Goafer Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 But then, I actually like being a gay man. Feminists like being women. Black activists / Malcolm X followers like being black. It's a celebration of identity. Assimilation into patriarchal, heteronormative, white ideals should not be advocated. It's pacifist, let's-not-cause-a-stir, bullshit centrist politics. That's not how I see it at all. I see it more as a "judge people on their merits and drawbacks, not their skin/sexuality/gender/whatever". I see Morgan Freemans arguement as "people will stop treating us as different when people stop labelling us as such". I genuinely don't care if someone is black/a woman/gay. It doesn't factor into my opinion of someone at all. I'm all for people celebrating who they are though. I personally like celebrating what I've achieved over something that I have/have had no control over, but whatever. Each to their own. I can't stress enough how much I endorse the "live and let live" idea. I'm sure as hell not going to get all bent out of shape over the whole dinner lady thing either. I genuinely pity anyone who does (is there anyone who actually cares? I mean really cares?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yvonne Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Well it's generally positive not to reinforce the idea to children that there are roles specifically tailored for one gender or the other. You'd agree, would you not, that there's no reason a man cannot cook and serve food? Or a woman repair a car? A man to be a nurse? A woman to be a doctor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supergrunch Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Ultimately, shouldn't skin colour be viewed as something like eye colour? I'd say hair colour, but blond(e) and ginger have some pejorative connotations that eye colour doesn't. But yeah, some feature of people that's actually fairly aribitrary. At the moment, skin colour is still too controversial to mention, but ideally it would just be thought of as another aspect of the way particular people look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heroicjanitor Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 The stance that men have all the rights and women need to try and catch up in every area annoys me. Women have loads of things in their favour, they have more rights to a child that a couple have together for example. What's the man supposed to do? Man up and deal with the child leaving? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chairdriver Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 (edited) I find this somewhat relevant: . This is great. Ultimately, shouldn't skin colour be viewed as something like eye colour? I'd say hair colour, but blond(e) and ginger have some pejorative connotations that eye colour doesn't. But yeah, some feature of people that's actually fairly aribitrary. At the moment, skin colour is still too controversial to mention, but ideally it would just be thought of as another aspect of the way particular people look. But the point is that it's not about skin colour, it's about culture, experience and ideals. As in, to quote my good friend: "I've never met a black person at Oxford. I have met lots of white people with black skin." Edited July 12, 2011 by chairdriver Automerged Doublepost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goafer Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Well it's generally positive not to reinforce the idea to children that there are roles specifically tailored for one gender or the other. You'd agree, would you not, that there's no reason a man cannot cook and serve food? Or a woman repair a car? A man to be a nurse? A woman to be a doctor? Of course not. But getting wound up over a name is silly. Some jobs have just inherited a gender suffix. Lunch Lady/Man, Postman/Postwoman, Fireman/Firewoman. I'm all for childrens literature featuring more unconventional gender roles though, I just see it as silly to get wound up over the names. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yvonne Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 The stance that men have all the rights and women need to try and catch up in every area annoys me. Women have loads of things in their favour, they have more rights to a child that a couple have together for example. What's the man supposed to do? Man up and deal with the child leaving? This doesn't diminish the cause of feminism or previously made points, it simply proves further that gender inequality is very real and affects everyone. Men are expected to be big and strong and violent with no emotions and women are expected to be quiet and subservient look after children. http://blog.ted.com/2010/12/09/a-call-to-men-tony-porter-on-ted-com/ This is an excellent video on a man's perspective while involved in feminism and the trials of his life because of what he was expected to be as a man. It addresses something really important and I cannot recommend it enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heroicjanitor Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 This doesn't diminish the cause of feminism or previously made points, it simply proves further that gender inequality is very real and affects everyone. Men are expected to be big and strong and violent with no emotions and women are expected to be quiet and subservient look after children. http://blog.ted.com/2010/12/09/a-call-to-men-tony-porter-on-ted-com/ This is an excellent video on a man's perspective while involved in feminism and the trials of his life because of what he was expected to be as a man. It addresses something really important and I cannot recommend it enough. I know that, I'm just saying men's rights activists get looked down on. The attitude that they have everything and the gays/women/whatever need to segregate themselves and demand specific laws annoys me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chairdriver Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 [i enjoy men involved with feminism, because it's one step away from being involved in trans liberation. Dissolution of gender roles / acceptance on non-binary gender etc etc] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yvonne Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 I know that, I'm just saying men's rights activists get looked down on. The attitude that they have everything and the gays/women/whatever need to segregate themselves and demand specific laws annoys me. Agreed, I expect as a movement it will have problems with people considering it illegitimate and disregarding it out of hand for a long time. Just ask the old skool feminists, they'll tell you all about it! [i enjoy men involved with feminism, because it's one step away from being involved in trans liberation. Dissolution of gender roles / acceptance on non-binary gender etc etc] If you haven't seen this already: http://twitter.com/#!