have a boy- or a girlfriend.

My response would be - obviously - the former, because children need guidance. They are not born knowing what they want to do and what not. They want to try everything, and their interest shifts from minute to minute. They would also like to do stupid things. I remember, my uncle was painting in our house and I started to shake the ladder. I could've easily killed or blind myself (or hurt my uncle), but getting a huge ass slap to the face kinda made me realize that shaking ladders while there is someone is on it with paint is bad. The point is, every children needs parenting, they need to know what is right and what is wrong, and the younger they are, the more intimate things you need to help them with. First you even teach them how to speak or to use the toilet, and later on you help them shape their personality by giving certain constants they could relate to.

Let's stick with nail polish. First of all, doesn't matter if it's a little boy or a little girl, they shouldn't use nail polish at all. Stay natural, why do 4 years old wear earrings and nail polish and what not? Yeah, their parents are like "omg how cuteeeeeeeee", and poor child doesn't even know what's happening, all he/she sees is that he/she gets positive feedback, so he/she likes it. Again, if you say earrings and nail polish are fine, then you can't say that hair dying and all-around make up are not. And then here we go, beauty contest for little girls! Well, a good example of a social nightmare coming alive, though it's not a good example for this arguement, because it's forced. You would say it's only fine to (try to) look like a 20 years old as a 4 years old girl if she wants it by herself. Much better.

Even black nail polish on boys are for representing your style, so basically they are copying their idols. You sound like hippies with this "everyone should do whatever they'd like to do", but let's try another "quiz", because that is where your views are the most vulnerable.

Why is that if a boy hits a girl (let's say their age is 20) the boy will get murdered by other boys, even if they don't know the girl and don't have any intention to get good points at her by beating up the other guy? It's because that's how we were raised. We were raised that boys and girls are different, and we were told many many times that we do not hit girls. Maybe the drive in us to not it girls stems from the stereotype that "girls are weaker", so what? How would YOU raise today's boys who will be the men of tomorrow regarding this question? Just reminding you that even in this unequal world there are assholes who are beating up their significant others. And if you would still insist on making them learn this chivalrious way of thinking, why? You would basically tell the boys that they can't hit girls because they are girls, which is kinda unfair, because a girl can be a big asshole too.

There is no good answer to this on your part, because your views are utopistic. Yes, it would be great if we could all just run down from a hill, hand in hand, boys and girls, women and men, laughing and smiling, and being totally equal but it is just impossible. It's like communism; everyone having a job and being able to afford whatever they want is awesome, but even after millions of casualties, it seemed more distant than an alien invasion.

It works in a limited level, aka. hairstyles, t-shirts, behaviour, whatnot, but there's not much room for more. I'd be interested to hear someone who actually raised a kid (or more) and how he or she approached it, and how it turned out, or at least how it seems to turn out. I mean, two of you admitted you don't even want any children as of now, and you are actively discussing a topic about (basically) how to raise children.

[allegro]

@allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76); @Fixer808 (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=43): You don't want any children as of now,
.
I'm older than Trent Reznor. I'm female. Game over.

[Volband]

I'm older than Trent Reznor. I'm female. Game over.
Well, you are not the first and certainly not the last. If I might inquire (and this has nothing to do with this thread or topic), why did you choose this? Career, couldn't have one, or something else?

Also, this board really needs a displayable gender feature, just saying.

[allegro]

I'm abnormal. <---sarcasm

As a feminist, I'm happy to say that I don't feel compelled to answer that question, mostly because I don't really know LOL.

[allegro]

Oh, and the boy in pink nail polish? It was the topic of debate here in the US in 2011 (http://www.forbes.com/sites/shenegotiates/2011/04/13/conservative-media-vs-j-crew-the-battle-of-the-pink-toenails/).

See also this (http://ideas.time.com/2012/12/14/the-lesson-of-the-boy-in-the-pink-ballet-flats/)

[Sarah K]

I hate when people say shit like "it's not too late to change your mind" when I discuss not having/wanting children. I've been telling everyone since I was about 8 that I would a) never get married, and b) never have children. I have never had a desire for either of these things. I'm almost 30 years old, and people still ask me this shit. I know what I want out of my life. And arranging my life around a needy, loud, little person is not it at all.

My vagina doesn't exist to only shit out kids. There are tons of other cool things it can do. Not wanting children doesn't make someone less of a person, or whatever the fuck.

[Volband]

Ahaha, that Forbes article literally made my head hurt. Only in the USA (I'm sorry) can you get away with such a stupid analogy that cowboy pistol --> high school shooting = pink nail polish > cowboy pistoy.

I'm not even surprised both of these articles are from women, feeding a stereotype feminist are fighting against. Funny that Katie judges the male author without hesitation, and calls people who do not agree with the pink nail polishing Gender Police who live in a dark cave. Did she even realise she just pissed on her own face with that attitude? I also like how dramatic she gets.

You know what I'm wondering about? If women, who are turned on by manly things, or things that are pretty much stereotypes for males (so basically most of the girls) would hear about their "sisters" who'd like to encourage us, to be brave and polish our nails pink if we'd like to, there would be an amazing chick fight. Thank god we men would never encourage not wearing yoga pants or doing breast down-sizing.

Anyway, Sam was fucking 5 years old, so he obviously knew his shit. He was a pre-schooler damn it, that's almost like a schooler. 8 more years and he had become a teenager.

I hate when people say shit like "it's not too late to change your mind" when I discuss not having/wanting children. I've been telling everyone since I was about 8 that I would a) never get married, and b) never have children. I have never had a desire for either of these things. I'm almost 30 years old, and people still ask me this shit. I know what I want out of my life. And arranging my life around a needy, loud, little person is not it at all.

Well, Sam was 5 when he decided he absolutely wants pink nail polish, so I guess if you decided as an 8 years old that you don't want a baby, you shouldn't have been questioned after that. And now you are (I assume) 28 or 29 years old, which means you are still quite young, but you ruled out the chance of meeting with THE ONE, and changing your mind.

Is it just my country where the average life expectency is around 70 years, or what? 5 years old, 8 years old, ALMOST 30 - like any of those ages are backing up the pro-arguement they appear in. You make me wonder if I should write my last will.

In any case, it's perfectly fine if you won't have a child, but you still have a shitload of time, so yeah.

Edit: you could always enlighten us about the skills of your vagina. For feminism, of course.

[Sarah K]

I never said anything about meeting "the one". Love and commitment can and do exist outside of marriage. I'm not anti-love or anti-relationship. I'm just anti-marriage... for myself. But I believe that everyone else should have the option if they choose.

Not everyone is meant to be a parent. Instead of questioning the reasoning behind it, you should be thankful that people are able to recognize that they don't want to have children. Telling people that they "have time to change their mind" is pretty rude and disrespectful.

[Volband]

I never said anything about meeting "the one". Love and commitment can and do exist outside of marriage. I'm not anti-love or anti-relationship. I'm just anti-marriage... for myself. But I believe that everyone else should have the option if they choose.

Not everyone is meant to be a parent. Instead of questioning the reasoning behind it, you should be thankful that people are able to recognize that they don't want to have children. Telling people that they "have time to change their mind" is pretty rude and disrespectful.
I mean the one could change your mind. You'd look at the matter as having a child with him, and not just having a child. You don't have to be married either.

Don't say "meant to be", nothing is pre-destined. I recognize that you don't want a children now, but little do I or you know about X years from now, when you possibly have the time of your life with the greatest person ever. When I said you have time, I did not imply that you SHOULD change your mind, I simply made you aware of the fact that you are not even 30 years old, so there's still many many things to come and go in your life.

[playwithfire]

We really need to get to a point in our society where saying "You'll change your mind." to someone about their choice to have children is considered to be just as rude as it is to say it to someone about them being gay/straight.

[Volband]

Well, I never said such a thing.

[playwithfire]

Didn't say you did, it's just something us child-free people, especially women, hear a lot.

[Sarah K]

I would not get serious with someone who desired children. It would be a deal breaker for me.

[playwithfire]

I am in a serious relationship with someone who wants children and it's why we know our relationship is guaranteed to end at some point. Not fun.

[Fixer808]

Well, I never said such a thing. You said EXACTLY that thing:

You don't want any children as of now, you could never know if it will kick in or not. You are not aware of your survival instincts either. You might fantasize about suicide, then in the next moment, when someone is choking you, you turn into an animal, who tries everything to survive. It's coded in you. I don't know how old you are, but unless you are 50, you could always change your mind.
Basically, you said "Sorry, I think this is how genetics works". Plus, what do survival instincts and suicidal fantasies have to do with it?

[Volband]

You said EXACTLY that thing:

Basically, you said "Sorry, I think this is how genetics works". Plus, what do survival instincts and suicidal fantasies have to do with it?
No, that's what you read out of it, or I just phrased it badly. You DO have time to change your mind, do you not? Whether you should or not, I did not say.

And I brought up survival instincts because it's like the urge for reproduction, coded into us. Even if you think you might want to die, as soon as someone really puts you to the test (by choking you, for example), the animal inside of you (who wants to live, eat and reproduce) gets unleashed, and try to force your body to defend yourself at ALL cost. Even if a woman is choking you, you might kill her, because no matter what you were taught about hurting women, when your life is at risk, your animal part gives 0 fucks.*

Reproduction is somewhat different, because it never really gets unleashed (though you always hear about older men and women panicking when they are still alone), it's just there, howewer society made its' mark on it. Back in the days, when we were hunting and women were gathering stuff (sexist elders btw) it was much simpler. Women were not chatting about not wanting babies, believe me. In today's world howewer, there's a lot to look out for. Can you even sustain yourself? Isn't it interfeering with your career? Etc.

*There is an interesting relationship howewer when survivalism (hah!) and wanting to fuck your loved one like an animal (without any protection) meets. The former feels much stronger in your every day life, but you would be willing to sacrifice your life while defending your family. I just love the beast in all of us :)

Yes, this is how genetics works, but you always have your free will. You can let yourself to be choked and you can refuse to have children. At the end of the day, you are not forced to do anything, but "normally" people don't want to die and eventually want a family.

[Sarah K]

The urge for reproduction is not encoded in us. What kind of hillbilly talk is this?

I feel like you're trolling at this point. Either that, or you're like 80. You seen extremely concerned about what you view as "normal". It's gross.

[allegro]

Well, Sam was 5 when he decided he absolutely wants pink nail polish
No, Sam wanted the pink ballet flats, not the pink nail polish.

[allegro]

I feel like you're trolling at this point. Either that, or you're like 80. You seen extremely concerned about what you view as "normal". It's gross.
He's pretty normal, I get the same shit here in the U.S. all the time. "Who's gonna TAKE CARE OF YOU WHEN YOU'RE OLD?"

By the way, we do have a child free thread dedicated just to the topic of people who don't want to have children or get married or whatever, so that we don't drift this thread thank you very much (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/threads/374-The-Childfree-and-or-Unmarried-Thread?highlight=childfree)

[orestes]

Guys, why can't we be like bonobos and just live in an open commune and masturbate to relieve tension? OH GAWD I JUST COMPARED US TO MONKEYS.

[slave2thewage]

What about the homosexual bonobos? Have they all died out yet?

[allegro]

Oh, God, this train has officially derailed.

[playwithfire]

Did somebody say something about running a train?

https://24.media.tumblr.com/db7484d6aea7bd410452c4f93ef475be/tumblr_mzcsvpEAzp1rj6lpxo1_400.gif

[Sarah K]

Giiiiiiirl!

[allegro]

A train full of masturbating feminist homosexual bonobos with pink toenails.

[Sarah K]

You can't act like it is normal!!!/!/!/

[orestes]

Did somebody say something about running a train?

https://24.media.tumblr.com/db7484d6aea7bd410452c4f93ef475be/tumblr_mzcsvpEAzp1rj6lpxo1_400.gif


http://youtu.be/Bvok-HrCd6Q

[Sarah K]

Damn it. I was gonna go to bed. Now I have to dance.

[playwithfire]

Man, you know what the best part about being a queer feminist child free gender variant nail polish wearing bonobo is? It's just so fun.

[Aladdinsanity]

Am I cool enough to be part of the train? I'm a male feminist with an autistic 5yo son who likes to paint his toenails with his mother's nail polish, has no trouble making friends and gets along with classmates whose first languages are 50/50 between English and Spanish. I'm basically Volband's worst nightmare.

[playwithfire]

I think you're a welcome addition to our train.

http://media.tumblr.com/d8456d2ef41de02514079fcbe472272c/tumblr_inline_mr2os1Lykd1qz4rgp.gif

[Volband]

The urge for reproduction is not encoded in us. What kind of hillbilly talk is this?

I feel like you're trolling at this point. Either that, or you're like 80. You seen extremely concerned about what you view as "normal". It's gross.
I troll you not, miss, you are the one who says we are the only entity on the face of earth who needs to taught how to fuck, because it's not coded into us. Put a horny teenage boy and a horny teenage girl into a room, and I guarantee you, even if they had not heard or seen anything about having sex, they could do it. Hell, they feel attraction for a reason, that is what eventually drives you to have sex.

