main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

Feminism

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by anakin_girl, Mar 19, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Kessel Runner

    Kessel Runner Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Apr 10, 1999
    Well, a_g and I have discussed this in various other threads over the years, as well as by IM.

    I am in total agreement with what she says regarding feminism. And like the liberalmaverick, I was raised almost exclusively by women. My mother, grandmother, and aunt. My dad was an alcoholic who moved back to Mexico when I was about 5, and I had various positive male role models, but none in a permanent manner until I was in high school.

    In fact, I've always had trouble related to other men, both my age, older, and younger. I think it is because of the ease with which so many men can refer to women as objects.
     
  2. DerthNader

    DerthNader Jedi Knight star 5

    Registered:
    Feb 25, 2001
    Now, maybe I'm exaggerating, and maybe you don't have some misandrist thing going on and a deep-seated loathing of males, but it's honestly looking that way from my perspective

    I don't hate all guys (do you guys with negative opinions about women hate every single one of them? It's the same thing, don't say otherwise). I only hate what a lot of guys do, and how they don't think their actions are harmful. And that if a woman has a problem with it, then it's all HER problem.

    How would you like if a woman kept staring at your crotch all the time, even when you aren't trying to go and have sex? It would get pretty absurd after awhile, wouldn't it (at least, I'm hoping some guy would find it disturbing)?

    That's the point I'm trying to get at, if someone here could open up their mind for once and try to think. A man is not "compelled" to stare at a woman's breasts. Are you, as men, compelled to stare at every single car accident you see? No, you have control over what you want to look at. Or do you really want to fufill the stereotype of "all guys want is sex, and all men view women as nothing but objects"? Now, obviously, that can't be true, because it doesn't take into account individuality. But, when you see some of the comments that I'm seeing in this thread, dammit, what the hell am I supposed to think?

    It gets harder every day to hold out faith, believe it or not. I still think there are some decent guys out there, who want a full, three-dimensional relationship with a woman where he doesn't just view her as an object to project his desires upon. But, there's so very damned few...and it's the majority who...well, I can't say it here, but imagine frustration in megatons, and you'll get an accurate idea.
     
  3. farraday

    farraday Jedi Knight star 7

    Registered:
    Jan 27, 2000
    So, you can look because you have the right as a male to look at every woman and stare at her breasts, because that's the primary purpose of a woman, to be attractive in the eyes of the opposite sex? Well, why didn't you say so before?!!!! We could have avoided all of this useless rhetoric if you would have just come out and shown your true colors!

    Oh please please try that again. You want to show your breasts in public and you want to control what people think? Go ahead, show your breasts I don't care, but don't complain when I stare because you don't think it's polite.

    And if you want to make comments about women's boobs, then let women make comments about the size and appearance of your genitalia, old boy.

    I'm not arguing for the "right" to show off my penis, but thank you for making my point by making the two equal.

    If you want to abandon what you see as a sexist idea of mdoesty you've lost all right to complain if people stare at your breasts. If you don't want people to see them don't show them.
     
  4. DerthNader

    DerthNader Jedi Knight star 5

    Registered:
    Feb 25, 2001
    Personally, I don't want to show my breasts in public, only because I don't want some yahoo with all of the aesthetic appeal of roadkill making comments about what he thinks is wrong or right with something that he neither owns, nor has any rights to come near without my say so.

    And thank you for not wanting to show off your penis...no, really, bless you, oh disjointed sir.
     
  5. anakin_girl

    anakin_girl Jedi Knight star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 8, 2000
    You don't have to bare your penis, farraday--but men do have the freedom to wear Speedos, and they reveal everything. ;) Can we make comments about your size when you wear one of those?
     
  6. Kessel Runner

    Kessel Runner Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Apr 10, 1999
    I don't hate all guys (do you guys with negative opinions about women hate every single one of them? It's the same thing, don't say otherwise). I only hate what a lot of guys do, and how they don't think their actions are harmful. And that if a woman has a problem with it, then it's all HER problem.

    And what about us guys who agree with her? Are we self-loathing? It's a shallow argument, and stereotypical. Believing in feminism is not about hating men, it's about loving womanhood, and wanting women to be all that they are capable of being.
     
  7. farraday

    farraday Jedi Knight star 7

    Registered:
    Jan 27, 2000
    I don't wear speedos because I find them both immodest and embaressing. Maybe brits still enamoured with the idea of the codpeice disagree, but I am not a brit.