/feministhulk GENDER BINARY SMASH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnus Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 The term feminazi is problematic for the reason that it diminishes the meaning of nazi, and in my opinion is disrespectful to those affected by the events of the time. Also, who do you know who epitomises a so called feminazi? A Rapist's View of the World: Joss Whedon and Firefly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goafer Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 RE: the whole gender roles thing. I don't think that will ever go away. It's inbuilt. Men and women have evolved in certain ways. I'm all for people going against it, but at the same time genders (in very general terms) are just drawn to certain things. Teachers are a good example. There are very few male primary teachers. I don't see it as "bloody hell, we must improve things for men who want to be primary school teachers post haste!". I just figure men have evolved as the hunter gatherers and are simply less likely to want to take on a caring role. I agree that people should be allowed the option to be whoever they want to be and do what they want to do, but people should also acknowledge that what people want to do is largely affected by a whole shitload of evolution. I think as long as the options are there for any gender/race/sexuality/whatever, all is good. But I still think the balance will never be perfect because the way we've evolved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yvonne Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 A Rapist's View of the World: Joss Whedon and Firefly. hahaha, troll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goafer Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 (edited) A Rapist's View of the World: Joss Whedon and Firefly. I swear some people just enjoy being angry. The next scene we meet Kaylee, the ship’s mechanic. <- Lookee, lookee, feminist empowerment. In this scene Mal and Jayne are stowing away the cargo they just stole. Kaylee is chatting to them, happily. Jayne asks Mal to get Kaylee to stop being so cheerful. Mal replies, “Sometimes you just wanna duct tape her mouth and dump her in the hold for a month.” Yes, that is an exact quote, “Sometimes you just wanna DUCT TAPE HER MOUTH and DUMP HER IN THE HOLD FOR A MONTH.” Kaylee responds by grinning and giving Mal a kiss on the cheek and saying, “I love my Captain.” What the fuck is this feminist man trying to say about women here? A black woman calling a white man ‘sir’. A white male captain who abuses and silences his female crew, with no consequences. The women are HAPPY to be abused. They enjoy it. What does this say about women, Joss? What does this say about you? Do you tell your wife to shut up? Do you threaten to duct tape her mouth? Lock her in the bedroom? Is this funny to you, Joss? Because it sure as fuck ain’t funny to me. Or he could be saying "She is every bit a crewmember as the male crew and as such, is entitled to the same level of "banter" as the rest". That's how men talk to each other, treating a woman in the same way is the equality feminists apparently strive for. As far as I'm concerned "feminists" like this are just another part of the problem. Edited July 12, 2011 by Goafer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yvonne Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 RE: the whole gender roles thing. I don't think that will ever go away. It's inbuilt. Men and women have evolved in certain ways. I'm all for people going against it, but at the same time genders (in very general terms) are just drawn to certain things. Teachers are a good example. There are very few male primary teachers. I don't see it as "bloody hell, we must improve things for men who want to be primary school teachers post haste!". I just figure men have evolved as the hunter gatherers and are simply less likely to want to take on a caring role. I agree that people should be allowed the option to be whoever they want to be and do what they want to do, but people should also acknowledge that what people want to do is largely affected by a whole shitload of evolution. I think as long as the options are there for any gender/race/sexuality/whatever, all is good. But I still think the balance will never be perfect because the way we've evolved. Evolutionary psychology as a science is still very much in its primordial stage and we're only recently discovering what really is different between the two sexes and what exists purely as a result of socialisation and bias. Fewer male teachers (citation needed) would also support the claim that men are brought up to not want to be teachers or to see teaching as a woman's job and so pursue other things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnas Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 As for political correctness, often it's correct for a reason. To not offend people purposefully. I get it. What annoys me is when people are blindly offended by the word "Nigger", regardless of context. Yes, it's associated with slavery and racial issues, but so are the words "slavery" and "race". Calling a black person a nigger is offensive, but getting flak for simply saying "Nigger" outside of an offensive situation shouldn't happen. I think that people are too easily offended by meaningless things. Arbitrarily applying politically correct language to everything just helps perpetuate the problem. That said, the "lunchlady" problem is a bit laughable. Calling them "lunchpeople" or "lunch staff" is fine for formal situations, like a contract, but it's not like it will cause people to stop associating the profession with women. What comes into your head when you think of a nurse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yvonne Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 What comes into your head when you think of a nurse? A children's book with a picture of a woman in a blue uniform caring for someone sick with the caption "nurse" 02:14???? asdhbasdhgasjdh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goafer Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Fewer male teachers (citation needed) I work at a school photography company and I can vouch for the fact that every primary school we do has significantly less male teachers than female teachers, if any at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnus Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 To not offend people purposefully. I get it. What annoys me is when people are blindly offended by the word "Nigger", regardless of context. Yes, it's associated with slavery and racial issues, but so are the words "slavery" and "race". There are people who get riled up over the mere mention of the word "slavery" too. So... you know. I'll leave you guys to your serious discussion now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yvonne Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 He's called "monkey"? Really? REALLY? ugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diageo Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 This doesn't diminish the cause of feminism or previously made points, it simply proves further that gender inequality is very real and affects everyone. Men are expected to be big and strong and violent with no emotions and women are expected to be quiet and subservient look after children. http://blog.ted.com/2010/12/09/a-call-to-men-tony-porter-on-ted-com/ This is an excellent video on a man's perspective while involved in feminism and the trials of his life because of what he was expected to be as a man. It addresses something really important and I cannot recommend it enough. That video was amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chairdriver Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Calling a black person a nigger is offensive, but getting flak for simply saying "Nigger" outside of an offensive situation shouldn't happen. If you're against slavery and racism, why would you use that word? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diageo Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Because it's just a word. I'm against prayer but I don't go out of my way not to say it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chairdriver Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Because it's just a word. This is the most flawed thing I've ever read. Words are everything. There's a reason poetry is art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diageo Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Words are only what the person who hears them perceives them to be. I can talk to my friend and throw around the word nigger, and retard, capper, rapist, sheep-shagger, paedophile and not need to be told off by someone who overhears the conversation that I am being offensive. We understand what we understand our words to be in our context, we don't need anyone else's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts