Likes: 
Faceplams: Notre Dame's real dead woman
It's not as big a story as the Indian rape scandal, and perhaps that makes it infinitely more interesting.
Throbbing Member
Notre Dame's real dead woman
It's not as big a story as the Indian rape scandal, and perhaps that makes it infinitely more interesting.
Throbbing Member
"GirlWritesWhat" explains why she is in favor of gender equality but refuses to call herself a feminist:
Active Member
http://manboobz.com/
This makes me chuckle/cringe.
Throbbing Member
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.Originally Posted by hobochic
Last edited by littlemonkey613; 01-20-2013 at 01:58 PM.
Stubby Member
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.
Bite me
How is feminism "bad" for women's rights? Those young people are obviously misinformed or haven't done their homework.
Active Member
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.
Throbbing Member
"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?
Active Member
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013...ess-protesters
Opinions on FEMEN? I don't really know what to think. I am a bit confused, if intrigued.
Active Member
Maybe time to revive this thread?
This is a pretty good article on liberal white feminism and "leaning in": http://www.racismreview.com/blog/201...rate-feminism/
Also, I guess I got my answer on FEMEN: (NSFW):
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...s-8797042.html
Active Member
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.
Active Member
It was a split from another thread so the context is removed and it doesn't say what you said. Gender is not binary.
Active Member
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?
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.
Last edited by Volband; 03-20-2014 at 09:17 AM.
Active Member
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/Homosex...ior_in_animals Very normal.
Active Member
A male is not born a Man. Gender is not binary.
There is a difference between having a feeling and being prescriptive.
Active Member
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.
Active Member
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.
Active Member
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.
Active Member
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.
Active Member
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.
Active Member
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.
Add Violins
What you're describing is sort of like a gender/sexuality version of "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.
The Enhancer
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.
Bite me
"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"
Last edited by allegro; 03-20-2014 at 10:27 PM.
Active Member
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?
Bite me
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.
Last edited by allegro; 03-20-2014 at 11:47 PM.
Active Member
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.
Bite me
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."
Last edited by allegro; 03-21-2014 at 12:28 AM.
Throbbing Member
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.
Last edited by Alexandros; 03-21-2014 at 03:11 AM. Reason: Grammar
Active Member
@allegro; @Fixer808: 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.
Last edited by Volband; 03-22-2014 at 04:29 PM.