    To make the appropriate comparison if you want to wear a sports bra, feel free.
     
  8. anakin_girl

    anakin_girl Jedi Knight star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Oh, I do. But why did people make comments about Brandy Chastain?
     
  9. farraday

    farraday Jedi Knight star 7

    Registered:
    Jan 27, 2000
    Was I one of them?

    Please post evidence I condemened her for it.

    Otherwise, I have my position so please don't try and make me take someone elses so you'll have a better arguement.
     
  10. Bubba_the_Genius

    Bubba_the_Genius Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 2002
    The fundamental freedom to be racist, you mean?

    If one so chooses to be racist, yes.


    So am I to assume that you think being a racist is perfectly OK? Seems that way.

    No, racism is immoral, but because it doesn't infringe on the rights of others, it should be permitted. I have the same opinions about sexual infidelity, drunkenness, and gluttony: all immoral, but they should all be permitted in a free society.


    Operative words: as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others. You can think whatever you want, you can even say whatever you want (although if you make racist or sexist comments in the wrong place, you'll probably get the crap beaten out of you), but you can't infringe upon someone's right to look for a job, wherever they please. And you cannot refuse to hire them due to their race or their sex.

    You said it: a right to look for a job. That doesn't mean a right to be hired, just as freedom of speech doesn't entail a right to be heard.


    If I am being refused over something I can't help--being a woman--and I am being refused simply because some sexist ***tard doesn't like women--then I am being oppressed, as are any other women who might want to work for that company.

    Do parents oppress guys by hiring only female babysitters even if a guy's equally qualified? No. You're butchering a word just because doing so scores you points in your argument.

    If you're going to go down the "something I can't help" argument...

    Should the Air Force be required to let blind people fly jets? After all, they can't help being blind?

    You're saying that sex cannot be helped and -- furthermore -- doesn't matter. While I agree with you, I believe that an employer has the right to determine what is and isn't important to him.


    I am really concerned about why you think discrimination based on race or sex is perfectly OK. It's not about freedom to do with your money as you please. Your freedom is trumped where someone else's rights begin. And you can't discriminate in hiring practices. If all people refused to hire blacks or women, what would happen? No black person and no woman would have a job.

    Bullcrap. Motivated blacks and women would start their own companies.

    I agree, you have the right to apply for a job, but you don't have the right that application being accepted.

    It is about the right to spend your money as you please.


    And I will continue to criticize the work of dead white men who only intended to give rights to other white men.

    You do so at your own peril, because the record of history clearly shows that the Founding Fathers were very much conflicted about slavery, among other issues.

    Bigotry is the disease of ignorance, or morbid minds; enthusiasm of the free and buoyant. Education and free discussion are the antidotes of both."
    -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, Library of Congress, Manuscript Division, 1816

    "I believe a time will come when an opportunity will be offered to abolish this lamentable evil."
    -- Patrick Henry, letter to Robert Pleasants, January 18, 1773

    "Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free."
    -- Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, 1821

    "[The Convention] thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men."
    -- James Madison, Records of the Convention, August 25, 1787

    "There is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it."
    -- George Washington, letter to Robert Morris, April 12, 1786

    "We have seen the mere distinction of color made in the most enlightened period of time, a ground of the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man."
    -- James Madison, speech at the Constitutional Convention, June 6, 1787

    "Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States ... I have, throughout my whole life, held the pract
     
  11. Kessel Runner

    Kessel Runner Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Apr 10, 1999
    I also found the Brandy Chastain incident just annoying to all end.

    I mean, what does a sports bra show anyway? It's more modest than most bikinis, yet somehow what she did was wrong? I just don't get it.
     
  12. DerthNader

    DerthNader Jedi Knight star 5

    Registered:
    Feb 25, 2001
    And what about us guys who agree with her? Are we self-loathing? It's a shallow argument, and stereotypical. Believing in feminism is not about hating men, it's about loving womanhood, and wanting women to be all that they are capable of being

    I'm glad you guys agree with her...at least you have open minds. But that's not what most women encounter everyday. And you have to be prepared to do battle with the majority, who are the ones who DON'T agree. I really wish it didn't have to be this way. Christ, I wish we could all just get along, but on enlightened terms, not under an umbrella of stereotypes. Is that asking too much?

