|
It seriously makes me cry when I see people get extremely angry over their boys, often toddler age, wanting to try on mommys dress or shoes or makeup. Also my wife wont let mine wear robes because she doesnt want him to look like a girl, and is also sporadically concerned that his toys be properly gendered.
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 12:36 |
|
|
Wasting posted:Makeup and women's fashion, at least popularly, exists to please men. I see no less need in discouraging toxic masculine behavior than discouraging female performance, regardless of the sex in question. Frankly? This doesn't matter in the slightest to what I said, because anyone going through this sort of thought process a) isn't leaving this stuff out for their kids, presumably and b) is not going to rage out over it. If you think that getting angry with a child for playing with something colorful, especially if you think they are doing it to emulate someone else, you can get fuuuuucked. Also what does this sex worker talk have to do with the subject of this thread? I have a great many opinions on this issue, an issue in which there is much to discuss and seems to be more a question of "how much of a woman's autonomy are we willing to sacrifice in order to prevent a woman's exploitation" or maybe "is providing support to an industry without adequate ethical safeguards itself unethical, especially if withdrawing support also robs a group of people of opportunity?" but when I stop and think of it in terms of "the impacts on men by the patriarchy" I'm drawing a blank. Isn't this exactly the sort of discussion that the normal feminism thread should be about rather than this one?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
Wasting posted:The sex worker talk came about from a poster talking about feeling sad in strip clubs, as a man And then it very quickly became about not-that. Maybe people should try to bring it back around - if you want to talk about the fact that men are often pressured into attending strip clubs, that might be relevant. This discussion? Seems less so.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 02:31
|
|
|
the white hand posted:Are you really asking what men participating in empty, exploitative transactions as a substitute for equal, respectful relationships has to do with the effects of patriarchy on men? Are you really this committed to being disingenuous?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 02:34
|
|
|
the white hand posted:Disingenuous? I could have just phrased it as a statement, but it seems very relevant to me. Men are participating in systemic exploitation of women (often girls because johns are not too particular--or are particular), endangering their spouses with STDs and destroying their own relationships by participating in sex trafficking. How is that not an effect of patriarchy that causes damage to their well-being? Yes, disingenuous, because whether it is or isn't is irrelevant to the fact that you weren't talking about it and don't give a poo poo, and being smugly condescending while you pretend to be a moron seems more likely to convince people that you actually are than... whatever it is you're trying to accomplish here.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 02:42
|
|
|
the white hand posted:Am I missing something here? "We could talk about this issue in a certain way" is irrelevant to a criticism of "You are not talking about this issue in a certain way". Come on, this really isn't that complicated.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 02:48
|
|
|
the white hand posted:What I am saying is, I don't know how you could have construed what I said as disingenuous. Sure I phrased it a little sarcastically, but that's because there is a pretty obvious connection between men participating in sex trafficking and they, themselves, experiencing negative effects. That's why I am baffled that posters are treating this discussion as irrelevant to the purpose of the thread. You made up something I didn't say and then sarcastically mocked me for it while ignoring the point I'd actually made, after I had already explicitly stated that if the conversation were brought back around to focus on the impact on men that would be fine. You did this while you, yourself, were the primary actor in refocusing the existing, men-focused conversation (all two posts of it) to talk solely about the women involved and the impact on them. If you aren't being disingenious, you should stop posting, because it's clear your emotional closeness to the issue is rendering you incapable of discussing it honestly in a way that is about the impact on men, and if you want to talk about sexual exploitation and it's effects on victims you can do it somewhere else.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 02:58
|
|
|
the white hand posted:You know sometimes, to talk about what affects men you have to talk about women for a minute. This is a tough break and I don't know how to counsel you about it other than steeling yourself. Would you accept this as an excuse from a man coming into a feminism thread, specifically a feminism thread about how the patriarchy effects women, to talk about how a particular issue effects men? Could you imagine coming in, and derailing an actual conversation about the effect on women, and derailing things for many posts with all appearances of the discussion of men dominating the conversation for the next several pages and, when called on nit, responding with the white hand posted:You know sometimes, to talk about what affects women you have to talk about men for a minute. This is a tough break and I don't know how to counsel you about it other than steeling yourself. Holy poo poo no wonder this thread was locked. The only person here capable of actually talking about the topic is Angepain, as far as I can tell (I finally read back through the several pages before it was locked, and wow. Wow.) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 03:04
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:One effect of patriarchy that affects men is in nursing, you really don't find too many male nurses in Labor and Delivery. Never mind that the gynecologist may be male, but everywhere I have worked I have noticed that you just don't find them in that area. You may find them working in the nursery and maybe Post-partum, but when it comes to actually helping deliver the baby, it's a rarity. Are men actively discouraged from pursuing nursing careers, do you think, the same way they are from pursuing childcare careers? Or is it more a result of "any man who would be inclined to pursue a nursing career probably has the opportunity to pursue a more 'prestigious' alternative in the medical field and will likely go for that instead"? Basically, are the numbers from men being pushed out of nursing or from women being pushed in? Although the second point does bring to mind one of the absolute biggest impacts on men, and something that really is worth discussing: The Patriarchy makes people afraid of men. Harmless, kind, gentle men will often be feared. They will often not be seen as trustworthy. Especially if they are also lower income, since wealthy people get nice perceptual bonuses to "safe", or a minority, in which case they will often be seen as "potentially criminal".