It's not a little voice saying "hey, dude, you should really make some copy of you", it's the sum of many little things. There is a reason why we are attracted to boobs, and women are attracted to "manly" things (generally): that's how evolution made sure we won't extinct.

Edit: Yeah, I'm gross. Maybe I should come out of the closet and open a heterosexual topic for people who eventually want to have children. We should be marked like cows or something, so everyone on the streets could see we are "those".

He's pretty normal, I get the same shit here in the U.S. all the time. "Who's gonna TAKE CARE OF YOU WHEN YOU'RE OLD?"

By the way, we do have a child free thread dedicated just to the topic of people who don't want to have children or get married or whatever, so that we don't drift this thread thank you very much (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/threads/374-The-Childfree-and-or-Unmarried-Thread?highlight=childfree)
And once again, I don't care if you people will eventually have children or not. If anything, I would advise some of you to NOT to have one. I always feel sorry for children who are born into some scary, deeply religous, zealous family for example.


Am I cool enough to be part of the train? I'm a male feminist with an autistic 5yo son who likes to paint his toenails with his mother's nail polish, has no trouble making friends and gets along with classmates whose first languages are 50/50 between English and Spanish. I'm basically Volband's worst nightmare.
Not really, autistic people are different and you have to treat them differently. You have a children, you sticked with him even though it's much more exhilirating to raise an autistic one. Also, feminism means a 1000 things, it could be the impossible world the good folks here are fighting for (and will never come), and it can be just plain and simple intention to give women the same rights and treatment as men.


Guys, why can't we be like bonobos and just live in an open commune and masturbate to relieve tension? OH GAWD I JUST COMPARED US TO MONKEYS.
Lol, it's actually a good comparison because we are exactly the same regarding this, only more civilised.

[playwithfire]

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b173/pejidapimp/ew.gif?t=1204847503

[Sarah K]

It is impossible to watch that video without dancing. IMPOSSIBLE.

[icklekitty]

This thread has become very purple.


Also if I ever find out I'm pregnant I'm pushing myself down the stairs/drinking all the vodka until the little vermin dies. And I'll feed the abortion to my cats.

[Nyx]

I troll you not, miss, you are the one who says we are the only entity on the face of earth who needs to taught how to fuck, because it's not coded into us. Put a horny teenage boy and a horny teenage girl into a room, and I guarantee you, even if they had not heard or seen anything about having sex, they could do it. Hell, they feel attraction for a reason, that is what eventually drives you to have sex.

You are actually wrong, and humans are not the only "entity" on earth who need to be taught how to have sex. It's actually a problem that some zoos have with certain captive species of animals who have never been properly socialized and exposed to sexual behaviour and thus don't know exactly what goes where. If two humans were put together, horny, young, whatever, who have never been exposed to sex in any capacity, then no, they most likely would not know how to do it. Most of the things that people believe are "natural" or "instinctual" or whatever, are, in fact, taught/acquired behaviours. I'm sure if you tried you'd find plenty of old stories about stumped and confused newlyweds from back in the day... That's why they both usually got "the talk" before their wedding night.

Also, on rhesus monkeys:

"Tests were conducted in which both feral and socially deprived male monkeys were given an opportunity to interact with feral females [...]
Socially deprived males were evidently sexually aroused, but their mating attempts were poorly integrated and body orientation toward the partner was frequently inappropriate. These deficiencies were apparent whether the animals were tested with naive or sophisticated females. Thus far, all efforts to establish effective sexual performance in socially deprived rhesus monkeys have been unsuccessful.
The male monkey that has not achieved the adult [sexual] pattern by adolescence is unlikely to to do so later, whereas the chimpanzee is capable of such learning."
Source: Primate Behavior: Field Studies of Monkeys and Apes, by DeVore, Irven.

Same goes for other "instincts" that we're supposed to have, like maternal instincts. If you want to see how a "natural human" behaves, google "feral children".

[Mantra]

Why is that if a boy hits a girl (let's say their age is 20) the boy will get murdered by other boys, even if they don't know the girl and don't have any intention to get good points at her by beating up the other guy? It's because that's how we were raised. We were raised that boys and girls are different, and we were told many many times that we do not hit girls. Maybe the drive in us to not it girls stems from the stereotype that "girls are weaker", so what? How would YOU raise today's boys who will be the men of tomorrow regarding this question?

Well, how about just raising your kid to not beat on anyone, regardless of their gender? I was a really small/skinny/feminine kid, and throughout all my school years I routinely got the crap beat out of me by asshole macho kids. So I don't see how the whole "girls are off limits but boys are fair game" policy is a sufficient moral code for raising children.

[Volband]

...
Very interesting. Feral children reminded me of a documentary about a little girl who has been sexually abused as a 1(!) year old, which resulted in attempts to kill her brother and foster family. It's really moving, especially the end of the documentary - which is after she took in some rehability course - where she is now capable of reaching a social level where she understands her own actions and what does it mean that some people care for you. It's on youtube if anyone cares.

Well, how about just raising your kid to not beat on anyone, regardless of their gender? I was a really small/skinny/feminine kid, and throughout all my school years I routinely got the crap beat out of me by asshole macho kids. So I don't see how the whole "girls are off limits but boys are fair game" policy is a sufficient moral code for raising children.
Naturally, but you know it, I know it, there is a good chance of it happening one day. Your child will be interacting with others who has been raised by someone else. Also, emotions are bitches, which will get to everyone eventually. Even if your son is taught not to fight, it's not unimaginable at all that he finds himself in a situation where he feels that he just can't help it. Yes, you taught him not to fight, but you also taught him about the importance of friendship, and now his friend is getting a beating. If you gave him pink nail polishes and only taught him how to put up eyeliners he will probably just scream for help, or faint or I don't know, but the proper answer would be to fight back.

Anyway, no one from the "I won't have children, don't tell me I have time, but let me say how children should be raised"-supergroup could give an answer to this.

All this gayparade and feminist4life stuff is only good for making drama out of everything for no good reason, while real feminists and gay-rights supporters are being marked by them. It's like walking on a minefield, because you never know if your next word will interfere with their rainbowy bubble or not, while it's being sugarcoated by radiating a sense of advanced thinking.

[Sarah K]

It makes me pretty sad... and is extremely shocking to me that there is someone who is so close minded among us.

[Mantra]

Naturally, but you know it, I know it, there is a good chance of it happening one day. Your child will be interacting with others who has been raised by someone else. Also, emotions are bitches, which will get to everyone eventually. Even if your son is taught not to fight, it's not unimaginable at all that he finds himself in a situation where he feels that he just can't help it. Yes, you taught him not to fight, but you also taught him about the importance of friendship, and now his friend is getting a beating. If you gave him pink nail polishes and only taught him how to put up eyeliners he will probably just scream for help, or faint or I don't know, but the proper answer would be to fight back.

What you're describing is a basic issue of self defense, and it has nothing to do with gender or wearing makeup. If someone is being violently attacked (or their friend is), then sure, I think it's okay for them to try and fight back, but that doesn't change depending on the genders of the victim and the attacker. You're trying to add the element of gender/sexual orientation into this scenario because you think it justifies the gender roles you prefer, but there's no correlation. A kid's right to fight back has nothing to do with their gender or whether they wear eyeliner or whether the attacker is male or female.

I'd also like to point out that the gender roles you support don't actually keep anyone safe. The whole notion of chivalry and the image of "the protector" is just a fantasy. I was raised with standard gender roles, and it didn't keep me safe, nor did it keep my fellow schoolmates safe (i.e: the girl in my 6th grade class who was raped in the bathroom by two of our classmates). Feminism does far more to protect women (and everyone, really) by attempting to change the culture that makes this abuse possible. Old fashioned gender roles offer no solution to the violence that's inflicted on women, gays, etc, and we have several centuries of patriarchy to serve as proof of this.

[Volband]

It makes me pretty sad... and is extremely shocking to me that there is someone who is so close minded among us.
Sarah, all you do here is oohs and aaahs. We get it, you are shocked (you even typed it this time, making it more obvious). Trust me, it makes me sad that there are so many pretentious people among us, but at least I'm trying to understand the relevant stuffs here, but when the best thing you can do is making me aware that you are, indeed, still in shock, and that you like Prince, then there's really no point for you to post here. Make a group, and discuss how close-minded I am, and gossip about me probably never even having a barbie. (which is not even true!)


What you're describing is a basic issue of self defense, and it has nothing to do with gender or wearing makeup. If someone is being violently attacked (or their friend is), then sure, I think it's okay for them to try and fight back, but that doesn't change depending on the genders of the victim and the attacker. You're trying to add the element of gender/sexual orientation into this scenario because you think it justifies the gender roles you prefer, but there's no correlation. A kid's right to fight back has nothing to do with their gender or whether they wear eyeliner or whether the attacker is male or female.

I'd also like to point out that the gender roles you support don't actually keep anyone safe. The whole notion of chivalry and the image of "the protector" is just a fantasy. I was raised with standard gender roles, and it didn't keep me safe, nor did it keep my fellow schoolmates safe (i.e: the girl in my 6th grade class who was raped in the bathroom by two of our classmates). Feminism does far more to protect women (and everyone, really) by attempting to change the culture that makes this abuse possible. Old fashioned gender roles offer no solution to the violence that's inflicted on women, gays, etc, and we have several centuries of patriarchy to serve as proof of this.
[I'm not sure if you are a woman or a man. You said in your first post that you were feminine (so here I assume you are a man), but now you said standard gender roles did not protect you (from which I'd assume you are a woman).]

Okay, then that falls into self-defense, but you know where I want to get. Boys start a fight over verbal abuse, or screwing their girlfriends, etc. A girl is prety much immune here, she won't get punched for calling a boy "motherfucker" or sth like that. But let's distant this from fighting. A man will offer a woman a helping hand much more often than another men, and the latter can be considered - FINALLY, I CAN USE THIS WORD TOO! - rude. In my recent ethics education, there was an example of a man, who were starving and such in the mountains, and a group of explorers mmedietly called help,gave him food, drinks, clothes, etc. Well, the man went there to die, because it was some religous shit, and it was important to him. Awkward.

We, men, would not like someone to help our heavy luggage up to the train, we would find it derogating. "Why do you offer a hand when I'm not struggling with it?" On the other hand, it goes without saying that we ask a woman if you can carry some of them; or even just extending our hand. Is it raining and we only have one umbrella? Well, I guess I'm gonna get soaked (yes, small umbrela)! Yes, it is a fantasy that every men will be a gentlemen, these are just mere acts, no one should read much into them, but it's only there because there is no equality. Don't you like, when people (in this case, men) are nice to you? Why would you want to throw your luggage at us, while telling us off that you are an independent woman who is just as valuable as we are? Just because I don't punch you, and offer help, doesn't mean I think you are something less.

I'm sorry for your experiences, but sadly this will never change. There will be always assholes like them. Do you really think that abuse would not have taken places if they were raised in Pink Nation? Those boys were (and probably are) sick, you can't help that. I doubt they get the idea of raping that poor girl from hearing about that girls are weaker. They were two to begin with, so they could've taken on a boy as well, and there are youngsters who rape boys as well, so it's pure mental defect.

What do these window-movements achieve exactly? I never really cared that there are gay people, why would I gather hatred on something that has nothing to do with me? But then all of this parades started, and it's just sickening. If anything, it creates more hatred towards gay people than ever. Your sexuality is your damn privacy, so don't try to suffocate me with your genitals.

Also, these movements will never change our culture so radically. Yes, there is the occasional bullshit coming through (Scientology), but shit would just get even more tense, if you tried to tell people off for raising their girls to be girls and boys to be boys.

Edit: Oh, I just read that a boy sacrificd himself for his girlfriend by pushing her away from the incoming train. She still got injured and thus might not survive, but it's still more than sure death. They were both hella stupid, but that's not the point.

[orestes]

All this gayparade and feminist4life stuff is only good for making drama out of everything for no good reason, while real feminists and gay-rights supporters are being marked by them. It's like walking on a minefield, because you never know if your next word will interfere with their rainbowy bubble or not, while it's being sugarcoated by radiating a sense of advanced thinking.

http://media.giphy.com/media/7JtVYGFM7R2c8/giphy.gif

[allegro]

Also, these movements will never change our culture so radically.
I don't know about YOUR country, but the civil rights movement, which spun off the feminist and LGBT movements, radically changed our culture here in the U.S. Had you told me that gay marriage would be federally legal in my lifetime, I don't know that I'd believe it. It's now legal in my state, and in my home state, and it will likely be legal in all states in the United States in my lifetime. When I was a kid, most of the moms I knew didn't drive cars! We've come a long way, baby! (that was actually the slogan for a cigarette television commercial when I was a kid LOL). I assume you are young, so it's difficult for you to have the same perspective as me, and you're not in this country, but it's important for us Americans because we DO have perspective. We are taught about when blacks and women couldn't vote, it wasn't that long ago. Change doesn't happen overnight. We didn't go from slavery to KKK and lynchings to a black dude in the White House overnight, and it's far from being "over." We still haven't had a female President, and women still make less wages than men for performing the same job, but the glass ceiling of Corporate America has been shattered. Maybe you have a long way to go in your country, but we've come a really long way in our country and we keep making a lot of progress, here, and we still have a lot of hope for our future.