    It's more modest than most bikinis, yet somehow what she did was wrong? I just don't get it

    I never got it myself...ESPECIALLY considering the amount of bloody bra ads that one is exposed to on a regular basis. There's a severly mixed-up double standard if ever I saw one, and I've seen quite a few in my time.
     
  13. Kessel Runner

    Kessel Runner Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Apr 10, 1999
    Couldn't agree more Derth.

    Stereotypes never lead to anything positive.
     
  14. farraday

    farraday Jedi Knight star 7

    Registered:
    Jan 27, 2000
    I'm glad you guys agree with her...at least you have open minds. But that's not what most women encounter everyday. And you have to be prepared to do battle with the majority, who are the ones who DON'T agree. I really wish it didn't have to be this way. Christ, I wish we could all just get along, but on enlightened terms, not under an umbrella of stereotypes. Is that asking too much?


    the heterosexual male ideal tends to be a beautiful woman who has very little or nothing to say.


    Apparently it is.
     
  15. Kessel Runner

    Kessel Runner Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Apr 10, 1999
    re: Chastain

    Yeah, plus the irony of ironies with the ruckus over the Super Bowl Halftime. I mean the show had been peppered with ads for Cialis throughout the entire game, warning about 4 hour long erections, but it was wrong to see a little breast (with the nipple covered I might add). Talk about double standards.
     
  16. anakin_girl

    anakin_girl Jedi Knight star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Do parents oppress guys by hiring only female babysitters even if a guy's equally qualified?

    If they only hire female babysitters? Yes.

    Why the hell would any parents only hire a female babysitter?

    Should the Air Force be required to let blind people fly jets? After all, they can't help being blind?

    No, because allowing blind people to fly would actually harm other people. Hiring a woman who is as equally qualified as a man is not going to harm anyone.

    Bullcrap. Motivated blacks and women would start their own companies.

    With what money? The money the white men give them?

    I agree, you have the right to apply for a job, but you don't have the right that application being accepted.

    It is about the right to spend your money as you please.


    The right to spend your money as you please does not entail the right to be racist or sexist in your hiring practices.

    And the law agrees with me, and I find it disgusting that you still think we should live in a world where people can post signs that say "Irish need not apply"--that you think it's more important to be able to spend money as one pleases than it is to be forced to treat people equally.


     
  17. DerthNader

    DerthNader Jedi Knight star 5

    Registered:
    Feb 25, 2001
    Apparently it is

    All right, farraday, is it or is it not the ultimate male ideal, since you decided to drag that quote back up? Come on, tell me, truthfully, why is the predominant female image in advertising the still or moving image of a scantily-clad woman who doesn't talk, or doesn't talk very much? Why is that, hmm? Why is her appearance elevated to more importance than her quality of character? Because you can't ascertain quality of character or intelligence from a push-up bra, I assure you.

    Why is it almost every damned woman's magazine tells a woman not to say too much on a date, to let the guy do most of the talking? And why do those same magazines emphasize how attractive she should LOOK on a date? Those magazines are published by a staff of women, perhaps, but where do they get those standards from? Did they pick them up out of a garbage can?

    I don't know how I could explain to you the utter absurdity of these standards...I really wish you could see them for what they are. I know there are some guys who do see them as crap, and I'm glad for it. But they are stupid, and they have got to stop somewhere.

    And the women who follow this damned advice...there isn't much that can be said for them. (Yes, believe it or not, I have major problems with women, too).
     
  18. farraday

    farraday Jedi Knight star 7

    Registered:
    Jan 27, 2000
    Male models don't seem to talk much either.

    Because they're models, not actors.

    Why is it almost every damned woman's magazine tells a woman not to say too much on a date, to let the guy do most of the talking?

    Maybe because the women in charge are of the belief that the women who read those magazines are too vacuous to uphold their end or a discussion, a sterotype which may hold up.
     
  19. Lord_Hydronium

    Lord_Hydronium Manager Emeritus star 5 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Jun 11, 2002
    How would you like if a woman kept staring at your crotch all the time, even when you aren't trying to go and have sex? It would get pretty absurd after awhile, wouldn't it (at least, I'm hoping some guy would find it disturbing)?

    I'm sorry, but that mental image made me crack up. I think it's inappropriate for anyone to stare at one part of the anatomy conspicuously, prolongedly, or while talking to the person, whether it be that one thing, or those two other things. However, I see nothing wrong with privately checking someone out as they walk down the street.

