Originally posted by royalchickenThe problem with the feminist movement is that their target group is women.
Ranjana,
I'm sorry if I confused the issue with my violent choice of metaphors.
The mosquito is symbolic of actual, insidious, degrading, harmful sexism. The ant is symbolic of simple awareness of the fundamental biological, social, and point-of-view differences between genders [a (female) friend commented to me the other day, after a comment (n ...[text shortened]... my female friends, many of whom are fairly politically-minded in other arenas.
Regards,
Mark
Most women believe they should have equal rights to men nowadays (in Western culture). It's the men that need emancipating (from their own backwards ideas).
Now, isn't that a sexist thing to say? A sweeping generalisation for sure. But could it be true?
Originally posted by shavixmir
I see the discussion is still raging like a bull in Pamplona. And still I've not heard the politically correct venture to where their stand will lead us.
shav i really think you are hung up on this politically correct idea. political correctness is not a bad thing necessarily especially when it tries to reduce disparity. it is one way to change the status quo, which got there in the first place because of some sort of political 'incorrectness'.
Yes, there will be fewer insults thrown at individuals because of race, colour, religion and sex. But what sort of insults will you then create? You won't be left with a void. It will be filled.
that's basically saying if we don't provide people with an outlet to abuse others they will find one. that is certainly not a necessary result.
I've not heard who's going to judge whether bared breasts are sexist on the Venus de Milo
yes you have in my last post to you on the other thread. the issue doesn't revolve around bared breasts either - it has to do with the attitudes oppressors have towards those they oppress. it is ridiculous to think that this can't be changed since it is changed all over the place and time.
I seriously fear you are embarking on creating a bland world which will not defeat sexism in the least.
again, these are not correct assumptions at all. feminism has made tremendous strides over the decades - the world isn't any blander and though sexism isn't defeated it is considerably reduced.
You will find that the leaders of the nazi party are dressed like honourable businessmen and probably never utter a racist word in public.
what does this have to do with anything at all?
This is the status quo of the world
status quos change
Say the politically correct achieve their aims and no more sexist jokes are cracked here at RHP.
Does anyone seriously think that attitudes will have changed?
yes some attitudes will have changed and a lot more will change as a result of not allowing sexist jokes, because future generations will also change their attitudes as a result of the ban. let me give you a concrete example - smoking. in the 70s, they told us that we couldn't change people's attitudes about smoking and that we couldn't stop people from smoking. so the first thing we did was to pass legislation banning smoking in public areas. as a result of this, people suddenly realized they don't have to put up with other people's smoking - attitude change #1. then things went further and smoking suddenly became unpopular - attitude change #2. people still smoke, but it just isn't as easy as it used to be 4 decades ago, because both the attitudes and the status quo have changed.
And in this censorship you will not only alienate sexists, but probably just serve to make them more sexist.
again you are not looking at how movements have worked in the past be it racism, sexism, specieism. you don't make changes by sitting around saying that it can't happen, or that it won't happen if we try to make it happen. change happens because people make an effort - it may not work the first few times and it may take awhile, but it does happen because of those noble efforts you spoke of earlier.
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by shavixmirshav, i really don't think you understand what the feminist movement is and what it does. there is a lot more to it than what the anti-politically correct propaganda presents.
The problem with the feminist movement is that their target group is women.
Most women believe they should have equal rights to men nowadays (in Western culture). It's the men that need emancipating (from their own backwards ideas). ...[text shortened]... to say? A sweeping generalisation for sure. But could it be true?
however, you are absolutely correct in much of what you are saying here, but not putting the ideas together. the feminist movement targets both men and women - and society.
it is also not simply about bare breasts and censorship.
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by royalchickenBirds of a feather flock together, no?
In fairness, I don't know a lot about these issues--my attitude toward feminism comes largely from observing the indifference toward it that is pretty universal among my female friends, many of whom are fairly politically-minded in other arenas.