[Volband]

I don't know about YOUR country, but the civil rights movement, which spun off the feminist and LGBT movement, radically changed our culture here in the U.S. Had you told me that gay marriage would be federally legal in my lifetime, I don't know that I'd believe it. It's now legal in my state, and in my home state, and it will likely be legal in all states in the United States in my lifetime. When I was a kid, most of the moms I knew didn't drive cars! We've come a long way, baby! (that was actually the slogan for a cigarette television commercial when I was LOL). I assume you are young, so it's difficult for you to have the same perspective as me, and you're not in this country, but it's important for us Americans because we DO have perspective. We are taught about when blacks and women couldn't vote, it wasn't that long ago. Change doesn't happen overnight. We didn't go from slavery to KKK and lynchings to a black dude in the White House overnight, and it's far from being "over." We still haven't had a female President, and women still make less wages than men for performing the same job, but the glass ceiling of Corporate America has been shattered. Maybe you have a long way to go in your country, but we've come a really long way in our country and we keep making a lot of progress, here, and we still have a lot of hope for our future.
But those were not "let's be a part of a movement because why the hell not, we are free thinkers or sth"-movements. The right to vote, or to drive a car, or whatever was something that needed to change. Howewer, as you can see, fighting for equal wages is not enough for some, they want more, and that more is what won't happen, because it's just ridiculous.

Women doesn't want their sons to become girls, they are probably more concerned about smashing the stereotype that they need to weight 40kgs and have big boobs, because otherwise they are nothing. They also need more protection from abusement, reliable services they can turn to.

Also, what no one talked about: raising awareness about what it means to be gay or being a transgender. You can hate that disappointed mother and father all you want, but if they have no idea how this thing "happens", you can't really blame them. Having parades where you can show the world that you can kiss someone from your own sex does nothing but repel your community, but talking about the origins of these things, how can someone be in a different body, how to treat them are maybe more important and would actually be useful. Though we live in a world where drug prevention and sexual awareness lessons in schools are a joke. Go to any "ask anything" sites and people are asking questions like can they get pregnant by swallowing sperm and such.

There are so many fucking problems in today's society, but we are really arguing about whether I'm a cavemen with my opinion that girls should remain girls and boys should remain boys. Absurd.

[allegro]

Dude, this is one thread. And it's technically drift in this thread. That you're causing. We have a separate Childfree thread. And a transgender thread. And gay pride parades belong nowhere in this thread.

You're covering way too much ground in your post. We do have some states with more liberal sex education, and we have states in the south that teach creationism lol. But this is all drift in this thread. I agree that maybe everybody has different priorities, and maybe starving children should be a bigger priority but it's still drift in this thread.

People have the freedom to disagree with you, just like you can disagree with them. I know it pains you but that's what makes the world a brighter place and us not boring. :-)

No, it will never be "enough." Women still don't receive equal education. Girls are actually going backward in abusive dating relationships. We still have a lot of work to do.

[orestes]

I'm sorry for your experiences, but sadly this will never change. There will be always assholes like them. Do you really think that abuse would not have taken places if they were raised in Pink Nation? Those boys were (and probably are) sick, you can't help that. I doubt they get the idea of raping that poor girl from hearing about that girls are weaker. They were two to begin with, so they could've taken on a boy as well, and there are youngsters who rape boys as well, so it's pure mental defect.

Okay, this post was all over the map and didn't follow any logical thought-hello, glittering generalities!-but the point emphasized in bold I have to address. Rape culture exists because 1)of the taboo surrounding proper sex education in this country and 2)a patriarchal society that has trained people to believe that women are weak or even worse, sub-human and rape is a tool to impose power over another person. Yes, men have been the victims of rape, too and you know what? They are just as much the victims of a patriarchal society that says men must put on a macho front and anything altering from such is emasculating. ("Boys don't cry", "crying is for pussies", "man up".) A true feminist wants equality so that neither men nor female have to conform to such bullshit roles. Rape culture affects both men and women.


What do these window-movements achieve exactly? I never really cared that there are gay people, why would I gather hatred on something that has nothing to do with me? But then all of this parades started, and it's just sickening. If anything, it creates more hatred towards gay people than ever. Your sexuality is your damn privacy, so don't try to suffocate me with your genitals.

Hon, gay pride parades have been going on for quite some time now-they're not a new occurrence-and ain't nobody waving their junk in your face unless you ask. But you know what? This is a rather myopic view of queer culture, focusing on Western culture. There are places in the world where it is potentially lethal to be out so showing any outward display of gay pride is a form of protest.

[Ryan]

http://www.gifsforum.com/images/image/up%20in%20this%20thread/grand/monotoring_this_thread.jpg

[Volband]

Dude, this is one thread. And it's technically drift in this thread. That you're causing. We have a separate Childfree thread. And a transgender thread. And gay pride parades belong nowhere in this thread.

You're covering way too much ground in your post. We do have some states with more liberal sex education, and we have states in the south that teach creationism lol. But this is all drift in this thread. I agree that maybe everybody has different priorities, and maybe starving children should be a bigger priority but it's still drift in this thread.

People have the freedom to disagree with you, just like you can disagree with them. I know it pains you but that's what makes the world a brighter place and us not boring. :-)

No, it will never be "enough." Women still don't receive equal education. Girls are actually going backward in abusive dating relationships. We still have a lot of work to do.
How can you be so positive?


Okay, this post was all over the map and didn't follow any logical thought-hello, glittering generalities!-but the point emphasized in bold I have to address. Rape culture exists because 1)of the taboo surrounding proper sex education in this country and 2)a patriarchal society that has trained people to believe that women are weak or even worse, sub-human and rape is a tool to impose power over another person. Yes, men have been the victims of rape, too and you know what? They are just as much the victims of a patriarchal society that says men must put on a macho front and anything altering from such is emasculating. ("Boys don't cry", "crying is for pussies", "man up".) A true feminist wants equality so that neither men nor female have to conform to such bullshit roles. Rape culture affects both men and women.
Yet, in the end, they will fall right back into it, because it's what keeps attracting them to each other. In the end, women will still be physically weaker, which can feed that rape culture all the same. In the end, most of the women end up having children, which intensifies men's protective urges even more.



Hon, gay pride parades have been going on for quite some time now-they're not a new occurrence-and ain't nobody waving their junk in your face unless you ask. But you know what? This is a rather myopic view of queer culture, focusing on Western culture. There are places in the world where it is potentially lethal to be out so showing any outward display of gay pride is a form of protest.
It's still a whored out custom, that pretty much goes against the whole equality thing.

[orestes]

Dude, there are professional female MMA fighters who could kick your ass, so drop the "women are the weaker sex" bullshit.

Also, you've clearly never been to a pride event. There's more to queer culture than white cis males.

[playwithfire]

How can you be so positive?


http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view/202619/prince-side-o.gif

[Volband]

Dude, there are professional female MMA fighters who could kick your ass, so drop the "women are the weaker sex" bullshit.
How much of a denial you are in? Check every athlete records and tell me which gender holds the world record in probably every single competition. Athletes do everything to maximize their strength and agility, and it probably goes without saying that we swim faster, run faster, jump higher, can endure more, etc.

Look at team sports: how many multigendered professional team do you know of? I remember, it was huge news that some lower division men's football team wanted to hire a woman football player. I think the rules are against it, but trust me, if a team like Real Madrid or Bayern Munchen would know about 4 or 5 women football player who could strengthen their team, they would try everything to make the rules changed. Now, whether these women would like to join a professional male football team is an entirely different question, because after the first few tackles by men, they'd probably realise that shit just got real.

I'd like to mash every single individual sports, and maybe host team sports competitin where women's and men's teams can both participate, so that I could listen to you trying to explain to me that you are not weaker, while we sweep at least 90%+ of all the medals. Then I could say "well, I guess I was wrong", and then separate them once again, because for example I like women handball, and I'd hate to see it gone.

[Timinator]

The urge for reproduction is not encoded in us. What kind of hillbilly talk is this?
While I think that Volband is mostly full of shit, are you saying that humans, differently from all other animals, don't have a selected-for drive to reproduce?

[allegro]

He's a troll. Coming into to Feminist / Equality thread and going on about women being the weaker sex = troll.

[Sarah K]

While I think that Volband is mostly full of shit, are you saying that humans, differently from all other animals, don't have a selected-for drive to reproduce?

I'm saying that we have free will. We are able to think about it, and make an informed decision. We don't shit out kids for the sake of shitting out kids (most of us, anyway). It isn't what drives us, like it is in other animals.

[Volband]

He's a troll. Coming into to Feminist / Equality thread and going on about women being the weaker sex = troll.
Knowing basic biology = troll, lol, okay. Best arguement ever.

Edit: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/08/we-thought-female-athletes-were-catching-up-to-men-but-theyre-not/260927/ - look at those troll numbers

[Timinator]

I'm saying that we have free will. We are able to think about it, and make an informed decision. We don't shit out kids for the sake of shitting out kids (most of us, anyway). It isn't what drives us, like it is in other animals.
I think you give us more credit than we deserve.

Of course some humans decide not to have kids, and as thinking creatures we're driven by more than pure reproduction.

But clearly for a species to survive it must have, in general, a drive to reproduce. The fact that the vast majority of humans do reproduce and that we keep on growing in global numbers is pretty clear evidence of that.

[allegro]

Knowing basic biology = troll, lol, okay. Best arguement ever.

Edit: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/08/we-thought-female-athletes-were-catching-up-to-men-but-theyre-not/260927/ - look at those troll numbers
Physical power isn't why men rape women, and it isn't why women seek equality. You think you're saying something new on a forum, here, but this has been rehashed thousands of times and it's hackneyed.

[allegro]

I think you give us more credit than we deserve.

Of course some humans decide not to have kids, and as thinking creatures we're driven by more than pure reproduction.

But clearly for a species to survive it must have, in general, a drive to reproduce. The fact that the vast majority of humans do reproduce and that we keep on growing in global numbers is pretty clear evidence of that.
And we have a whole other thread for that, thankfully (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/threads/374-The-Childfree-and-or-Unmarried-Thread?highlight=childfree).

[Volband]

Physical power isn't why men rape women, and it isn't why women seek equality. You think you're saying something new on a forum, here, but this has been rehashed thousands of times and it's hackneyed.
How do you know that exactly; how many rapist have you talked with?

I don't know much about rape cultural but based on my own experience, I behave differently with someone I feel superior to physically, and I think it's a common thing. You see a buffed guy, and the last thing you want is to get on his nerves, right? Right.

When I say girls are weaker, I mean it physically, I don't care about all the political correctness mumbo jumbo, that's something we should discuss while drinking some beer, cuz it's more like philosophy. I simply state, that your body - on average - is capable less physically, than ours. And it. Is. A. Fact. Now, If I'm someone who is willing to abuse the weak (from taking lunch money to rape), it doesn't matter if everyone agrees that there is no stronger gender, because I KNOW I am stronger physically.

Yep, establishing that girls are not lesser creatures could help, but honestly, I can't remember any instance from my young years, where I was taught that I am more important than them. I think women get the same salary here as men, at least I never heard anyone complain about it. They only argue about maternity (or whatever it's called), abortion, etc.

[allegro]

How do you know that exactly; how many rapist have you talked with?
First of all, I'm educated. Secondly, I've participated in online forums for nearly 30 years and, as mentioned, this topic is hackneyed. Here's a pretty famous study: http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0449908208?pc_redir=1395383680&robot_redir=1

Here is an article re the rapes in India (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/10/delhi-rape-one-year-anything-changed-india-women). This is more than just about men being physically stronger than women; this is about females being seen as nothing more than garbage, as disposable objects to be beaten and killed and disposed. The increase of rapes in India is interesting because as women's professional and educational positions increased, so did the rapes.

I've been in law for over 25 years, and have read many interesting criminal studies about rapists and about the level of anger they exhibit; most of their victims aren't only raped, but are also beaten and verbally abused throughout the assault, calling them "whores," etc. The psychological profile of many of these criminals indicates men with abusive mothers or men who had been abandoned, etc. and men who hate women. This isn't a sex crime; it's a hate crime. It's really awful stuff, one reason why I didn't want to focus on criminal law. So this isn't just about men's strength, it's about a lot of other compounding issues; otherwise, all men would rape women, but they don't.

Here are some American statistics for you (https://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims).


Your country is different than ours re equal salary. How nice for you. We do not yet have that privilege in this country.

[icklekitty]

Hungary has one of the highest gender pay gap in the EU and the highest overall in the public sector:

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Gender_pay_gap_statistics

[allegro]

Ah, okay. Well, then.