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
And it really loving sucks. Good luck getting a job like being a daycare provider, as a dude, especially if you don't have a women to put in front of you as the 'face' of the operation. I even got some really sketchy and incredulous responses when I went to class for teaching because why would a guy want to teach kids, what was he up to? I wasn't even aware the suspicion had extended that far, I thought male teachers were still common. Almost everyone in my classes except me were women, and the few men were going for high school teaching positions.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 03:33
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:Witch Hammer up there is in a social situation that must cause him constant anxiety, that even the smallest mistake can mean he is no longer masculine and acceptable. That's no way to have a healthy society. Having anxiety about this is, in and of itself, unmasculine. Maybe this is why many hypermasculine people will respond to violence if you put them in a situation where they can't help but be anxious about making a mistake, or anxious they could be seen to have already made a mistake. They gotta quickly try to drown out both their own anxiety and distract any potential witnesses!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 04:33
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:I think the gap in k-12 education outcomes for boys vs. girls is really interesting and it's one of the main things I'd hoped this thread would discuss when FAU put it together. What was your education like, guys? Did you feel you were disciplined more than the girls? Were there any things you were told "boy's aren't good at" (as opposed to "this isn't for boys")? Girls get told they're not good at things like math and science, both individually and categorically, and it's been shown to depress testing ability. Did you feel any pressure to be anti-intellectual or to care more about sports than books? Was curiosity rewarded ("boys are so smart!") or punished ("curiosity's for fags!")? quote:What was your education like, guys? In terms of school administration: Aside from the occasional fight, my interacts with them were largely limited to getting in trouble for being places I shouldn't be and rollerblading in the halls. I felt like the boys were disciplined a good deal more than the goals, but then, the boys seemed to be significantly more likely to break the rules, and even then I personally got away with far more than I ever should have. Boys were more likely to be talking in class, more likely to be doing things that weren't paying attention, more likely to talk back to teachers, more likely to... well, basically anything you weren't supposed to do in school I guess. As far as academic discipline, I only got pinged once, for something I didn't do, and the teacher responsible *definitely* favoured the girls in his class a ton (or at least it felt like that to me) but I have no idea if that was related. I think he was just kind of a lovely teacher. I did also get disciplined for reading books, but then I also had a habit of reading during class so that's... understandable. Socially: I was largely a social outcast I got lucky in high school and discovered that the weirdo clique was actually the largest and probably the most powerful clique in high school, and that even existing on the periphery of it (it was based around the theatre and music kids, which I wasn't) made things much nicer. I didn't date or anything because I straight up wasn't interested - the bulk of my social group and friends were girls, and dating just seemed like a miserable toxic mess of drama. I made a few half-hearted attempts just because it was expected of me, but that was about it. Having a social group that was mostly girls was... frustrating, at times. Even though I spent a lot of time with them, it felt like anytime I actually wanted to do something more active than simply walking around I had to get in contact with other guys in the group. One of them did try to join in occasionally, which is how I discovered that she had literally never learned to jump - straight up couldn't do it. Can you imagine someone going through life and never learning to jump? But hey, she came along with the guys once when we broke into the mental hospital so at least she tried (we're just lucky that we got in on the ground floor that time, I don't think she could have handled the jumping through the ceiling-door-thingy from the second time, and she was allergic to bees so she might have died if she hesitated to jump since it turned out the ceiling-door-thingy had a hive of bees in it). But still: Wanted to start a band? Wanted to go climb something? Wanted to have a sword fight? Wanted to go diving at the quarry? Want to play a two week long game of assassin? Play some dodgeball or shoot some hoops? It's basically "all the guys in the girl-dominated group + 1 girl at best". I don't think I ever figured out what it was they were actually doing instead of what i saw as the "fun stuff". I was also once almost expelled from the social circle for "hitting" a girl - I put it in quotations because it wasn't intentional, I hadn't even known she was there. One of the other girls had stolen something from me at a party and refused to give it back, was claiming I was harassing her by following her around but I just wanted my poo poo so I could leave and doubted I'd ever see it again if I left without it. Ended up trying to just grab and yanking it out of her