If RC's circle of friends exhibit a similar degree of
intelligence, well-roundedness, open-mindedness, and
understanding of the way things are, then it does not
surprise me one bit that his politcally-minded female friends
are indifferent to feminism. That is the most appropriate
stance on that movement. Anyone who doesn't see that
has simply not contemplated the issue sufficiently to
understand the full implications of the feminist school of thought,
or is just trying to jump on the convenient "discrimination
bandwagon" in order to achieve their own selfish ends.
I stand by my prior statements characterizing people who
support this movement. That is not name calling -- it is an
honest observation. I welcome anybody to challenge my stance
in a well-reasoned debate, because that is my best and most
honest opinion of how I see that movement.
Dr. Cribs
Originally posted by pradtfDid you really mean:
just because you figure you are offended isn't an excuse to act offensive.
"Just because Cribs is offended is not an excuse for him to act offensively"
or did you mean:
"Just because somebody is offended is not an excuse for that person to act offensively"
If the first case, why do you single me out?
If the second case, why did you not come to my defense when
people acted offensively toward me after being offended by my posts,
and rather supported those people instead?
Dr. Cribs
Originally posted by pradtfThe reason I mention the facists in nice clothing is that I'm trying to make clear that just because someone doesn't spout sexism, doesn't mean he isn't sexist and automatically: someone who does crack sexist jokes could be the most emancipated character in the universe.
Originally posted by shavixmir
[b]I see the discussion is still raging like a bull in Pamplona. And still I've not heard the politically correct venture to where their stand will lead us.
shav i really think you are hung up on this politically correct idea. political correctness is not a bad thing necessarily especially when it tries to reduce ...[text shortened]... but it does happen because of those noble efforts you spoke of earlier.
in friendship,
prad[/b]
You can't compare smoking to sexism. Smoking can kill people. Smoking makes your clothes and breath smell bad. Besides, do you know anything more sanctimonious than the whining of non-smokers or ex-smokers in particular?
Attitudes towards smoking haven't changed much since the 70's and that's with bans, constant propaganda and the continuous complaining by people who don't understand they'll still be inhaling lead for the next 70 odd years and that little bit of second-hand smoke they inhail in a pub is nothing in comparison.
The cigarette packages even have warnings on them like: "SMOKING KILLS."
Just how much has changed? Not much.
You continually claim that banning sexist humour, carried out systematically, will not lead to censorship of arts. You don't argue the case though.
I've not dabbled in politics for a couple of years now, but last I heard (1998?) the feminist movement was still holding gatherings for women about women and the situation women are in.
That is what I was referring to.
Originally posted by royalchickenThis is perhaps an example of a common mistake people make, of a spurious 'translation' of something said by someone of a different race/sex/religion etc. Basically, if someone who does not differ from you in these ways says something, you simply understand what you hear; but if someone, say, of the opposite sex says it, you feel compelled to conclude that their mode of thinking is fundamentally different, and you must 'translate' what is said via your general impressions of how the other sex thinks, a bit like getting out a German dictionary to discover that 'Gift' actually means 'poison'. As a result, instead of associating what is said with the particular person, it is seen as a consequence of their sex.
a (female) friend commented to me the other day, after a comment (not related to any gender issues) I made, that ''Girls are SO not guys.''.
In some languages there is a related phenomenon in that males and females are expected to use slightly different words and phrases. This is not the case in most varieties of English, and yet there are still lists of 'What men/women say and what it means'. For example, 'Nothing' as a response to 'what's wrong?' is often listed as a woman's way of saying that something is wrong. In fact, both men and women make use of 'nothing' to mean something that they aren't willing to elaborate on (but may be of concern to them), and so it should not need translation.
Originally posted by shavixmirTo be fair to the feminists, there are still areas, even in the West, in which women are disadvantaged, eg wages. I agree with you though that too much of feminism is framed in terms of 'what can women do to stop men being nasty to them' rather than 'how can we create a fair society for all'. Also, there's an argument that many things in our society are not directly sexist, but indirectly so by being too 'masculine' in their mode of operation, and as a result women need to 'feminise' them. I should make it clear that there do exist 'masculinists' who complain about certain things being too 'feminine', and I find this equally annoying. Despite what you might think after studying French, the world is not composed of the elements masculinity and femininity any more than it is composed of earth, air, fire and water.
