|
the trump tutelage posted:Why is this bad? Is there something sacred about the subaltern experience? It's not necessarily bad and challenging dogma/authority certainly has value but a shared pool of resources and knowledge, particularly those involving mental and emotional states or behaviors in two different groups, will likely at the least avoid wasting time reinventing the wheel. From a tactical perspective you don't want two entities trying to do the same thing in uncoordinated ways because secondary effects can be disastrous. I'm currently dealing with establishing something with a likely powerful adversary and entities on my side often offer up support ideas that sound great to them but would be hugely disastrous if performed because they aren't working with a lot of the core information.
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 04:57 |
|
|
FactsAreUseless posted:That post is a pretty perfect example of how patriarchy victimizes men. Not, and I want to be clear here, in the same ways or to the same extent as women. But it still couches a ton of harmful assumptions in the language of strength and weakness that is part of a patriarchal culture. If young men harmed by patriarchal structures are turning to spaces where they become radicalized then I don't think vocalizing their suffering as less important is a good way to keep them away from those spaces. Their suffering may be globally less, and neither does the suffering need to be glorified, but would your statement have been any less if you removed the second sentence?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
Most of the stereotypes applied in any direction were absent or less pronounced at my HS (I can barely remember things before that other than generally disliking things). Smart girls and boys were generally promoted in their interests and I don't think any were directed away, at least within the school, from whatever college path they pursued. Sports were popular-ish but didn't have nearly the cache that is typically portrayed on TV - then again we weren't like ALL STATE CHAMPS so sports were mostly just a thing (and there's a massively difficult topic on masculinity in HS sports because from talking to people who played sports in various HS the experiences were extremely disparate to the point where I'd question any nationwide study as useless). I don't think girls were particularly told to be silenced in HS (or pre-HS) nor were boys told their "opinion was king" - "loudmouth" was used as the male "chatterbox" and deployed seemingly evenly, although I doubt anyone can know how frequently a targeted approach was used for another student. That said, I was typically in the more advanced classes so the expectations were different. Classes that didn't have that kind of focused approach tended to have more kids who were actually disruptive, but I may have had a charmed life in that I've had a lot of classes, both HS, college, and post-college, where there were actually-disruptive people that helped set handy and easily-met thresholds for acceptable behavior. I'd hazard from (distant) memory that gender norms were much more enforced the lower the "brainjuice" a class was. Fundamentally, and something I feel often is missed in these discussions, is that the attitudes and outcomes weren't always binary - reading wasn't nerdy or cool, it was NULL. Football was played by manly men (albeit nothing like typically portrayed) but boys in water polo or long-distance runners or whatever weren't fags, they were just... unjudged. I dated a soccer player and they weren't considered dykes, it was just "who cares". I played football, threw the shot (badly) and also was in the glee club, and aside from notable homophobia (early 90's CA version) directed at one specific person in glee club (who I suspect acted as sort of a canary for acceptable behavior) there was no masculine fury directed at me or the other guys in glee, at least not to our faces, including the other gay guys. No one seemed to give a poo poo, positive or negative. Gender roles did manifest in some of the electives (autoshop was basically all dudes and girls were considered oddities, home ec, before it vanished, was typically girls). Glee, drama, etc tilted female. Towel-snapping didn't happen AFAIK because we were warned about the terror of ripping testicles off. I think people thought you could get AIDS from that, too, as it was the early 90s and we were expecting AIDS to become airborne and sentient. But showering is a whole different thing that was talked about in another older thread and no one seemed to have an answer because, again, experiences seemed too varied. No one seemed to shower at my HS - it was considered weird to do so, but had been so for apparently so long that the (likely homophobic, although possibly also liability/sanitation ) origins of not showering had faded to time and it was simply weird because it was weird, and there was barely any time to do more than change anyway. In my adult life of various gyms of all sorts I've never seen snapping. Considering the cost of membership fees you'd have to be crazy to risk that. At my current gym most of the guys are so old that it'd probably rupture organs. If you meant "how do physics of towel work" then if a towel is damp (soaking adds too much weight) it has enough mass at the corners to work as a whip. If done just right it really really loving hurts. Zachack fucked around with this message at 08:21 on Jan 2, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 08:12
|
|