hand... and when pulling back managed to solidly clock another girl (a very popular one in the group) that was walking in through the doorway behind me. poo poo. I was apologetic as all hell, but they wanted none of it. It didn't matter what else had happened - I was a guy that had hit a girl, and they wanted me gone, so I was basically solo for a few months after that (and the emotional turmoil that resulted from the situation was reflected pretty strongly in my grades for that semester) Bullying-wise: Had a kid break into my locked and hock loogies all over my stuff. Had food thrown at me. Suckerpunched once. Surrounded on the wooded path to school and threatened.Threatened with a gun. Had a knife pulled on me once after getting my head slammed into a wall. Believe it or not each one was what I was hoping for that last one and was a clear victory on my part, since I had intentionally provoked it knowing he had it on him and rationalizing that if it was my best chance to get them expelled and off my back. Depressing realization after middle school that I had passed a chunk of the bullying I had received on to someone even less advantaged than myself, which I had justified at the time as him somehow deserving it but in reality I was doing it to feel better at myself, something I tried to be more conscious about not doing in High School. A depressing realization after high school that the kids who had bullied me, or at least the ones that I managed to get kicked out of school, were themselves super hosed up - one of them literally had a hole in his heart, no other real friends, and had to go to regular surgeries and I think he died shortly after high school ended. Academically: I did well. Lots of lovely teachers, a few good ones. Most of them were men - in fact, I can't remember a single woman beyond elementary school aside from my physics teacher (she was pretty cool). I enjoyed competing academically with my peers, and the satisfaction that comes from beating someone consistently on tests even though they are an A student and you're a B or C student. Had a horrible work ethic. Hindered by a mother who felt that it was appropriate for her to do things for me because I wouldn't otherwise do them "right", until the point where she couldn't do them at all. Held back by low home incentives for success, too. The only particularly relevant thing I noticed here, and this is just anecdotal of course, but it seemed like all the top top students were guys, but all the worst students were guys as well. The girls were less willing to stick out, for better or worse, so while they tended to be a lot more common in the "better" classes than guys, the individuals that excelled in those classes were often male. It was kind of a weird dynamic, but I guess it sort of reflects society at larger where men are overrepresented at both the top and bottom. They seemed to be good passive learners, but less willing to push and really challenge themselves and test their limits, less willing to compete and less willing to risk looking stupid by working their way through a problem in front of others. The one noticeable exception here was in English related subjects - the speech&debate team had several girls on it who did well (though they stuck mostly to the solo events like story reading) and their creative writing exercises generally tried to push boundaries pretty effectively. I think the teacher I mentioned above who favoured girls was actually largely responsible for this - he headed the S&D team in addition to being the creative writing teacher, and he spent a lot of time trying to recruit and encourage the women to get more involved. On the other hand, he was lovely enough to me that he actively drove me towards focusing more on the math and science stuff. quote:Were there any things you were told "boy's aren't good at" (as opposed to "this isn't for boys")? I can't recall any. There was a bit of an assumption that boys were more likely to try and cheat, I think, but for all I know they were. Never any explicit downplaying of their abilities. quote:Did you feel any pressure to be anti-intellectual or to care more about sports than books? quote:Was curiosity rewarded ("boys are so smart!") or punished ("curiosity's for fags!")? quote:And do you actually do the towel-snapping thing in locker rooms. I never understood how that was supposed to work. It does make me feel bad for the girls though, who I suspect were largely socialized to believe that pain is inherently bad or some sort of weird stuff like that. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 15:48 on Jan 2, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 15:46
|
|
|
Solenna posted:When did the idea that boys are just naturally too rambunctious for the current way school is taught first start showing up? That school is currently too feminine for boys to do well. It's something I've heard a lot, but also something I can't square away with my knowledge of how incredibly strict schools used to be in the 19th and early 20th century especially. Schools were incredibly strict, but from what I understand there was a strong social expectation that as a boy you were supposed to breaking those rules anyway. Didn't they also tended to have fewer long term consequences? A spanking or a rap on the knuckles isn't going to harm your extracurriculars or piss off your parents the way detention and expulsion do.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 15:57