    If you want to abandon what you see as a sexist idea of mdoesty you've lost all right to complain if people stare at your breasts. If you don't want people to see them don't show them.

    I totally agree. Not just on the breast issue, either. Wearing a Speedo, going shirtless, anything of that sort implies that you don't have an issue with presenting that sort of thing to the world (not to be confused with flaunting it, which is not the primary issue that we're discussing here).

    I'm not saying this is right, or hwo it should be, but that's just the way it happens to be. Eventually, it should change, but for the time, that sort of thing should be expected.

    But that's not what most women encounter everyday. And you have to be prepared to do battle with the majority, who are the ones who DON'T agree.

    I'm not trying to criticize or analyze you, but it is sounding like some bad experiences with men have colored your entire opinion of us. Stereotypes are never a good thing, no matter who is using them. You assuming that a man is only going to be interested in looks until proven otherwise is just as bad as a man assuming that a woman is an air-headed bimbo until he knows her better. And despite the fact that a patriarchy has been dominant in Western society until recently does not mean all men are natural chauvinist oppressors. The bad is often highlighted in making broad summaries of groups, and just like a few man-hating lesbians may have colored society's view of feminism, so have a few chauvinist patriarchal misogynists done to your perceptions, I believe.
     
  20. Kessel Runner

    Kessel Runner Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Apr 10, 1999
    "At last, a chance for DerthNader to prove her quality"

    ;)

    You forgot another key part of that stereotypical advertising woman. She's usually holding a beer for the guy in the ad.
     
  21. Bubba_the_Genius

    Bubba_the_Genius Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 2002
    An article well worth reading.

    The Right to Deal
    by Walter Williams

    Suppose you want to deal with me but I don't want to deal with you. Should I be forced to?

    You might ask, "What are you talking about?"

    Here's a short list. Suppose you want to marry me, but I don't want to marry you. Or, suppose you want to play tennis with me, but I don't want to play with you. Or, suppose you want to be in my club, but neither my fellow club members nor I want you. The question is, how much do we Americans value freedom of association? Keep in mind that freedom of association is a two-way street -- it also implies freedom not to associate.

    Suppose a beautiful woman wants to date me, but I don't want to date her. It might be for a good reason, bad reason or no reason at all. Should I be free not to deal with her? Similarly, you might want to come to my party or enroll your children in my private school, but I don't want to deal with you. My refusal might be for any arbitrary reason, including your race, sex or religion, or because I don't like your looks. Should the government force us to associate with those we wish not to associate? Alternatively, should government forbid us from associating with those with whom we wanted to associate?

    Let's look at a couple of historical examples. H. L. Mencken, writing in the Dec. 9, 1948, Baltimore Sun, tells of a local ordinance that prohibited interracial tennis games on public courts. More recently, there was the Loving vs. Virginia (1967) case, where the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a white man and a black woman who married in violation of Virginia's anti-miscegenation laws. Today, most Americans would be offended by any law that banned blacks and whites from playing tennis together or marrying one another. Wouldn't it be just as offensive were there a law requiring blacks and whites to play tennis together or marry one another?

    Isn't there a general principle here? Namely, that if one cherishes freedom of association, is there a logically consistent argument for permitting it in some areas of our lives and not in others? Should employers be forced to hire those they prefer not, or landlords forced to rent to persons they prefer not, or Boy Scouts to admit homosexuals when they prefer not?

    One might be tempted to answer by asserting that arbitrary discriminatory association choices in marriage don't have the important socioeconomic effects that other discriminatory choices have. That's dead wrong. Race and income are highly correlated. Whites have higher income than blacks. Only about 5 percent of all marriages are interracial. That means whites marrying other whites makes the income and education distribution more skewed than it would be if there were more interracial marriages. I imagine that most of us would be horrified by the suggestion of mandated marriage diversity.

    If an activity is publicly financed, then arbitrary discriminatory association should be prohibited. That would apply to, among other things, public libraries, schools and universities. Private libraries, schools and universities should have complete freedom of association, whether it's discrimination for or against a particular race, sex, religion or any other trait upon which it chooses to associate. Interestingly, Americans who support racial preferences should be the strongest supporters of privatization, but they're not.