[marodi]

(...)and it probably goes without saying that we swim faster, run faster, jump higher, can endure more, etc.


The bold part makes me want to see you go through hours and hours of labor only to have your vagina tearing up to push a baby out. I'm talking about an entirely natural birth of course, without any pain killers.

But oh wait: it's a normal woman's job. That, and making you sandwiches.

[Mantra]

I'm sorry for your experiences, but sadly this will never change. There will be always assholes like them. Do you really think that abuse would not have taken places if they were raised in Pink Nation? Those boys were (and probably are) sick, you can't help that. I doubt they get the idea of raping that poor girl from hearing about that girls are weaker.

Right, see this is why you're incapable of providing any meaningful solution to sexual violence and hate crimes. You yourself openly admit this when you say "this will never change." This is part of why your whole belief system is so fucked. You take something like rape and claim that it's just some "defect" in nature, something that can't be helped and basically just strikes at random, like a brain aneurysm. But widespread sexual violence doesn't come from "sickness". It's the expression of a particular kind of culture, just as lynchings were an expression of a violently racist culture.

And of course there is a connection between sexual violence and a culture that clings to these bullshit fantasies of chivalry and noble male "protectors." It's part of an unequal power dynamic. There's the strong and the weak, the top and the bottom. That's why you think you're supposed to politely help a girl out and protect her, much like you would a child. But there's no way to have those kinds of dynamics, on a mass level, and avoid the notions of superiority/inferiority that come with it. Unequal power dynamics always lead to a sense of entitlement. It's the whole "power corrupts absolutely" thing, and that's why we have these ideas about what's expected of girls, what roles they serve, etc. And all that heroic "protector" bullshit is just about repackaging our fucked up gender hierarchy and promoting it as a good thing. We gotta live with all this violence, bullying, homophobia, rape, etc, but hey, at least they're helping a girl carry her luggage! And man, it's pretty ironic that you think feminism is unrealistic and utopian, and yet here you are standing up for this warped, delusional fantasy like it actually works.

[Volband]

Hungary has one of the highest gender pay gap in the EU and the highest overall in the public sector:

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Gender_pay_gap_statistics
Well, lol, I wonder if we are aware of this because we cry for a lot of things but can't recall seeing it. Though, everyone's salary pretty much 1/3 or less compaed to the Western European countries.


The bold part makes me want to see you go through hours and hours of labor only to have your vagina tearing up to push a baby out. I'm talking about an entirely natural birth of course, without any pain killers.

But oh wait: it's a normal woman's job. That, and making you sandwiches.
I read that their lower body/uterus area is stronger, but I wastalking about athletics. Just because women are not physically weaker in completely everything, doesn't change that they are still weaker.

Right, see this is why you're incapable of providing any meaningful solution to sexual violence and hate crimes. You yourself openly admit this when you say "this will never change." This is part of why your whole belief system is so fucked. You take something like rape and claim that it's just some "defect" in nature, something that can't be helped and basically just strikes at random, like a brain aneurysm. But widespread sexual violence doesn't come from "sickness". It's the expression of a particular kind of culture, just as lynchings were an expression of a violently racist culture.

And of course there is a connection between sexual violence and a culture that clings to these bullshit fantasies of chivalry and noble male "protectors." It's part of an unequal power dynamic. There's the strong and the weak, the top and the bottom. That's why you think you're supposed to politely help a girl out and protect her, much like you would a child. But there's no way to have those kinds of dynamics, on a mass level, and avoid the notions of superiority/inferiority that come with it. Unequal power dynamics always lead to a sense of entitlement. It's the whole "power corrupts absolutely" thing, and that's why we have these ideas about what's expected of girls, what roles they serve, etc. And all that heroic "protector" bullshit is just about repackaging our fucked up gender hierarchy and promoting it as a good thing. We gotta live with all this violence, bullying, homophobia, rape, etc, but hey, at least they're helping a girl carry her luggage! And man, it's pretty ironic that you think feminism is unrealistic and utopian, and yet here you are standing up for this warped, delusional fantasy like it actually works.
Allegro just mentioned 3 reasons why someone becomes a rapist. You might take away ONE, while empowering an other one. You can't win, even history shows that there were always sick bastards. Yes, I'm realistic and not optimistic; I'm not saying to cease every attempt to try to make women's place in society stronger, but don't think you just found out the elixir of these crimes.

You said (or at least implied) that you had a hard childhood, so let me assume that there is some bitterness in you, when you hear about these chivalrious things, because you experienced something completely different, or to you, it doesn't seem real. To you people, a man carrying luggages is the seed for rape and what not, but to me, it's a nice act. Is the man happy? Yes, he helped someone, we (people!) like to help. Is the woman happy? Everyone loves if you show some love or care to them, so yes, she is. Maybe it's warped for you, but this is one of the rare things when we actually stop for a moment for each other in a world where we just get more and more alienated.

[orestes]

And lo, Volband unknowingly outed himself as a MRA. I bet you think women who get harassed walking down the street simply can't take a compliment from a stranger.

[Mantra]

You can't win, even history shows that there were always sick bastards. Yes, I'm realistic and not optimistic; I'm not saying to cease every attempt to try to make women's place in society stronger, but don't think you just found out the elixir of these crimes.
People aren't feminists because they think it's "the elixir." That woman trying to teach her students something other than the most standard gender roles obviously doesn't think she's found the single solution to eradicating sexual violence, gender inequality, etc. There's no elixir, everyone knows that. It's just a collective struggle, people working to change society through various approaches. And part of that involves debunking the bullshit belief systems that have completely failed us. But your whole "there's always gonna be sick bastards" perspective is basically just throwing up a white flag. Your belief system is totally incapable of providing any working solutions for violence and abuse, which is why your whole luggage carrying daydreams don't mean shit.


to you, it doesn't seem real.
It doesn't seem real, because it's NOT real. If all those rules we're brought up with, like "never hit a girl, help her with her luggage cause she's so tiny and weak," if those are such a rock solid code of ethics for raising kids, how come we have so much sexual violence? Because it's not real. It's pathetic fantasy-hero bullshit that has no ability to change things like rape culture, male aggression and entitlement, homophobia, desire for dominance, etc, which is all the REAL shit that needs to be changed.

[Volband]

And lo, Volband unknowingly outed himself as a MRA. I bet you think women who get harassed walking down the street simply can't take a compliment from a stranger.
Yes, and I shot Kennedy. Don't ask which, because I actually shot both. Just ask the women in my cellar, or my black slaves.

(9/11 was an inside job)


People aren't feminists because they think it's "the elixir." That woman trying to teach her students something other than the most standard gender roles obviously doesn't think she's found the single solution to eradicating sexual violence, gender inequality, etc. There's no elixir, everyone knows that. It's just a collective struggle, people working to change society through various approaches. And part of that involves debunking the bullshit belief systems that have completely failed us. But your whole "there's always gonna be sick bastards" perspective is basically just throwing up a white flag. Your belief system is totally incapable of providing any working solutions for violence and abuse, which is why your whole luggage carrying daydreams don't mean shit.


It doesn't seem real, because it's NOT real. If all those rules we're brought up with, like "never hit a girl, help her with her luggage cause she's so tiny and weak," if those are such a rock solid code of ethics for raising kids, how come we have so much sexual violence? Because it's not real. It's pathetic fantasy-hero bullshit that has no ability to change things like rape culture, male aggression and entitlement, homophobia, desire for dominance, etc, which is all the REAL shit that needs to be changed.
Can't really say much; I understand what you are saying, but I do not agree with you. Maybe helping out women originates from untrue stereotipes, but today it's just a warm gesture. For entertaining purposes I'd watch a day in a world where everything is bleached and everyone is basically a robot, because they are not even allowed to do nice things if it can be connected somehow to unequality, but that's all. Anyway, I can't really get behind any movement that views "never hit a girl" as something bad. Again, I see what you mean, you actually said things which make sense (are you a man?? [jkjk{or am I?!}]), and doesn't sound stuff that only people who aleady smoked their 10th joints today would say. But no, I do not believe this radical feminism is the way to go.

[Ryan]

http://www.gifsforum.com/images/image/up%20in%20this%20thread/grand/monotoring_this_thread.jpg


http://www.troll.me/images/monitor-lizard/i-am-monitoring-this-thread.jpg

[Fixer808]

Yes, and I shot Kennedy. Don't ask which, because I actually shot both. Just ask the women in my cellar, or my black slaves.

(9/11 was an inside job)


Can't really say much; I understand what you are saying, but I do not agree with you. Maybe helping out women originates from untrue stereotipes, but today it's just a warm gesture. For entertaining purposes I'd watch a day in a world where everything is bleached and everyone is basically a robot, because they are not even allowed to do nice things if it can be connected somehow to unequality, but that's all. Anyway, I can't really get behind any movement that views "never hit a girl" as something bad. Again, I see what you mean, you actually said things which make sense (are you a man?? [jkjk{or am I?!}]), and doesn't sound stuff that only people who aleady smoked their 10th joints today would say. But no, I do not believe this radical feminism is the way to go.

http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/prince.gif

[Swykk]

Volband, I'm a dude who cannot have children and supports feminism/civil rights and equality for all 100%. I also have neuropathy which physically weakens me so I bet lots of girls are most definitely more athletic than me.

Should I just kill myself? I mean, what's my purpose in life, right?

[playwithfire]

Yes, and I shot Kennedy. Don't ask which, because I actually shot both. Just ask the women in my cellar, or my black slaves.

(9/11 was an inside job)

http://thestylesample.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Prince-dismay.gif

[Ryan]

http://www.troll.me/images/monitor-lizard/i-am-monitoring-this-thread.jpg


https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/1665054976/h312A4E39/




(I have no idea why I'm doing this).

[Sarah K]

And lo, Volband unknowingly outed himself as a MRA. I bet you think women who get harassed walking down the street simply can't take a compliment from a stranger.

It would obviously depend on what she was wearing.

[aggroculture]

Volband, one piece of the puzzle you are missing is: ideology. You think you are representing "things as they are," or "reality," when actually all you are doing is reproducing an ideology. A patriarchal ideology. A patriarchal ideology that 200+ years of feminism has done a fantastic job at deconstructing, critiquing, tearing down. You refer to biology, but there's a whole field dedicated to demonstrating the male/patriarchal bias in biology and science. As many have pointed out here, there is much more to humans than biology: why is it important that the "average male" is stronger, or bigger, or hairier, than the "average female"? So that you can justify this or that behavior based on this "fact"? You are invited to look closer into the motivations of why certain narratives are attractive to you and what your vested interests may be, before you appeal to objective truth.

[playwithfire]

You can't hold up biological impulses and evolution as the sole or primary influence on humans. Society and culture plays just as a big of an influence (if not bigger) on people as whatever biology we might be influenced by.

You can't hold up the animal kingdom as a reflection of natural male and female dynamics because for every male dominated group (lions) you have shit like hyenas and elephants, which if not flat out matriarchal are non-typical of the menz doin all the ruling & hunting. Homosexuality in the animal kingdom isn't a sign of deviation or a fluke, it's just fucking natural.

Matriarchal societies are much rarer among humans, but we do have matrilineal and matrilocal. That shit IS NOT A FLUKE. No more so than a patriarchal society is. It's just the way shit developed. You can't champion any of it as the natural or right way. It's just how things are, and one of the great parts of growing as humans is that we get to challenge that shit when it doesn't make sense.

[Volband]

Volband, I'm a dude who cannot have children and supports feminism/civil rights and equality for all 100%. I also have neuropathy which physically weakens me so I bet lots of girls are most definitely more athletic than me.

Should I just kill myself? I mean, what's my purpose in life, right?
1. You can not have a children, which is not the same as you do not want a children. Why would I hate on anyone who is incapable of doing something due to some kind disability, condition or illness? Not that I care if you could have but would not want to, I already said that (probably) this urge suffered the most from the recent social changes, and for understandable reasons.
2. You support an act which radical points I do not agree with, but you could've said you have vastly different political views as well. I would not care, as long as you are aware what exactly you are following and has a good fundamental reason why you are following it. I.e. not "I'm a feminist cuz I'm a woman and fuck men who wants to help me".
3. Again, you are weaker due to an illness, so... yeah, already said that. But who said every single men is stronger than every single women? Men. Are. Physically. Stronger. Period. Whether you train yourself or not, is up to you; it's not surprising if you would get a beating from anyone who has been training in said area, whether it's a woman or someone 10 years younger than you.

The purpose in life... what do you mean? The biological one, encoded into is? It is to reproduce, obviously; the goal of evolution is to adapt, so we can survive. The human one? Probably to live a happy life, and pursue goals, upon which you reach, you will feel happy. The religious one? Depends on your religion, I guess. There are probably a million more answers, to each of their own, right?