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:yo this is horrifying. I'm sorry this happened to you, and I'm sorry also that you felt responsible. You clearly had way more empathy for your bullies than I would expect. Eh, it wasn't really so bad. It was a few individuals who generally had lovely lives and aside from that they honestly weren't horrible people so much as desperate and stupid and confused. I got lucky, I don't think I would have known how to deal with common bullying from genuinely more powerful peers that other boys experience - I only experienced that a few times, and it was mostly limited to verbal mocking, and imo that hurt way loving more than getting into a few scraps. It's like they say, "Sticks and stones can break your bones, but words can make you think you deserve it" - the bullying from the people on the top of the social heap or who have a group of folks enabling them seems way worse and I'm glad I (largely) managed to avoid it. Give me the poo poo I had over public humiliation or backstabbing rumours any day of the week. Defenestration posted:Causing pain to others is bad, yes... Inherently? Always? Why? It can be bad, obviously, I'm not saying that, but it can also be invigorating. Pain is a powerful experience, and when you know it's superficial and it's no threat to your physical or psychological well-being, it can be quite enjoyable. Don't you love the shock of cold water when diving into a cool lake for the first time? The burn of your muscles after a long day of hard work? The heat of a spicy dish? The concept shouldn't be that unfamiliar, and when it's shared between people it can be an effective bonding experience. The give and take, the playful appearance of threat without substance, the rush of adrenaline and the very temporary nature of the consequences... Pain, especially the risk of pain, is one of the best ways to feel well and truly alive. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 17:56 on Jan 2, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:The part you're not seeing is consent. Pain can be good, if you consent to it. Like sex. Don't hurt people without their consent. Perhaps instead of trying to explain to me what I'm "not seeing", you could try asking or listening or otherwise trying to understand what I'm really saying and where I'm coming from? If you want to talk about consent, we can do that. I'm not blind to it. But it's not really relevant to the point I was making - that girls (and increasingly more boys) are being socialized to see pain as something inherently bad and always to be avoided (except maybe outside a sexual context) and that, personally speaking, this is a bad thing for the many boys (and girls!) who would benefit from situations to which it is well suited. I'm trying to share my concerns here, I don't think I need to be corrected on mistaken beliefs you haven't even bothered to verify are actually true. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 18:12 on Jan 2, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I can't say I really understand it myself... You don't need to rely on pain to be friends with someone... quote:Like unless you're a masochist there is nothing positive about pain. Which hey, I get it. Lots of people are super keen to deny shared experiences that don't fit their desired narrative. If you actually believe yourself to be a feminist though, that is... probably not the road you want to go down?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
Although in the case of towel snapping, the pain isn't pleasurable in the moment and that's part of the point. Like getting spooked by someone isn't really pleasurable. It's the exchange on the whole that is pleasurable, and the pain (or at least the spark of fear) is merely a critical component. It's a perceived threat that rends as a positive when you realize that no harm was done and it wasn't caused by someone who wished to do harm. It becomes pleasurable only in hindsight. (Which does make issues of consent quite tricky)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
Nerses IV posted:I've always been able to find girls who are okay with playful wrestling/smacking/biting etc once they realize they're allowed to be a little rough with you, and vice versa. There's a lot of women who like it just as much, they just need some nudging to let it out. That's why I emphasized that it sucks how much they have it socialized out of them, because I've found the same thing. It's a shared human experience that only boys have traditionally been "allowed" to appreciate, and there's a group of people like OwlFancier here who refuse to understand it and feel that the appropriate course of action is to prevent men from participating in it as well. Which is kind of garbage for boys AND girls.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Are you able to articulate why pain is a productive sensation? What even is this.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Are you able to articulate why pain is a productive sensation? Pain, in and of itself, triggers growth and motivates action. And not just physical pain, but all pain. But even if it didn't, and wasn't inherently "productive", that doesn't mean it couldn't be a worthwhile component of some larger productive system, because it is a limit and consequence which is inherently immediate and temporary and superficial and that's actually super useful. Prevent a child from engaging in any activity in which there is a real risk of pain, and you're essentially preventing that child from being able to grow up or engage in the world in a deep and meaningful way. Being taught to be afraid of things that hurt is one of the most serious thing you can do to stunt someone's physical and emotional development. Engaging in play where pain is present superficial and temporary sends a strong, reassuring message that pain is okay, and there's no better scenario to learn that message than when surrounded by people who you can trust not to do you real harm and where it can be bonded over. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Jan 2, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
