|
Feminism is like freedom. It's a nebulous, but almost always something we should be striving for. Like freedom, it's also something the less educated masses scream at each other to justify whatever lovely action. Im not going to join a antifreedom movement just because of a bad encounter with a guy who drives a lifted f150. Don't let a few bad apples spoil something good. Ty.
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 05:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 12:00 |
|
|
Most internet people I see that proudly identify as "anti x" do so because of they really really hate a thing/person and enjoy conflict. It often comes with a side of moral grandstanding but not always. Feminism has never been less necessary in the western world.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 06:58
|
|
|
Manchild King posted:Most internet people I see that proudly identify as "anti x" do so because of they really really hate a thing/person and enjoy conflict. It often comes with a side of moral grandstanding but not always. What a wonderful redtext.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 08:16
|
|
|
rudatron posted:And who gets to loving decide who gets to the privilege of 'teaching' i.e. not being silent? You? gently caress that and gently caress you, if you think you know more than me, you can bloody well prove it. Maybe you do, and I'll look like an idiot - that's the price I play for learning. Or maybe you don't. Either way, it's evil and authoritarian to demand people be silent. Democracy in all things, even human interaction. It won't kill you to shut your mouth once in a while rather than always speaking all the time. There is nothing democratic about running your mouth constantly and not letting anyone else get a word in edgeways.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 09:19
|
|
|
Somfin posted:What a wonderful redtext. I tend think that I know what's going on in this forum, but then a redtext like this comes along and I'm flabbergasted that I seem to have missed some serious and hilarious drama.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 09:19
|
|
|
rudatron posted:IQ tests ... it's not clear that they measure any kind of innate intelligence. Somfin posted:Cingulate can you go even one thread without bringing up your worthless, disproven, repulsive human biodiversity pseudoscience? Go to fuckin' Stormfront, they'll love you there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 09:40
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It won't kill you to shut your mouth once in a while rather than always speaking all the time. There is nothing democratic about running your mouth constantly and not letting anyone else get a word in edgeways.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 10:16
|
|
|
Manchild King posted:Most internet people I see that proudly identify as "anti x" do so because of they really really hate a thing/person and enjoy conflict. It often comes with a side of moral grandstanding but not always.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 10:18
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Who said anything about preventing others from getting their word in? I want dialogue, and that's a two way street. I'd no more accept another to be silenenced, than I would accept anyone else silencing me. One's voice is precious, and I will always respect that, whoever that person is. The tyranny is not that men talk too much, but that women are not allowed to participate!
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 10:26
|
|
|
But no one reliably knows what the extent of their knowledge is, see: dunning kruger effect. In part that's because all knowledge today is highly unlikely to be experienced first hand, and instead must be transmitted from another (how many people actually confirm first hand that what their high school science teacher taught them is true?). Whether you believe them is based on how much you trust them. The mistake of Trump was not that "Trump spoke too confidently", but that "The people listening didn't employ critical thinking skills, and his political opposition failed to gain and maintain the trust of the public, largely because they were incompetant".
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 10:43
|
|
|
So how much do you think our masculine gender role did have some effect here? To what extent do you think he felt license to, and was given license to, act overconfidently and never back down because he's a Manly Man? And what became of "gently caress you Cingulate"?