I know you implied that you think my answer would be "be a man, carry luggages, screw some female - whose body is capable of reproduction - without protection, drink some beer and watch football", but I'm someone who likes Sailor Moon, who mained a female character in an MMO back in the day, who has Taylor Swift, Rihanna and Lady Gaga too on his mp4 player, who at some point watched Glee, but still watches Once Upon A Time (on hold though), who is emotional and not that confident. I'm kinda NOT the statue of masculinity, but that doesn't stop me from knowing my place in society, to be aware that I am a man, and that being a man means more than having a dick. It helps that I don't have to wake up everyday, wondering what and who the fuck am I exactly, and I can watch the following video not with disgust, but with warmth:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVOh85I0BQQ

Volband, one piece of the puzzle you are missing is: ideology. You think you are representing "things as they are," or "reality," when actually all you are doing is reproducing an ideology. A patriarchal ideology. A patriarchal ideology that 200+ years of feminism has done a fantastic job at deconstructing, critiquing, tearing down. You refer to biology, but there's a whole field dedicated to demonstrating the male/patriarchal bias in biology and science. As many have pointed out here, there is much more to humans than biology: why is it important that the "average male" is stronger, or bigger, or hairier, than the "average female"? So that you can justify this or that behavior based on this "fact"? You are invited to look closer into the motivations of why certain narratives are attractive to you and what your vested interests may be, before you appeal to objective truth.
Correcting flaws is one thing, wanting to tear something down in its' entirety is another.

I refer to biology because I base what's healthy on nature, because I hold more than a billion years of evolution much smarter than all of us compared. The last time we were equal was when we were both in the depths of the seas (and the next will be when we'll be both under nuclear waste). Nature made men stronger, and shaped their thinking not questioning why they are the ones going on dangerous hunting missions, when females are just fighting with bushes and trees.

You ask why is it important, and I'm telling you: because it's one more thing that indicates that the terms "man" and "woman" are not interchangeable. What will happen when half of the men population will be exactly what women find inattractve and vice versa? Just look at the - out of context, I know - op, which basically bashes a guy for not being confident. First of all, if it's glaringly obvious he likes you, but too shy to "man up", then why can't you woman up, and either go for it, or tell him that it won't work and he should not consider you a love interest? The other scenario is that she might've given him a chance if he manned up, which is, once again, not exactly "being equal". Trust me, if you are not confident by nature as a man, you have to slain additional dragons in order to have a shot at a girl. It doesn't matter how big of a feminist you are, and how concerned you might be with "my kind", who has to put a shitload more work into getting someone, at the end of the day you have no control on what you find appealing in a man and what not. Basically, you would create a world where I'd end up in the ultimate friendzone, because its' equality would be so comforting that I'd just laid back, and would not try to work on my weaknesses.

You can't hold up biological impulses and evolution as the sole or primary influence on humans. Society and culture plays just as a big of an influence (if not bigger) on people as whatever biology we might be influenced by.

You can't hold up the animal kingdom as a reflection of natural male and female dynamics because for every male dominated group (lions) you have shit like hyenas and elephants, which if not flat out matriarchal are non-typical of the menz doin all the ruling & hunting. Homosexuality in the animal kingdom isn't a sign of deviation or a fluke, it's just fucking natural.

Matriarchal societies are much rarer among humans, but we do have matrilineal and matrilocal. That shit IS NOT A FLUKE. No more so than a patriarchal society is. It's just the way shit developed. You can't champion any of it as the natural or right way. It's just how things are, and one of the great parts of growing as humans is that we get to challenge that shit when it doesn't make sense.
So what, we make a matrilinear society, so 500 years later we could fight against it? Or we will create equality by the help of the law, so the male/female representation will have to be 50/50? Why would you insist on such radical changes "just for the fuck of it"?

You'd have the same chances at a job interview as a man, you'd get the same salary, etc., why can't you just stop, and not step into volatile territories, which will just ultimately fuck things up one way or another.

If you can't accept that world peace is a dream, then sure, challenge everything, but I hope the majority of the women could sleep just fine, if such terms like "you run like a girl"; "skirts are for women"; "you should not be a dick, especially not with women" would still exist.

[Swykk]

I guess to translate my post--I used my situation plus sarcasm to show you how fucking silly your gender role "ideas" are. Also, I should've mentioned this in my earlier post--I don't want children anyway. They're costly and annoying, especially when they're little and do that thing where they talk loudly all the time about nothing, refuse to sleep, are walking germ factories, and break your stuff.

[Fixer808]

Trust me, if you are not confident by nature as a man, you have to slain additional dragons in order to have a shot at a girl. It doesn't matter how big of a feminist you are, and how concerned you might be with "my kind", who has to put a shitload more work into getting someone, at the end of the day you have no control on what you find appealing in a man and what not. Basically, you would create a world where I'd end up in the ultimate friendzone, because its' equality would be so comforting that I'd just laid back, and would not try to work on my weaknesses.
You've GOT to be shitting me with this. You've just boiled your entire argument down to "It would take me more work to get laid, so I'm against it". Bravo.

http://i.imgur.com/kC9pcy1.gif

[Volband]

You've GOT to be shitting me with this. You've just boiled your entire argument down to "It would take me more work to get laid, so I'm against it". Bravo.
I made many points, so I definetly did not boil it down to one thing, but yes, if you only read that half sentence of mine, you are almost right. I'm not cool with it, but at least understand that small amount you are willing to make a fuss about: I was talking about the decline and/or death of the so called "manliness" from our culture and what it could possibly cause to many men, I just made myself the center of the example, since I've already mentioned earlier that I'm not the stereotypical macho-man at all.

It would not take me any work to get laid, because it would be impossible to work for being more manly, it'd be something unequal, which feminism had already eradicated. I'd be in an environment where trying to be manly is something antiquated and should be judged, but the vast majority of the females would still look for male traits in us, because those make them attracted to us.

You should just keep posting Prince gifs, because your written contributions to this debate/arguement have been rather lackluster so far.

[aggroculture]

Nature made men stronger, and shaped their thinking not questioning why they are the ones going on dangerous hunting missions, when females are just fighting with bushes and trees.

I'm sure evolutionary psychology has something interesting to offer, but the dumbed-down version you bring up here is a conservative fantasy. We don't know much about division of the labor in the stone age. For all we know, the women did the hunting and the men did the gathering. It's pretty much conjecture and projection. But even if we knew everything about those hunter-gatherers, it still would have no bearing on the present. Why should what cavemen did be a basis for gender politics of today? It should not. Let cavemen do their thing, and we'll do ours. Cavemen were in no way shape or form more "natural" or authentic human beings than us: they lived in their world, we live in ours.

[Mantra]

are you a man?

Yes


I refer to biology because I base what's healthy on nature, because I hold more than a billion years of evolution much smarter than all of us compared.

All your flattened out statements about evolution are completely besides the point here. There's no evolutionary justification for trying to police someone's gender/identity or for maintaining inequality along gender lines. The color pink wasn't genetically assigned to females through natural selection, nor were dresses or nail polish or lower salaries. To say boys shouldn't wear pink makeup or girls shouldn't wear baggy skateboard pants or whatever, none of that has anything to do with biology. Fashion, make up, style of dress, customs and manners (i.e: the luggage bullshit), etc, all of that is just culture, and it's totally arbitrary. There's nothing biologically wrong with a boy wearing make up. It is neither natural nor unnatural. It's just fashion. You don't like it because it's not your taste. In general you do a lot of this thing where you try to invoke "nature" and "biology" and "the way things are" in order to artificially inflate your personal taste into the objective truth, because that's all you can do. Your views aren't based on anything real, they're based on fuzzy cultural myths. You like your gender norms because you like them, not because you've found evolutionary proof that men can't wear eyeliner and rape culture is just how things are.

[Swykk]

My favorite part is when Volband gets real condescending and says things like, "You aren't contributing anything" all the while continually getting out thought and out classed at every turn. Yes, please, continue to write novels to us about what you're "contributing." I'll take Prince over "bullshit fluff bullshit bullshit misogyny bullshit arrogance bullshit gender bias bullshit bullshit sexism" any day.
Here's where you join the elite names on my Ignore list like Bill Pulsipher and that one weirdo who REALLY likes Death Grips and also like you, writes paragraphs filled with nonsense! Enjoy!

[playwithfire]

Prince gifs are about all I can manage to most of that stuff.



So what, we make a matrilinear society, so 500 years later we could fight against it? Or we will create equality by the help of the law, so the male/female representation will have to be 50/50? Why would you insist on such radical changes "just for the fuck of it"?

You'd have the same chances at a job interview as a man, you'd get the same salary, etc., why can't you just stop, and not step into volatile territories, which will just ultimately fuck things up one way or another.

If you can't accept that world peace is a dream, then sure, challenge everything, but I hope the majority of the women could sleep just fine, if such terms like "you run like a girl"; "skirts are for women"; "you should not be a dick, especially not with women" would still exist.

I wasn't "insisting on radical changes." I was pointing out to you that the current heteronormative dynamics in our society are way less natural than you think. Here, have the same exact post with the things you seem to have misunderstood bolded.


You can't hold up biological impulses and evolution as the sole or primary influence on humans. Society and culture plays just as a big of an influence (if not bigger) on people as whatever biology we might be influenced by.

You can't hold up the animal kingdom as a reflection of natural male and female dynamics because for every male dominated group (lions) you have shit like hyenas and elephants, which if not flat out matriarchal are non-typical of the menz doin all the ruling & hunting. Homosexuality in the animal kingdom isn't a sign of deviation or a fluke, it's just fucking natural.

Matriarchal societies are much rarer among humans, but we do have matrilineal and matrilocal. That shit IS NOT A FLUKE. No more so than a patriarchal society is. It's just the way shit developed. You can't champion any of it as the natural or right way. It's just how things are, and one of the great parts of growing as humans is that we get to challenge that shit when it doesn't make sense.

What do you think would happen, if we lived in a society where gender roles were less iron clad, where men and women had a more balanced set of opportunities? Where a guy wearing a skirt wasn't something anyone really gave a shit about?

Do you think that feminine women would just cease to exist and that people would stop doing nice things for each other? Would it bother you to think that the people doing nice things for each other was less the strong helping the weak and more the strong or weak helping who they could? Like... what do you really think would happen in a more accepting world? Thousands of years of culture aren't going to get erased.

[Sarah K]

He wouldn't have the opportunity to get laid. And we all know that is bullshit.

Booo, equal rights!

[aggroculture]

http://feministing.com/2014/03/26/the-most-pointlessly-gendered-products/

[Demogorgon]

i don't want to get super involved, but i think part of what Volband is afraid of isn't equality as far as rights go, i think it's more he's worried that by eliminating too many gender lines, we risk losing what makes each gender unique and instead become androgynous, then becoming unimaginative copies of each other. or maybe not; i don't know. i've tried to follow the discussion and it just leaps all over the map.

[Nyx]

But to that you could say that by keeping gender lines, all males will become unimaginative copies of eachother (and females, respectively). It's silly. I've always maintained that there's a lot more variety and differences between individuals than there are between genders.

[icklekitty]

That's what feminism/deconstruction is about. A rainbow in glorious technicolour as opposed to black and white. Hence the Pride flag. (Interestingly there is such a thing as straight pride and the flag is black and white)

[Volband]

Can't say much to those who still think I'm against equal payments or girls with trousers, or short hair, or whatever. Well, I said this much anyway.

My favorite part is when Volband gets real condescending and says things like, "You aren't contributing anything" all the while continually getting out thought and out classed at every turn. Yes, please, continue to write novels to us about what you're "contributing." I'll take Prince over "bullshit fluff bullshit bullshit misogyny bullshit arrogance bullshit gender bias bullshit bullshit sexism" any day.
Here's where you join the elite names on my Ignore list like Bill Pulsipher and that one weirdo who REALLY likes Death Grips and also like you, writes paragraphs filled with nonsense! Enjoy!
Not sure why you reply to me, when you announce that you will make all my posts invisible (this is childish on many levels), but since I've been adressed...

How am I getting out thought and out classed, when the majority of our arguement can be summed up with "I think it is the better way, you think that is the better way". Just because you agree with them, it doesn't mean my points are objectively "bullshit". Trust me, to me, most of the counter-arguements from that side sounds the same BS to me, I just try to understand it, and some - not you - were able to bring some solid stuff to the table. You came to this thread being unnecessarily dramatic, and leave it in the same fashion, crucifying me and all.

And let me get condescending, when all he does is posting gifs and missing the few points he is willing to react to by a long shot. I know he's gay, so I have absolutely 0 intention to brawl it out with him, because in this glorious technicolour world I'd be dissected in a second if I were to call him out on the stuff he's been saying. I mean, no one gave a flying fuck, that when he completely missed the point, he actually gave this answer: 'You've GOT to be shitting me with this. You've just boiled your entire argument down to "It would take me more work to get laid, so I'm against it". Bravo." - do you guys even realise he basically told me it's fucking natural for me to try to match the expectations which is forced onto me by GENDER INEQUALITY? In a thread where I get all the hate for implying that some inequalities are fine and actually needed for a healthy society?