OwlFancier, are you a dude?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Yes. I thought so, just wanted to make sure. That makes this a good deal more frustrating, though, in some ways. You just seem really, really hung up on this "No, I'm right, your experiences are illegitimate" and I really think you should reflect on why you feel this so strongly you aren't willing to honestly engage with or try to understand those who disagree.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If I beat you until you learn something, what you will learn is that beating people keeps them under your control, if I want you to learn something I will teach you it, not simply hurt you repeatedly until you do what I say. OwlFancier posted:However if you are dealing with someone who is taught to use pain as a primary method of interacting with people, and you, perhaps, do not have the advantage of being able to physically stop them at any time, or the advantage of an established relationship which might let you stop them by asking, you might, perhaps, understand why there might be a difference? Woah, dude. Dude. Back the gently caress up. No one is arguing that pain is always good or that pain should be the primary method of interacting with people or that you should loving beat people to keep them under your control. It feels like you might have some really hosed up emotional baggage that you're dragging into this conversation because you, personally, never had the opportunity to experience pain in a positive and productive way, and that's really sad but... What the hell, dude.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
bag em and tag em posted:What are you guys even debating? I don't think I've seen anyone advocate for inflicting pain on another person as a good thing unless consent is a part of it. So I'm not sure why it's getting repeated again and again as if that wasn't already established. Owlfancier, at least, doesn't seem to believe people should even be allowed to consent to it because that means someone else is inflicting it and that is bad. Also consent gets kind of weird when you're talking about exploratory play, since neither party really knows where the boundaries are. And something that is important to teach your children is that when said boundary is identified or violated, they signal clearly to the other party so that the violation will cease (and that it is important to learn how others communicate these boundaries and be respectful yourself). Stopping the game to ask "is this okay?" in advance before everything you do kind of ruins the game (esp. since the other person generally won't know), so generally you want to do exploratory touches and minor escalations until both parties understand where the limits are. Kids often go too far too fast though, because they are inexperienced, but then that's part of the point of doing it to begin with in a situation with no real long term consequences. OwlFancier posted:Then I think you could stand to be far more specific about what "roughhousing" entails because I would hope you would be aware of how that is tied up with masculine socialization towards being OK with violence in general and being "tough". Well the example given in the specific post that started all this was towel snapping.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Being "tough" can as easily mean "accepts mutual victimization with those around them as natural and will not challenge it" as much as it can mean "does not allow the threat of pain to deter them from following a moral imperative" I think it's important people learn to speak up about when they are feeling victimized, and for others to lift that burden off them. I don't think its okay to label others as victims for behaviour they engage in or tolerate willingly. It's okay for people to be different, and part of what you learn from roughhousing is learning that different people have different limits and that you need to be clear about when your own are reached.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
PeaceDiner posted:There's a difference between acceptable roughhousing among friends and the expectation that every boy around you will want to engage in roughhousing. There's also the problem that anybody who says they don't want to will probably be called a loser or pussy and that objecting after being hit or hurt will likely get you the response "Hey man, it's just a little roughhousing, don't be so serious." I work with kids, and a lot of them like playing a little rough, but that doesn't mean I expect every single kid to be okay with that kind of play. I think a problem arises when somebody actually does get hurt but it gets brushed off as "boys will be boys." Yes, exactly. The solution isn't to say "no roughhousing for anyone, we must always be sure no ones comfort boundaries are challenged!" it is to do away with the patriarchal attempt to say that all men must adhere to the same ideal and share the same high tolerances. We must be okay with diversity, and we must teach are children that although pain is acceptable, it is important that their interactions be tailored and that it is okay to make their own boundaries clear when they are at risk of being breached. They must not seek to turn others into unwilling victims, and they must not be willing to accept their own unwilling victimization, but neither of these requires that we live a bland and featureless life where victimization of that specific sort is functionally impossible - all that does is move the victimization to the mental arena anyway, where hurts are likely to be more well hidden and more harmful. We should want this sort of learning to happen during easily perceived rough physical play, where it can be guided and shaped and where the rules can be better learned.