I've not dabbled in politics for a couple of years now, but last I heard (1998?) the feminist movement was still holding gatherings for women about women and the situation women are in.
That is what I was referring to.
To take a rather silly example, science itself has been accused of sexism. Why? Because its mathematical, law-based model of the universe is closer to the way the average male thinks than the average female. The author goes on to say, for example, that turbulence in fluids isn't really that complicated - the reason science hasn't got very far in dealing with it is because it is blinkered by excluding feminine modes of thinking.
Originally posted by AcolyteI don't quite know what you mean because taking that sentence, even if it is unclear, at face value (ie regardless of the gender of the person saying it) supports the idea that males and females differ in some way. I only mentioned that the person saying it was female because otherwise it could appear as a couple of sexists closing ranks against women or something.
This is perhaps an example of a common mistake people make, of a spurious 'translation' of something said by someone of a different race/sex/religion etc. Basically, if someone who does not differ from you in these ways says something, y ...[text shortened]... may be of concern to them), and so it should not need translation.
Also, isn't some kind of consideration of the other person's circumstances: age, interests, experience, education, culture etc. helpful in interpreting what they say? My tendency is to take people very literally, so I try to put people's words in the context of who they are, and that includes (usually in very small part) their gender.
I'm not suggesting that there are hard-and-fast rules like ''women are cleverer than men'' or ''men are more belligerent than women'' or even that any such principle holds in general. Instead I am speculating about why one can fairly easily determine someone's gender from sufficiently long things they say (I'm referring to specific research here).
toe, that is a good post and i am sorry i haven't had the time to answer it yet. i will try to do so quickly now, but if my answers are insufficient, please say so and i'll respond again.
Originally posted by Toe
One thing I always worry about in discussions of this nature is that we start down a road that says we should not focus on our differences
we are not on this road at all - the road has to do with not using those differences against those that have them.
So yes, why not wear tops that accentuate a breast (or two as is traditional). Or trousers (that's pants to our US friends) that fit a pert manly butt well.
there is no reason not to. if you have a feature that you are proud of and wish to 'show it off', then there should be no problem. but, speaking of butts, you should not be expected to do so because you are a man and be thought less of if you do - or if you don't.
the idea that being sexual equates to demeaning oneself, objectifing your gender or that humor
being sexual is not demeaning. however, the demeaning comes from certain 'onlookers' who have certain 'expectations'. for instance, if a women is sexual or promiscuous, she is called a slut (the only male equivalent seem to be a stud, though it doesn't seem to carry quite the same intention), but if she isn't, then she becomes a prude. somewhere between these, if they let her, she may find the niche of 'nice girl'.
To return to my original worry, the will to avoid recognition of difference, creates an environment where people are afraid to be different, to stand out, to be themselves.
and that's precisely what breaca and several others are doing in this thread - being different, standing out and refusing to be cast into the mold - note from the very 1st post: "I don?t want any special privileges, just the freedom to be judged on what I am and what I do rather than by what I was born."
Be free. Be different (as you are, not for the sake of it). Don't be afraid of the differences of others: celebrate it instead.
in order to celebrate, one needs to be free from the fear of being different. this thread is not about repressing sexuality or the differences between men and women, but about removing those obstacles to that freedom - then the celebrations can indeed begin.
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by royalchickenjust going to butt in to comment quickly for now, rc - may be more later, but am in a hurry.
When my mum was at college, she saw a lecture by the feminist theorist Mary Daly. There was a question period at the end, and a male student stood up and began to respectfully dispute one of Daly's points. Halfway through his sentence, Daly responded: ''Man..sit down.''
i am assuming here that this student had not violated some protocol (ie speaking out of turn) and wasn't reprimanded for that reason. furthermore, i take your objection to it as stemming from the phrase "Man ... sit down" - the counter version of "Woman! ... sit down".
if that is what you are objecting to then i quite agree. here is why. "Woman! ... sit down", basically is saying "you little piece of property who will do what i say because you are only a woman ... sit down because i'm telling you to do so."