Cingulate fucked around with this message at 10:51 on Jan 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 10:48
|
|
|
Honestly the bigger impact was on Clinton, who was the victim of a lot of bullshit that stuck. She wasn't that charismatic a person, but there's no doubt sexism played a part. I mean the RNC right now is hosting emails on their own private servers, and 30% of voters are okay with this (also GWB deleted 12 million emails on his private servers lol). That's a massive loving double standard.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 10:51
|
|
|
Hm. It'd be essentially impossible to prove anything here, but my impression is Trump benefits more from dumb male stereotypes than Clinton suffered from female ones.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 10:55
|
|
|
I guess there is one thing to note about Trump; Trump was shown to lie on a daily basis, yet they never really seemed to hurt him, where as Clinton never seemed to ever escape her mistakes. I don't doubt gender played a role there, but I disagree that that had anything to do with what I'm talking about. I respect people's voice, but liars should be punished for lying. So speak, never be afraid to do that, but you should own what your say, that's the honorable thing to do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 10:57
|
|
|
Arguably, Trump is not so much a liar as a bullshitter. Which is a fairly gendered thing again I would think. But I have to again admit I'm not standing on a basis of strong evidence here. But I'm beginning to be a bit sorry for proposing this tangent cause the angry buffoon about is way too present in every discussion already.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 11:01
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Hm. It'd be essentially impossible to prove anything here, but my impression is Trump benefits more from dumb male stereotypes than Clinton suffered from female ones. I think Trump mainly benefited during the primaries from being the forceful no nonsense guy in a room full of limpwristed sissies, a narrative which the media gleefully supported, and which stuck to him for the remainder of the election, with unintended consequences. Or a form of masculine anti intellectualism, if you will.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 11:23
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:What's so bad about that word? I guess it would be wrong to claim they're explicitly and consciously taught that, but it still seems appropriate to me. You just see how the grownups around you act, and you're subconsciously reinforced in your own gendered behavior and subtly punished for transgressions. I'd call that teaching. I might be taking this the wrong way but it sounds like you think I dislike the word taught. I dislike how a poster said Man-splaining and Man-spreading is "taught"
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
Exmond posted:I might be taking this the wrong way but it sounds like you think I dislike the word taught. I dislike how a poster said Man-splaining and Man-spreading is "taught" it is taught, by reinforcing the idea that men should speak up and voice their opinion even if it's a terrible, ignorant opinion of no value to anyone. women are not taught the same, i mean abstractly in terms of free speech mainly but in practice women are generally told they should defer to men http://www.tinhouse.com/blog/41314/on-pandering.html quote:
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:it is taught, by reinforcing the idea that men should speak up and voice their opinion even if it's a terrible, ignorant opinion of no value to anyone. women are not taught the same, i mean abstractly in terms of free speech mainly but in practice women are generally told they should defer to men We are going to disagree here. Please tell me how its taught that men will spread there legs to be "opressive" to women, and that men must actively assume women don't know anything and must explain things. Where you see malciousness and sexism, I see someone who is inconsiderate on the bus. I see someone who is maybe way too into anime and wants to explain it to people , regardless of gender. You are talking about general sexism and society, where I am focusing in on the stupid term "Man-spreading" and saying it is not taught because it's dumb to assume men spread there legs to oppress women. Edit: You might convince me on man-splaining, I won' argue that men may be dicks and assume women don't know much, but I don't think its so widespread it needs its own sexist statement.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
Exmond posted:Edit: I do believe that it is not really your place to tell women (who are the ones who invented that word) that your feeling that it's not that widespread trumps their experience that it really is. I mean, this sentence, at its very core, is the kind of stuff we are talking about. You do not know, you believe, but that will not stop you from expressing the superiority of that belief over the recounted experience of people who do know.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
Exmond posted:We are going to disagree here. Please tell me how its taught that men will spread there legs to be "opressive" to women, and that men must actively assume women don't know anything and must explain things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
Exmond posted:We are going to disagree here. Please tell me how its taught that men will spread there legs to be "opressive" to women, and that men must actively assume women don't know anything and must explain things. i personally dont care about manspreading or whatever but the general idea here is that society holds men and women to different standards, and that is how people are 'taught'. not like, literally taught, fathers don't take their sons to the subway and say "today i'll show you how to oppress women by spreading your legs". it's more subtle - men are allowed to have more dominant body language, women who do this are too masculine or butch or whatever, and face social pressure, and here's the ugly part - that social pressure is ingrained in you so you police yourself or else you start having internal identity conflicts like "what i'm doing right now is bad, i shouldn't be doing it" think of it more in terms of general social privilige - to use dumb stereotypes, years ago nerds were taught to be ashamed of their hobbies, that they were inferior and should keep that part of their identity secret. compare this to jocks, who were taught their hobbies were socially approved, to the point that people are sometimes expected to have an opinion on local sports team when they're not supposed to have any opinion on video games beyond "it's for children, and bad" etc. the super flagrant out and proud nerds would just take the social hit and accept their inferior status to be themselves - think about young adult lesbians who go super hard into being visibly lesbian as a protest - whereas if you just had some nerd hobbies you'd maybe shut up and pretend you're not. this metaphor is getting really tortured but in a sense manspreading = thing i'm not allowed to do, as a woman, so it's a visible reminder of the patriarchy. when was the last time you saw a woman sitting like this? if so, how old were they?  e: also what flowers for algeria said, no offense but i dont care if you accept this definition as valid or not, that's kind of the problem - people debating others lived experiences like it's objective boner confessor fucked around with this message at 18:01 on Jan 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
Even the burden of getting taught to manspread is put onto women. Women are the ones that get implicit training on how to 'sit properly" and neatly and that there is a correct, polite, feminine way to sit. Men then just get the lesson that sitting like a lady is gay and bad and they shouldn't do it. Like women have someone actually teaching an actual lesson to them on the proper way to sit, men learn their way to sit by being called a fag if they neatly cross their legs or whatever like a GIRL (the two things that are clearly worst thing to be).