I hope my sound will eventually echo to you, because you just announced that you are not willing to read any of my posts on this board, because I do not agree with this kind of feminism. Grow up or sth.


i don't want to get super involved, but i think part of what Volband is afraid of isn't equality as far as rights go, i think it's more he's worried that by eliminating too many gender lines, we risk losing what makes each gender unique and instead become androgynous, then becoming unimaginative copies of each other. or maybe not; i don't know. i've tried to follow the discussion and it just leaps all over the map.
Hello. My heart just experienced joy, because after suffering through posts which just deliberately blow out of proportion sth I said, or just simply try to annoy me, since it's easier than say sth meaningful, you actually get it!

Becoming copies of each other is one thing, but we'd yearn for difference by nature, or even worse, I am wrong, nature doesn't have to do anything with it, and then it's all be a coin toss whether you will be gay or not.

Generations passed, and now it's completely normal if a boy uses pink nail polish, or if he wears skirt, or rogue, or high heels, or eventually wants to cut his penis off, because it was just evolution way of trying to define you a little bit. But we are not cavemen anymore, are we? This boys' parents' raised him to be a person, not to be a boy, or god forbid a man. The term "man" is pretty rude in this world, it reminds you of a long deconstructed cultural era, when it meant many things women did not want to be. "So, why do I have my penis?" - he asks, and his parents tell him that it is to have sex with men or women, whatever he will choose, but there are items out there which can stimulate just as well, or even better - not to mention they can't get infected or tired. He can also freeze his sperm in case he'd like to reproduce, so he doesn't need his penis. So, why wouldn't he cut it off? It's just one of the last bastions which makes us still not equal. He doesn't have to, but he should feel bad if he doesn't even consider it in his lifetime.
His sister is 25 years old and she never shaved any of her bodyparts, she just likes that smooth mustache, and she still can't believe it that hundreds of years ago she would've been discriminated for such a thing. She would've been told that she's not feminine enough. She works in a factory, she sprays various kinds of chemicals on things. It's a job which were only for men, but those times are gone. Her hive had to be extracted because the chemicals made such destruction to the cells, that her baby would've been very sick, if she/he could survived 9 months at all. She's asked if she's happy, and she nods with empty eyes.

The world is not an overall better place than before, gay couples fights just as much as heterosexual couples where the line that separated women from men completely disappeared. People still abuse each other, still steal, still rape, still murder, because society is a big game of action-reaction. You can still have a fucked up childhood, you can still envy your neighbour to the point where you go crazy and murder his/her whole family, you are still in a race with other people to climb higher on the social ladder, and don't forget religion. Oh yes, religion - you might destroyed men, by forcing them between a rock and a hard place, where everyhing they could do would just label them narrow-minded, antiquated morons, but no way you dared to fight with religion and its' zealous followers. All this hard work, and you are still not equal, but at least society is fucked up even more.

And why? Because having equal salary and equal treatment in the professional world was clearly not enough as a goal. @Nyx (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=30): Yes, but individuality is growing hand in hand with gender and other social influences. Enclose someone in a dark (or rainbowy) room for his/her first 20 years, and you won't find much individuality.


Prince gifs are about all I can manage to most of that stuff.



I wasn't "insisting on radical changes." I was pointing out to you that the current heteronormative dynamics in our society are way less natural than you think. Here, have the same exact post with the things you seem to have misunderstood bolded.



What do you think would happen, if we lived in a society where gender roles were less iron clad, where men and women had a more balanced set of opportunities? Where a guy wearing a skirt wasn't something anyone really gave a shit about?

Do you think that feminine women would just cease to exist and that people would stop doing nice things for each other? Would it bother you to think that the people doing nice things for each other was less the strong helping the weak and more the strong or weak helping who they could? Like... what do you really think would happen in a more accepting world? Thousands of years of culture aren't going to get erased.
People already do less nice things to each other, and on top of that you want to feel men who helps out women just because that is how their culture shaped their thinking, a piece of sexist shit.

And how is men wearing skirts is not a radical change? You will ridicule the future I foreshadowed higher but you should remember your own words. Yes, nature AND culture made us, but you want to show the middle finger to both.

Having a more accepting world is something I can get behind of, but how exactly your views are more accepting, when I get shit on for vouching for the right for men to hold their man traits? Like, that's not acceptable now?

Your views aren't based on anything real, they're based on fuzzy cultural myths. You like your gender norms because you like them, not because you've found evolutionary proof that men can't wear eyeliner and rape culture is just how things are.
Sigh, okay. You don't like your gender roles, because you don't like them. Where are we going with this? Yes, our culture is definetly in need some patches, but I won't agree to turn it upside down.

And fuzzy cultural myths, really? Do you suffer physicalpain when a man opens the door for a woman? What did it ever do to you? (and don't start that rape culture thingy again)

[allegro]

Wait a second, you keep bringing up this man opening a door for a woman thing, but that ceased being a part of feminism back in the 60s in this country. We finally figured out that this is just what we call "manners" or "etiquette." Sometimes I'll even open the door for YOU, too. Some of the wonderful things about the feminist movement in this country is that not only did it give women freedom but it gave men freedom. Men were no longer expected to pick up the tabs at dates (although, according to stuff I'm reading it seems that women are still expecting this to happen), we can go dutch or sometimes women pick up the tab. And in most families women bring in at least 1/2 the wages (although women are still doing most of the housework and making most of the meals, go figure) and men report that they enjoy women being more educated and employed, etc. Also, while women are no longer treated as too weak to lift things, that doesn't mean we don't enjoy men treating us nicely! When a man offers to help me lift something, I don't tell him to fuck off! That's just rude and bad manners! I tell him thank you and accept his offer! And women are now back to CHOOSING to be stay-at-home moms, because it's still a CHOICE, which should be done without shame. And there are stay-at-home DADS, too, and the feminist movement gave them that freedom of choice of that role. When my husband orders for the both of us at a restaurant, I don't yell "HEY, I'M A FEMINIST, YOU ASSHOLE, I CAN ORDER FOR MYSELF" because I still have etiquette and proper manners, and it makes more practical sense when he knows what I'm ordering and it gets done all at once. And, it's romantic and old-world class. :-) On the other hand, lots of wine sommeliers will now hand ME the wine sample for ME to taste (when this was unheard of many years ago). And my husband's masculinity isn't offended by this. When a man opens the door for me, I simply smile and say "thank you!" That is proper manners. There is no "gender" issue, here. The man isn't telling me I am weak. He is simply being courteous and is using proper manners in a world full of TERRIBLE manners. Good manners and proper etiquette is refreshing and welcome. We do not look at it as a "feminist" issue, here. This isn't Japan, where a woman holds the tea pot with two hands to show her gender weakness. Here in the U.S. we still have trouble with idiots forcing their way into an elevator while I'm still trying to get OUT of the elevator. We NEED people to learn and use more manners. When somebody uses manners or kindness, it's refreshing. When somebody moves their cart out of the way at the market and says "excuse me," it makes my day! Frankly, some man offering to help me with my luggage is usually an employee at a hotel and that's his job and he gets tipped accordingly.

[Volband]

Wait a second, you keep bringing up this man opening a door for a woman thing, but that ceased being a part of feminism back in the 60s in this country. We finally figured out that this is just what we call "manners" or "etiquette." Sometimes I'll even open the door for YOU, too. Some of the wonderful things about the feminist movement in this country is that not only did it give women freedom but it gave men freedom. Men were no longer expected to pick up the tabs at dates (although, according to stuff I'm reading it seems that women are still expecting this to happen), we can go dutch or sometimes women pick up the tab. And in most families women bring in at least 1/2 the wages (although women are still doing most of the housework and making most of the meals, go figure) and men report that they enjoy women being more educated and employed, etc. Also, while women are no longer treated as too weak to lift things, that doesn't mean we don't enjoy men treating us nicely! When a man offers to help me lift something, I don't tell him to fuck off! That's just rude and bad manners! I tell him thank you and accept his offer! And women are now back to CHOOSING to be stay-at-home moms, because it's still a CHOICE, which should be done without shame. And there are stay-at-home DADS, too, and the feminist movement gave them that freedom of choice of that role. When my husband orders for the both of us at a restaurant, I don't yell "HEY, I'M A FEMINIST, YOU ASSHOLE, I CAN ORDER FOR MYSELF" because I still have etiquette and proper manners, and it makes more practical sense when he knows what I'm ordering and it gets done all at once. And, it's romantic and old-world class. :-) On the other hand, lots of wine sommeliers will now hand ME the wine sample for ME to taste (when this was unheard of many years ago). And my husband's masculinity isn't offended by this. When a man opens the door for me, I simply smile and say "thank you!" That is proper manners. There is no "gender" issue, here. The man isn't telling me I am weak. He is simply being courteous and is using proper manners in a world full of TERRIBLE manners. Good manners and proper etiquette is refreshing and welcome. We do not look at it as a "feminist" issue, here. This isn't Japan, where a woman holds the tea pot with two hands to show her gender weakness. Here in the U.S. we still have trouble with idiots forcing their way into an elevator while I'm still trying to get OUT of the elevator. We NEED people to learn and use more manners. When somebody uses manners or kindness, it's refreshing. When somebody moves their cart out of the way at the market and says "excuse me," it makes my day! Frankly, some man offering to help me with my luggage is usually an employee at a hotel and that's his job and he gets tipped accordingly.
Here goes my 300th post, stating that I can't say a single "but" here.

[allegro]

Here goes my 300th post, stating that I can't say a single "but" here.
Is that bad or good?

[Volband]

Is that bad or good?
Well, it's not even close to your 2200, but it's a start, right?

(I said I agree with you; whether it's bad or good... I don't know, you tell me)

[allegro]

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't understand that response as agreement :-). I thought maybe it was sarcasm. I'm glad that we agree!

[Ryan]

http://forums.na.leagueoflegends.com/board/attachment.php?attachmentid=776147&d=1378672192

[Sarah K]

Ryan wins.

[Ryan]

Always.
10 chars

[Sarah K]

This Hobby Lobby shit is making me rage today. Ugh.

[staleincense]

This Hobby Lobby shit is making me rage today. Ugh.
Wait, what's happening?

[Sarah K]

Nothing new... Just the case is finally being heard. Reading the comments of support for it make me want to gouge out my eyeballs.

[allegro]

Nothing new... Just the case is finally being heard. Reading the comments of support for it make me want to gouge out my eyeballs.

See also this (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/02/07/420114/many-catholic-universities-hospitals-already-offer-contraception-as-part-of-their-health-insurance-plans/). This shit has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with MONEY. I have NEVER worked for a company or firm that has paid for birth control. Because of religion? No. Because of expense. The extra coverage costs more. And they simply won't fork over the extra cash. Now that they're forced to, it's a different story.

[Sarah K]

They actually covered Plan B up until it became mandated. Now, they suddenly have an issue with it.

They also don't cover IUDs because of their "religion". But here's the thing: I wound up in the hospital about a year and a half ago due to hormonal birth control. At that time, I was told that I will never be able to take hormones again, as they couldn't find any other cause for my issues. So, that leaves me with the copper IUD. Which has been pretty awesome. But, if I worked for Hobby Lobby, I never would have been able to get the IUD because it CAUSES ABORTIONS.

It's stupid as fuck.

[halloween]

I've finally gotten to the point where I'm allowing myself to enter the "scary world" of feminism. I always felt discouraged because well, politics and such. Anyways, I'd like suggestions on who's an obvious read when it comes to feminism 101? I feel silly saying that all I know is just a general history of "feminist movements" from my high school text book.
Of course, I've read a lot of opinion pieces here and there online, but that's hardly in-depth...

[playwithfire]

They actually covered Plan B up until it became mandated. Now, they suddenly have an issue with it.

They also don't cover IUDs because of their "religion". But here's the thing: I wound up in the hospital about a year and a half ago due to hormonal birth control. At that time, I was told that I will never be able to take hormones again, as they couldn't find any other cause for my issues. So, that leaves me with the copper IUD. Which has been pretty awesome. But, if I worked for Hobby Lobby, I never would have been able to get the IUD because it CAUSES ABORTIONS.

It's stupid as fuck.


One of the things I will miss most about my IUD is knowing how big of a fuck you it is to idiots like that.

[Elke]

I've finally gotten to the point where I'm allowing myself to enter the "scary world" of feminism. I always felt discouraged because well, politics and such. Anyways, I'd like suggestions on who's an obvious read when it comes to feminism 101? I feel silly saying that all I know is just a general history of "feminist movements" from my high school text book.
Of course, I've read a lot of opinion pieces here and there online, but that's hardly in-depth...