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Apparently we can't, because that's what I tried to do and this is how you're acting. "Trying to talk about consent" is not the same as correcting me for something I didn't do, and you shouldn't need this explained to you. quote:Seems like Glyph is doing exactly that? And extremely angry at the suggestion that consent should be a part of it. So angry he can't even see the part in my very short post where I said I am being genuine, and you are accusing me of acting in bad faith. I do not know why, and I won't pretend to know why. Tiny Brontosaurus posted:That's a really lovely strawman and if you can't argue in good faith maybe you should take a break until you calm down a bit. The only thing that's actually gotten me angry so far as your attempt to shut down my contributions to this conversation because you don't like my tone, and that's only true as of this particular post.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You are trying to normalize it such that anything else is pathological. Holy poo poo dude, the loving irony hurts and I do not consent to the pain you are causing me here. Who What Now posted:Neither is anybody else. As near as I can tell, Owlfancier is literally claiming that only a masochist can enjoy roughhousing or any level of pain sensation.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Where they often let the smaller, weaker siblings win and don't intentionally try to maim one another or draw blood? Yeah, what about it? Anyone trying to intentionally maim another person with their towel whip should probably be seen as a bad person. No one is talking about that but you.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Some deep breaths and some listening to what people are saying instead of dwelling on how attacked they make you feel would do you a lot of good. Tiny Brontosaurus posted:You've made it clear you don't want to learn anything today. We get it. Nobody's going to unpop your collar, relax.  quote:Oh boy, a reverse tone argument.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Naahh bro. You gotta actually learn what terms mean before you try to throw them around. Otherwise you just end up looking dumb. It's a type of ad hominem, and you appear to be building quite a collection of them over your last several posts. Do you honestly expect people to try and engage with you when that's all you have to offer?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That, sort of tautologically, is what the word means. First off, I really want to thank you for having this conversation with me. Even if I feel like you've drawn some wrong conclusions or we've miscommunicated, you have actually been engaging and you haven't resorted to personal and I do genuinely appreciate it. We still very clearly disagree about things, but that's okay. But no, that's not actually what masochism means. Masochism is usually used to refer to specifically seeking pain, esp. in a sexual way as a fetish, because it is experienced as pleasurable, not merely being open to it. Like many psychological terms it is not used to describe the common human experience but the extremes thereof. Someone who enjoys a spot of roughhousing is no more a masochist than someone who enjoys a clean floor is OCD. Different people have different levels of pain aversion. OwlFancier posted:Not everybody enjoys pain, and even fewer enjoy it in the same context. quote:For something quite so niche and personal it is better not to socialize it as being a totally normal thing that everyone does together, you want to be normal, right? So you'll join in. I agree that people should not socialize it as "normal", but should certainly socialize it as "acceptable". quote:I ended up having this argument in the alt right thread but the only alternative to "normal" is not "abnormal", it is possible to reject the concept of normativity entirely and acknowledge that some things are quite personal and will differ greatly from person to person. Okay, if you're saying it's not normal because you reject the concept of normality... why would you bring up normality to begin with? You're the one who did that. My complaint was not about normality, it was about the fact that many children are socialized to have their existing inclinations suppressed. We can disagree about that, but the problem comes with the fact that you seem to see your own viewpoint as something worth forcing on other people. I don't think either of our viewpoints need to be.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 12:36 |
|
|
FactsAreUseless posted:Yo, what is this discussion even about. Because all I'm seeing is three pages of "actually, you are" and I can't even tell what the topic is. Whether or not roughhousing is okay.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 19:55
|
|