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:But the prevalence of a bunch of these behavioral traits is much higher in one and much lower in the other gender. Women generally sit neatly. If somebody takes up 3 seats with a .75-seat hip, it's, 9 out of 7 times, a guy. That means something. I mean it is actually kind of difficult to sit with your legs together if you have a dick and balls in the way. You don't have to try to emulate a starfish 24/7 but sitting with your legs apart is sort of an anatomical limitation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
yeah - the other side of the patriarchy is that where men are allowed to do masculine things, they are not allowed to do things seen as feminine, so this is like the opposite of manspreading this is how women sit, not manly men OwlFancier posted:I mean it is actually kind of difficult to sit with your legs together if you have a dick and balls in the way. there's a difference between 'legs apart' and 'i'm not treated as a sexual object so i can air out my crotch in public and people won't comment or stare'
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I mean it is actually kind of difficult to sit with your legs together if you have a dick and balls in the way. That is 100% not true and you may have a disease if you find that to be the case.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:The differences on IQ are much larger between the races that usually come up here than between the sexes. This is a really weird one. The Black/White difference is a mostly stable 15 points (probably shrinking slowly). The sex difference is somewhere between 5 and zero. But I see this idea that people are much more willing to accept sex than race effects all the time. Yes, and this supports my point. When you see this sort of thing, the default assumption should be either 1. there's something wrong with our measurement for intelligence or 2. this difference is due to socialization, especially in a case where the measured difference (in this case of intelligence) is greater between groups that are less biologically different (or it could be both of these things). Either way, I only mentioned race because it's related to the topic of people trying to prove that innate biological differences lead to behavioral differences across human groups and why it always makes sense to assume a non-biological cause for any difference that isn't obviously biological. It's possible that you might be wrong and something might actually be due to biology, but given what we know it makes no sense to assume that absent very convincing evidence. edit: The core point I was trying to get at is that people who try to make the point "well, if you actually thought of things scientifically it's totally possible these behavioral differences could be due to biological differences across the groups in question!" are being dumb/wrong and that actual scientists disagree. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 18:08 on Jan 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:there's a difference between 'legs apart' and 'i'm not treated as a sexual object so i can air out my crotch in public and people won't comment or stare' I concur but communal seating does seem to be designed with the assumption that you can sit comfortably while vice gripping your nuts for a long time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I mean it is actually kind of difficult to sit with your legs together if you have a dick and balls in the way.  Have you ever seen a woman's hips? Ytlaya posted:Yes, and this supports my point. When you see this sort of thing, the default assumption should be either 1. there's something wrong with our measurement for intelligence or 2. this difference is due to socialization, especially in a case where the measured difference (in this case of intelligence) is greater between groups that are less biologically different (or it could be both of these things). E.: I'm perfectly willing to continue in a different, less undeserving thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I concur but communal seating does seem to be designed with the assumption that you can sit comfortably while vice gripping your nuts for a long time. how much do you weigh?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I concur but communal seating does seem to be designed with the assumption that you can sit comfortably while vice gripping your nuts for a long time. i am super not into this derail at all but normally you can rest your nuts on top of your thighs unless either your testicles or your thighs are overly enlarged
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
botany posted:how much do you weigh? Probably more than you. I mean I can just about manage to sit like the above image but not very easily. You shouldn't sit like the guys in the office chairs though it makes you look like a massive idiot. E: you also shouldn't go to work in sandals  What is that image from out of curiosity? OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Jan 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I hope it's okay and you don't feel disrespected (or if I'm conceding, ho ho) if I don't reply as my position is a massive, thread-killing derail. Please continue this in TGRS 
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:
Does it? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Does it? No that's normal, if difficult, I mean this: Do not sit like an enormous knobhead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Probably more than you. Then that's the reason you can't sit like that, not the fact that you have testicles.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Considering the US just elected the sexual assaulting cheeto king, I'd say Feminism is still nevessary in the west. And woefully ineffective at achieving tangible political goals.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Where has it been used like that, exactly? Not the person you asked, but i see it misused often online not so much in person , which to me means it's a minor annoyance at most and even that's pushing it
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:I do believe that it is not really your place to tell women There's no need to do this. In other words, what you are saying here is 'by virtue of being a man, your opinion is wrong.' Or 'a woman/multiple women said it, therefore it is right.' Surely, you have an argument stronger than that for the ubiquity of 'man-splaining'.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 12:00 |
|
|
Sethex posted:And woefully ineffective at achieving tangible political goals.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 18:36
|
|