Definitely Mary Wollstonecraft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Vindication_of_the_Rights_of_Woman), because she's one of the first female feminist theoretical thinkers. You can find her Vindication on the Rights of Woman at Project Gutenberg (http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/3420/pg3420.html).
I can totally pass up some male founders of feminism, but not Friedrich Engels. Yes, he's a marxist, but his analysis is fascinating and still very influential. It's called The Origin of Family, Private Property and the State, and you can find it in all its glory here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/index.htm).
And then Simone de Beauvoir, anything by her but especially The Second Sex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_Sex)(1959), which you can find online here (http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/de-beauvoir/2nd-sex/index.htm).
1970 is an awesome year for feminist theory! You need a background in philosophy for Judith Butler's Gender Trouble (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_Trouble), but since it's an essentional contemporary book on gender and feminism, I'm going to name it here. From the same year is The Dialectic of Sex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dialectic_of_Sex)by Shulamith Firestone, which is pretty radical but interesting nonetheless. Monique Wittig's La pensée straight is more about lgbtq issues, but focusses mostly on gender issues around lesbianism, which leads to meditations on feminism. Pretty interesting book, imho. You can find the titular article here. (http://faculty.winthrop.edu/stockk/contemporary%20art/Wittig%20straight.pdf) And no list could be complete without Germaine Greer, especially The Female Eunich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Female_Eunuch). I never read Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique, but I'm told I should (have).

Other books that are feminist, but not necessarily about feminism are Naomi Wolf, The Beauty Myth (1991) and Alice Walker's The Colour Purple (1982) - I could have put I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, because they both describe the black female experience very well, but I personally prefer TCP. Oh, and OF COURSE, Jeanette Winterson.

Some articles to get you started:
Guess What, You're a Feminist (http://jezebel.com/5930663/what-no-one-else-will-tell-you-about-feminism) is meant to be funny, but it actually manages to explain the essential ideas succinctly
The Female Body (http://www.stanford.edu/~jonahw/AOE-SM10/Readings/Atwood-FemaleBody.pdf) by Margaret Atwood
Joan Didion, The Woman's Movement (http://www.nytimes.com/1972/07/30/books/didion-movement.html?_r=0)
Bad Feminist (http://www.vqronline.org/essay/bad-feminist) by Roxane Gay
Carol Hanisch, The Personal Is Political (http://web.archive.org/web/20080515014413/http://scholar.alexanderstreet.com/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=2259)
Guernica interviews Rachel Holmes (http://www.guernicamag.com/interviews/fifty-shades-of-feminism/)
Trickle-down Feminism (http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/trickle-down-feminism)by Sarah Jaffe
Hannah Rosin, The End of Men (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2010/07/the-end-of-men/308135/)

Have fun!

[Ryan]

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/5191060224/hFAB71C9D/

[orestes]

Dude, stop with the non-sequiturs.

[Sarah K]

+1 for religion today

-1 for women

Fuckin' fuck.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/justices-make-employers-cover-contraception-24364165

[playwithfire]

What. The. Fucking. Shit. What.

Whaaaaat.

ALL OF THAT WAS IN CAPS FOR THE RECORD

[Sarah K]

CORPORATIONS ARE PEOPLE

lololol

[xmd 5a]

A fucked up double-whammy with the recent "buffer zone" decision. Scary scary stuff.

[Nyx]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/t1.0-9/10509501_724022486165_2461727069413368372_n.jpg
An illustrated guide to American personhood..

[Space Suicide]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/t1.0-9/10418271_730526966993933_6908093948516162269_n.jpg

I find this fucking hilarious.

[marodi]

I'll just leave it here so that you can all have the possibility to facepalm it. Don't worry, I won't take it personally. I wish I could facepalm it too.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rossalynwarren/i-do-not-think-it-means-what-you-think-it-means?bffb

[DigitalChaos]

Can someone tell me if this is really an accurate representation of what people want consent to look like?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVHYvUpeqKI

[eversonpoe]

Can someone tell me if this is really an accurate representation of what people want consent to look like?

the first time you're with someone? yes. absolutely. and it can be fun and sexy.
once you've been with someone and you've established rules/boundaries, it's not really necessary any more (unless the situation calls for it), but the first time should ABSOLUTELY be filled with quick checks to make sure things are ok.

also, that guy has the same haircut as me.

[DigitalChaos]

the first time you're with someone? yes. absolutely. and it can be fun and sexy.
once you've been with someone and you've established rules/boundaries, it's not really necessary any more (unless the situation calls for it), but the first time should ABSOLUTELY be filled with quick checks to make sure things are ok.

also, that guy has the same haircut as me.

Have we completely lost body language? Are people so awkward and socially broken that this explicit step-by-step verbal permission request is required? Have people lost the ability to say "stop"?? It's like a game of Mother May I. Also, the girl didn't ask for a few things that the guys did.

This video honestly felt like a sarcastic take on the "yes means yes" law that California just passed.

[tony.parente]

also, that guy has the same haircut as me.

Not even joking, when it first started I was all "why is eversonpoe in this?" Also when I was dating and I was in this situation I would very gingerly move my hands places that felt 'appropriate' and if she moved my hand or said no in any way I would just not acknowledge she said anything and stop what I was doing. Asking every 10 seconds if something was ok seems like it would throw off the flow of things.

[slave2thewage]

How do we feel about Rose McGowan's "gay men are more misogynistic than straight men" remarks? I thought she had a point, but it was worded in the most awful way possible.

[playwithfire]

I think worrying about active consent being a mood killer super distracts from why it's important and also... it is seriously just not that difficult.

[WorzelG]

The person who is driving me up the wall in a real 'feminism might as well never have existed' sense is my mother-in-law. She's like a 1950s housewife sometimes. She is always critiquing my mothering skills compared to her perfection, with no acknowledgement that our eldest son is ASD. She is absolutely convinced everything will be fine with some old-fashioned discipline

[Sallos]

Can someone tell me if this is really an accurate representation of what people want consent to look like?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVHYvUpeqKI

That's a guide on how to kill attraction, that's what it is.

[Sarah K]

https://twitter.com/search?q=%23DudesGreetingDudes&src=tyah

This is the best.

[eversonpoe]

That's a guide on how to kill attraction, that's what it is.

so you'd rather end up in a situation that could be considered rape because you're not willing to ask "is this ok?" that seems kind of ridiculous.

[Sallos]

so you'd rather end up in a situation that could be considered rape because you're not willing to ask "is this ok?" that seems kind of ridiculous.

Well luckly i've dated sane women, who didn't mind my "take what i want" attitude and when i was rough the first time with them they didn't care and came back for more. Ofcourse if i was to get too rough in the first time i'm sure they would voice or show disconfort and i would either stop or take it down a little.

The ridiciulous thing here is behaving like those two in that video and thinking it's normal. Maybe in the US it is since there's a "rape epidemic" worse than ebola.

So for istance let's say you didn't ask to put a finger up the girls butt, would that be rape?

[DigitalChaos]

so you'd rather end up in a situation that could be considered rape because you're not willing to ask "is this ok?" that seems kind of ridiculous.
Can i reply to your post and share my thoughts with you? /scarcasm

Maybe I just completely don't understand the culture of today, but I wouldn't ever date someone if they were completely unable to communicate their thoughts to me without me asking like they are a child. There is going to be some basic level of getting to know someone before it reaches physical intimacy. Maybe if that entire portion is stripped away and you are fucking anything that happens to breath, sure... then maybe you should ask. MAYBE.

I can guarantee that there are many people who would think it's cute when you ask to kiss them, and then get super annoyed by the question every subsequent step of the way. There are so many reasons for it to... it can be taken as lack of confidence, a distraction, an insult, etc.

The hyper safe approach of "would you rather end up in a bad situation?" can be applied to all kinds of things that seem pretty overboard: signed documents agreeing to sex, video proof of all agreements and subsequent acts, 8 layers of condoms, and never leaving your house.

[icklekitty]

i can guarantee that there are many people who would think it's cute when you ask to kiss them



criiiiiiiiiinge

[DigitalChaos]

criiiiiiiiiinge
lol. and many who don't! I was attempting to hit the middle-ground where asking every step of the way was still too much.
All I can think of with the "asking to kiss" scenario is a neckbeard in a fedora following every request with "m'lady"

[icklekitty]

LMAO. Indeed. Indeed.

I've had this discussion on Facebook recently; a lot of the people I encounter seem to entertain the binary between uber-macho-entitle-rape and over-cautious-cotton-wool-chastity. I kind of feel that if we dilute the situation with an equal learning of self esteem and self deprication we will be ok.

[DigitalChaos]

LMAO. Indeed. Indeed.

I've had this discussion on Facebook recently; a lot of the people I encounter seem to entertain the binary between uber-macho-entitle-rape and over-cautious-cotton-wool-chastity. I kind of feel that if we dilute the situation with an equal learning of self esteem and self deprication we will be ok.

*swoon* (in a platonic way, of course)

What do you (and anyone else in this thread) think about the attempts to legislate it, such as the "Yes means yes" law in CA?
I personally put it in the same category as any other "bedroom laws," like anti-sodomy laws. The thought of raising children under that law and teaching them that the law REQUIRES that they ask at every step of the way... what the fuck are we in for when those kids grow up and become the dominant generation (http://i.imgur.com/DTE8W5l.jpg)?

[eversonpoe]

Well luckly i've dated sane women, who didn't mind my "take what i want" attitude and when i was rough the first time with them they didn't care and came back for more. Ofcourse if i was to get too rough in the first time i'm sure they would voice or show disconfort and i would either stop or take it down a little.

The ridiciulous thing here is behaving like those two in that video and thinking it's normal. Maybe in the US it is since there's a "rape epidemic" worse than ebola.

So for istance let's say you didn't ask to put a finger up the girls butt, would that be rape?

that fact that you're making jokes about both rape and ebola tells me that we're not going to have any kind of intelligent discourse about this topic. you seem to have issues with power and entitlement and deflect them by acting overly masculine and asserting your perceived power, and i just don't give a shit.

yes, there is a rape epidemic, but it's not just in the US. rape is a serious problem and it stems from misogyny and abuse of power, mostly by men. and it's not funny.
as someone who was raped by a woman, i have a unique perspective and an intense passion for consent.

don't come in here and crap all over a positive conversation about consent and how it's becoming a more commonplace discussion for people in sexual relationships. it's a GOOD THING. and if you don't like it, then don't be in a relationship with someone who prefers it. there's a difference between two people entering into known territory and having a "take what you want" attitude and rape, yes, but it can be a fine line.

and yes, if you were getting intimate with someone and just decided to engage in anal play without any discussion and they weren't comfortable with it, that would be a form of sexual assault.

[icklekitty]

There's an instance in both of your posts here that's missing; the frontier where the person does or doesn't say no.

You put the hand up the person's bum and:

1. They say nothing and are fine with it
2. They say no and you stop
3. They say nothing but really wanted to say no
4. They say yes but really wanted to say no
5. They say no but really are scared of a new thing but do not say so
6. They say no and you continue

And many more besides. In each of these places the responsibility of consent lands in a different place. Intentional malice, misunderstanding, lack of confidence...this is multiplicitous.

[eversonpoe]

There's an instance in both of your posts here that's missing; the frontier where the person does or doesn't say no.

You put the hand up the person's bum and:

1. They say nothing and are fine with it
2. They say no and you stop
3. They say nothing but really wanted to say no
4. They say yes but really wanted to say no
5. They say no but really are scared of a new thing but do not say so
6. They say no and you continue

And many more besides. In each of these places the responsibility of consent lands in a different place. Intentional malice, misunderstanding, lack of confidence...this is multiplicitous.

you are 100% correct, and the best way to deal with the situation is to ask FIRST without coercion. i get it, some people don't think it's sexy to ask (and, like i said previously, once you've established what is and isn't ok within the confines of an intimate relationship, you shouldn't have to ask every time), but it would be so much better to ask and know than not ask and not know if you're forcing someone into a situation in which they don't want to be.

[DigitalChaos]

There's an instance in both of your posts here that's missing; the frontier where the person does or doesn't say no.

You put the hand up the person's bum and:

1. They say nothing and are fine with it
2. They say no and you stop
3. They say nothing but really wanted to say no
4. They say yes but really wanted to say no
5. They say no but really are scared of a new thing but do not say so
6. They say no and you continue

And many more besides. In each of these places the responsibility of consent lands in a different place. Intentional malice, misunderstanding, lack of confidence...this is multiplicitous.

As someone who has actually "said yes but wanted to say no", I'd like to say that #1 and #2 are what I consider the realm of functional adults. #3 & #4 (and probably #5) are the realm of people who are too immature to be having sex. #6 is straight up rape. Keep in mind, this is assuming the person isn't drunk out of their mind or something... those people aren't in the right mental space to be having sex either.
This is why I have a HUGE issue with people trying to legislate the intimate lives of adults.

[eversonpoe]

As someone who has actually "said yes but wanted to say no", I'd like to say that #1 and #2 are what I consider the realm of functional adults. #3 & #4 (and probably #5) are the realm of people who are too immature to be having sex. #6 is straight up rape. Keep in mind, this is assuming the person isn't drunk out of their mind or something... those people aren't in the right mental space to be having sex either.
This is why I have a HUGE issue with people trying to legislate the intimate lives of adults.

totally agree with you on all of that.
however, the aspects of pressure/coercion also have to be taken into account. #3 & #4 can still happen to a mature person who is in a situation that is scary and unfamiliar.