    The bottom line is that the true test of one's commitment to freedom of association doesn't come when he allows people to associate in ways he deems acceptable. The true test comes when he's willing to permit others to associate in ways he deems grossly offensive. [link, emphasis mine]
    And the law agrees with me, and I find it disgusting that you still think we should live in a world where people can post signs that say "Irish need not apply"--that you think it's more important to be able to spend money as one pleases than it is to be forced to treat peo
     
  22. DerthNader

    DerthNader Jedi Knight star 5

    Registered:
    Feb 25, 2001
    I'm not trying to criticize or analyze you, but it is sounding like some bad experiences with men have colored your entire opinion of us

    Half and half...the other half being the culture as it exists right now, and its complete lack of compatability with my personality. You cannot be intelligent and overtly sexual at the same time, no matter what anyone might say.

    Try to wear something tight and revealing, and then try to hold a rational conversation about, oh, Euclidian geometry. Well nigh impossible. ;)

    And despite the fact that a patriarchy has been dominant in Western society until recently does not mean all men are natural chauvinist oppressors

    I said the MAJORITY...how does that equal all, I have no idea.

    The bad is often highlighted in making broad summaries of groups, and just like a few man-hating lesbians may have colored society's view of feminism, so have a few chauvinist patriarchal misogynists done to your perceptions, I believe

    But why do so many guys still make generalizations about women, but when a woman does it, she's called a "man-hater"? Women aren't supposed to be angry about anything anymore? Really, where was the memo that said that? 8-}

    And that's what I am, angry...it's not good, and I'm not necessarily proud of some of the things I say. But there are some things that do need to be said. I spent a great deal of time internalizing these feelings, and taking it out on myself. That's the way women are supposed to handle this anger, or so society would have you believe. But I didn't really fancy the idea of offing myself just to make some faceless mass of guys happy (one less whore in the world, right?).

    Maybe because the women in charge are of the belif the women who read those magazines are too vacuous to uphold their end or a discussion, a sterotype which may hold up

    Whoo-hoo, uneducated insult at three o'clock!!!! Alert the media, it's bigger than Halley's Comet, folks!!!
     
  23. anakin_girl

    anakin_girl Jedi Knight star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Never mind the fact that you once again trumpet that the law agrees with you and ignore the fact it disagrees with you on the question of public indecency.

    And what is your point? One has nothing to do with the other.

    Advocating the freedom to take one's shirt off, which I'm doing, is not the same as advocating racism and sexism, which you are doing.

    Promoting racism and sexism, which you are doing, stomps all over equality, while advocating the right for both sexes to remove their shirts in public--in other words, not being sexist by setting separate decency standards for the genders--is promoting equality.

    And I will continue to point out that you are promoting the divine right to be racist and sexist, the divine right to ensure that the only people who are allowed to get jobs are white men, the way things were in the Golden Age of the 19th Century which you love so much--because by screaming about how "unfair" anti-discrimination laws are, that is exactly what you are doing.
     
  24. farraday

    farraday Jedi Knight star 7

    Registered:
    Jan 27, 2000
    Oh please nerder. Women right that other women shouldn't talk too much and you're claiming it's men who think that? I don't think your ideas are complete nonsense because you're female, i think your ideas are complete nonsense because your ideas are complete nonsense. If you want somone to fullfil your deeply held sterotypes I suggest you abandon the internet because anyone here who thinks your a fool isn't doing so based n your looks or sex, they're doing it because you keep saying foolish things.
     
  25. Lord_Hydronium

    Lord_Hydronium Manager Emeritus star 5 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Jun 11, 2002
    I said the MAJORITY...how does that equal all, I have no idea.

    Fine, let me fix that sentence: And despite the fact that a patriarchy has been dominant in Western society until recently does not mean most men are natural chauvinist oppressors.

    The point still stands.

    But why do so many guys still make generalizations about women, but when a woman does it, she's called a "man-hater"?

    Did I say it was OK for a man to make genrealizations about women? In fact, as I recall, I said the exact opposite - that stereotypes of any form aren't good. And that "so many guys" comment is even more generalization. Let me turn that sentence around:

    "Why is it that so many women make generalizations about men, but when a man does it, he's called "sexist"?"

    Do I agree with the stereotype I made above? Not at all. My point, however, is that stereotyping about people making generalizations is unbearably ironic, an when you look at it the other way, it makes just as little sense.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.