Daly has 'cleverly' turned that around using the symbolism reapplied and is saying "you little piece of property who will do what i say because you are only a man ... sit down because i'm telling you to do so."
not nice in my opinion, regardless of the point she was trying to demonstrate.
however, what we have done here is to agree not so much on your idea that it is not cool to squish an "innocent ant was caught in the battle against mosquitos", but that techniques that denigrate and demean another be they male to female, male to male, female to male, or female to female - are simply unkind and uncivilized.
the problem is not so much that in this instance the ant was squished, but that someone tried to squish him in the first place in this manner.
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by shavixmirwell certainly they are going to hold gatherings for women about women, but depending on the mandate of the particular group they reach out to all sorts of others through education - there are many aspects to the feminist movement, well beyond the anti-propaganda which seems to be where your opinion is formed from. some oppose abuse, some oppose inequality in the workplace, some educate women, some educate men (trying to emancipate them as you wanted), some work with environmental issues (eco-feminists), some work in the peace movement.
I've not dabbled in politics for a couple of years now, but last I heard (1998?) the feminist movement was still holding gatherings for women about women and the situation women are in.
That is what I was referring to.
and they don't all agree with each other on everything either.
You can't compare smoking to sexism. Smoking can kill people. Smoking makes your clothes and breath smell bad. Besides, do you know anything more sanctimonious than the whining of non-smokers or ex-smokers in particular?
the comparison was to show that through legislation you do change attitudes.
considering smoking does smell and does kill (and i'm talking 2nd handstuff) - a certain amount of sanctimoniousness seems justified.
Attitudes towards smoking haven't changed much since the 70's
may be not where you are, but they've sure changed elsewhere. even the government is into it and cigarette companies like phillip morris have been forced to put out antismoking ads - a lot more than just the 'smoking kills' bit.
You continually claim that banning sexist humour, carried out systematically, will not lead to censorship of arts. You don't argue the case though.
what's there to argue? of course it will lead to the censorship of the arts - but the way you were talking you made me think it will result in the elimination. there is plenty of art left beyond the sexist lines and in the right situations with the right people and with mutual consent - even sexist humour can have a place. this is not such a revolutionary idea - for instance, it is considered inappropriate to show pornographic films (even funny ones) in elementary school, right? but if you want to rent it from your video store and watch it at home with a bunch of guys or girls or whatever - you surely cannot complain that you are being deprived and the arts are coming to an end.
we don't have an anything goes policy even in the real world - we do put restrictions on things making some things suitable and some not depending on the whare and when. so i don't really understand what you are so worried about.
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by shavixmirShavixmir,
I've not heard who's going to judge if clothes are sexist. (huh? if a woman is wearing a very short skirt and very flimsy top clothing; thus accentuating her body, is this sexist? If she wears it to a job interview, is it sexist?)
I'll just respond to this part of your post (i just don't have the time to keep up with this as much as i would like - but I think Prad did a great job).
A woman should be free to wear what she wants and feels comfortable with. The "sexist" part comes into it when others attibute certain negative character traits because of it. If she chooses to wear a short skirt and flimsy top (because she feels good, and not because there is any pressure to do so) why shouldn't she? If she chooses to "show cleavage" why shouldn't she? The problem is not with her for doing so, the problem is only with those who see her in a negative light because of it or who make assumptions or have expectations about her willingness to have sex because of it.
Now, as far as the job interview goes: there is a general dress protocol for all. Both men and women are expected to wear "business" attire. If you want to question this attire, that's fine, but it is not a gender issue.
in peace
Ranjana
Originally posted by Cribsin the first case, because you launched the personal attack.
Did you really mean:
"Just because Cribs is offended is not an excuse for him to act offensively"
or did you mean:
"Just because somebody is offended is not an excuse for that person to act offensively"
If the first case, why ...[text shortened]... posts,
and rather supported those people instead?
Dr. Cribs
in the second case, let me know who is offending you in the future (via PM, if you wish) and i'll be there for you!
but do make sure that you don't make the job of defending you harder than it needs to be, by having acted or acting pugnacious, unkind, uncivilized etc - and whatever you do, don't violate that TOS.
in friendship,
prad