[Sallos]

that fact that you're making jokes about both rape and ebola tells me that we're not going to have any kind of intelligent discourse about this topic. you seem to have issues with power and entitlement and deflect them by acting overly masculine and asserting your perceived power, and i just don't give a shit.

yes, there is a rape epidemic, but it's not just in the US. rape is a serious problem and it stems from misogyny and abuse of power, mostly by men. and it's not funny.
as someone who was raped by a woman, i have a unique perspective and an intense passion for consent.

don't come in here and crap all over a positive conversation about consent and how it's becoming a more commonplace discussion for people in sexual relationships. it's a GOOD THING. and if you don't like it, then don't be in a relationship with someone who prefers it. there's a difference between two people entering into known territory and having a "take what you want" attitude and rape, yes, but it can be a fine line.

and yes, if you were getting intimate with someone and just decided to engage in anal play without any discussion and they weren't comfortable with it, that would be a form of sexual assault.

Well i stand by what i said, and am glad i live in a place where such things as Yes means Yes are unthinkable and men and women can engange in sexual relationships without having to draft contracts and "go with the flow" of the moment and ofcourse without the fear of a possible rape charge.
And not having to look like those fools in the video is always a plus.

[DigitalChaos]

totally agree with you on all of that.
however, the aspects of pressure/coercion also have to be taken into account. #3 & #4 can still happen to a mature person who is in a situation that is scary and unfamiliar.
hrmmm
I've thought about this for the last 50min and just can't wrap my head around an example. I can't think of any situation where a mature adult would be unable to articulate their own thoughts, especially in the form of a single word: "no", "stop", etc

Any examples?

[DigitalChaos]

Well i stand by what i said, and am glad i live in a place where such things as Yes means Yes are unthinkable and men and women can engange in sexual relationships without having to draft contracts and "go with the flow" of the moment and ofcourse without the fear of a possible rape charge.
And not having to look like those fools in the video is always a plus.
I get what you are saying, but your initial post about "take what I want" and butt fingering came off very.... http://i.imgur.com/hXyThiu.gif

[Sallos]

I get what you are saying, but your initial post about "take what I want" and butt fingering came off very.... http://i.imgur.com/hXyThiu.gif

you mean, awesome? hehe

[allegro]

hrmmm
I've thought about this for the last 50min and just can't wrap my head around an example. I can't think of any situation where a mature adult would be unable to articulate their own thoughts, especially in the form of a single word: "no", "stop", etc

Any examples?
Passed out or incoherent drunk, which was why the CA law was created. Most rape / sexual assault laws require the victim to "fight back" or indicate "no" in some way (via case law), because the laws don't take into account an unconscious or totally incoherent victim or a victim who totally lacks the ability to consent (impaired due to drugs, alcohol, lack of mental capacity); the laws have typically held that the lack of "no" (and the lack of fighting back) means "yes," or indicates consent. Hence, when 5 football players put a roofie in a co-ed's drink and she becomes incoherent, they can all legally take turns ass-fucking her and taking videos for 6 hours because she never said "no." Or, if she's mentally retarded and they lure her into a basement ...

[tony.parente]

https://twitter.com/search?q=%23DudesGreetingDudes&src=tyah

This is the best.

Maybe it's because of the sense of humor me and my guys friends have but that's seriously how we greet each other on the regular. Not even joking

[Sarah K]

Also, just shitty past experiences coming into play. Being afraid ​to say no in the moment because of what could happen.

[Swykk]

Because the guessing game is way better?! Not for me. Communicate what you would and wouldn't like, please and I'll do the same.
Of course, again, this is why I'm single. I don't read minds.

[DigitalChaos]

Passed out or incoherent drunk, which was why the CA law was created. Most rape / sexual assault laws require the victim to "fight back" or indicate "no" in some way (via case law), because the laws don't take into account an unconscious or totally incoherent victim or a victim who totally lacks the ability to consent (impaired due to drugs, alcohol, lack of mental capacity); the laws have typically held that the lack of "no" (and the lack of fighting back) means "yes," or indicates consent. Hence, when 5 football players put a roofie in a co-ed's drink and she becomes incoherent, they can all legally take turns ass-fucking her and taking videos for 6 hours because she never said "no." Or, if she's mentally retarded and they lure her into a basement ...

I actually listed intoxication as the only possibility here (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/threads/491-The-feminism-equality-thread?p=224697#post224697). I'm open to the idea that I am just missing something, but it really seems like the situations eversonpoe listed (saying nothing but wanting to say no, saying yes but wanting to say no) are only happening with immature people who probably aren't ready for sex anyway (beyond intoxication).

It all connects back to my original statement about how this kind of over the top "can I kiss you? Can I kiss you here? Can I kiss you there?" questioning seems way out of place in adults who know how to communicate with each other. I'm of the opinion that you need to have some basic level of getting to know someone and having the ability to convey basic thoughts to the person before engaging in sex. Things like saying "stop" just shouldn't be an issue in a sober adult. THIS is why the video I posted seems ridiculous. The two people in that video are not intoxicated.

I'm actually starting to wonder if the issue is with the current culture of teens. Has sex become such a casual thing that people are jumping into it before they are mature enough to make that choice? I know that's been a growing thing over the generations, but maybe it has hit a threshold? See "hook-up culture." I fear it is that culture where lack of consent is more common. I fear that laws and campaigns promoting behavior as depicted in that video will send a reinforcing message to kids, further expanding that culture and the problems with it. "This is how sex should be." "this is how mature adults communicate"

I'm not sure I am explaining this correctly, but there it is.

[Sarah K]

You know, this is one area where the kink community really fucking shines... Open and honest discussions about what each person is or is not okay with before sexytime even starts. Yes, shit can and will change in the moment. But at least there is a general blueprint for what is acceptable.

[allegro]

I actually listed intoxication as the only possibility here (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/threads/491-The-feminism-equality-thread?p=224697#post224697). I'm open to the idea that I am just missing something, but it really seems like the situations eversonpoe listed (saying nothing but wanting to say no, saying yes but wanting to say no) are only happening with immature people who probably aren't ready for sex anyway (beyond intoxication).

It all connects back to my original statement about how this kind of over the top "can I kiss you? Can I kiss you here? Can I kiss you there?" questioning seems way out of place in adults who know how to communicate with each other. I'm of the opinion that you need to have some basic level of getting to know someone and having the ability to convey basic thoughts to the person before engaging in sex. Things like saying "stop" just shouldn't be an issue in a sober adult. THIS is why the video I posted seems ridiculous. The two people in that video are not intoxicated.

I'm actually starting to wonder if the issue is with the current culture of teens. Has sex become such a casual thing that people are jumping into it before they are mature enough to make that choice? I know that's been a growing thing over the generations, but maybe it has hit a threshold? See "hook-up culture." I fear it is that culture where lack of consent is more common. I fear that laws and campaigns promoting behavior as depicted in that video will send a reinforcing message to kids, further expanding that culture and the problems with it. "This is how sex should be." "this is how mature adults communicate"

I'm not sure I am explaining this correctly, but there it is.
Sex has ALWAYS been that way with teens. But boys used to be taught manners, were taught to treat girls with respect. These stupid videos are just bad ways of teaching manners and respect, because evidently that is now a foreign concept. Teens ALWAYS had raging hormones with zero brains to match, this is not a new thing. But society used to have "good girls don't" as an excuse; now, teens have the opposite pressure. Adults, too, evidently.

Even if you have your tongues in each other's mouths and your hands down each other's pants, the unwritten rule always was that either party had the absolute right to suddenly change their mind. Mature adults can walk away and reschedule and not die (or not rape). Yes yes yes oh god fuck me yes can suddenly become no, for various reasons (omg I have to pee so bad) and we shouldn't feel like we're gonna get raped. And then we also wouldn't need this step-by-step contract.

[tony.parente]

Sex has ALWAYS been that way with teens. But boys used to be taught manners, were taught to treat girls with respect. These stupid videos are just bad ways of teaching manners and respect, because evidently that is now a foreign concept. Teens ALWAYS had raging hormones with zero brains to match, this is not a new thing. But society used to have "good girls don't" as an excuse; now, teens have the opposite pressure. Adults, too, evidently.


I'm 27 and consider myself pretty young and maybe you're referring to the 13-19 year old crowd but as a kid it was instilled deep into my psyche to respect boundaries and treat people in general with respect. I don't think that belief has really stopped...I think what's happening now is the fact that everyone is so deeply connected with the internet the dirty minority is getting a much bigger spotlight than it ever has. Then again I have no facts to back that up.

[xmd 5a]

My wife and I still regularly "check in" with each other and verbally communicate about what's good / what isn't during the "moment". It isn't awkward at all. I know my experience is anecdotal and yada yada yada, but it's really not that bloody hard to make sure the other person is enthusiastically enjoying it. I can't enjoy myself at all unless it's 100% mutual.

As such, I 100% support the Yes Means Yes standard.

[allegro]

I'm 27 and consider myself pretty young and maybe you're referring to the 13-19 year old crowd but as a kid it was instilled deep into my psyche to respect boundaries and treat people in general with respect. I don't think that belief has really stopped...I think what's happening now is the fact that everyone is so deeply connected with the internet the dirty minority is getting a much bigger spotlight than it ever has. Then again I have no facts to back that up.
No, you're way older than the intended demographic. The alleged epidemic is with college students, the 18 - 22 crowd (binge drinking is also a huge factor not being addressed by the schools). I think DigitalChaos was implying that this demographic had not yet grown up, and/or had not properly matured during teen years.

[allegro]

You know, this is one area where the kink community really fucking shines... Open and honest discussions about what each person is or is not okay with before sexytime even starts. Yes, shit can and will change in the moment. But at least there is a general blueprint for what is acceptable.
Yes, and then there are safewords.

[playwithfire]

My wife and I still regularly "check in" with each other and verbally communicate about what's good / what isn't during the "moment". It isn't awkward at all. I know my experience is anecdotal and yada yada yada, but it's really not that bloody hard to make sure the other person is enthusiastically enjoying it. I can't enjoy myself at all unless it's 100% mutual.

As such, I 100% support the Yes Means Yes standard.


Same. I'm VERY fickle sexually and what I like changes a lot. Checking in (and communicating what I want) matter a lot.

I'm used to my current partners being really respectful generally, and I've asked people if I can kiss them for the first time and shit like that and it's never been a big deal and have experienced the same.

[playwithfire]

And to follow through on that, yeah, I think Yes Means Yes should be made law.

Like, read the fucking text:

"An affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by both parties to sexual activity. “Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent."

Whole thing is here. (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967)

That's not a step by step constant verbal consent requirement. What it DOES do is remove potential for "miscommunication" where someone is really being taken advantage of.

I can't imagine that being difficult. If you can't deal with the idea of consent being ongoing, don't have sex.

[tony.parente]

Yes, and then there are safewords.
My safeword is no, I also have a safemotion of tensing up or them moving my hand.

Literally been 100% foolproof so far.

[playwithfire]

Sounds like you practice ongoing consent, bruh.

[allegro]

And to follow through on that, yeah, I think Yes Means Yes should be made law.

Like, read the fucking text:

"An affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by both parties to sexual activity. “Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent."

Whole thing is here. (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967)

That's not a step by step constant verbal consent requirement. What it DOES do is remove potential for "miscommunication" where someone is really being taken advantage of.

I can't imagine that being difficult. If you can't deal with the idea of consent being ongoing, don't have sex.
I absolutely support these laws, I have since day one, for the primary reasons they were drafted, and that was due to students who could not consent because they were unwittingly fed massive amounts of alcohol (sometimes mixed with rape drugs), were then sexually assaulted, could not even identify their assailants, yet "witnesses" claim that the victims were "conscious" because their eyes were open. And the universities / colleges assisted in covering these crimes up. In several of the cases, the university investigation indicated that the victim did not say no (which implied yes), and that the assailant did not show any signs of struggle (no bite marks, nail marks, etc.)

[tony.parente]

Sounds like you practice ongoing consent, bruh.

I ALWAYS follow consent, I always pay attention to body language and other queues and if something isn't kosher I back up. None of that cringeworthy stuff in that video though.

[playwithfire]

I mean, I think so many people are like OMG YES MEANS YES IS GOING TO RUIN SEX and... it's just not. Communication is different from person to person and while I like more verbal communication *sometimes* everyone is different.

This legislation/those practices aren't going to go ruin anyone's sex lives who weren't already being dumb.

http://everydayfeminism.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/rape-and-consent-1100-e1414461517293.jpg

[tony.parente]

"And if she passively gives in to sex check that things are cool before going any further"
Yes.
This.
For the love of god this.
ESPECIALLY if its a girl you just brought home or its the first time. Holy balls.

[allegro]

Tony, you're getting weird.

[tony.parente]

Tony, you're getting weird.

All I'm trying to say is that video up there had the right idea kind of idea, but it was some weird extreme cartoon version of consent that gave me the douche chills.