|
On May 03 2013 03:22 docvoc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 03:09 farvacola wrote:On May 03 2013 03:07 helvete wrote:On May 03 2013 02:57 KwarK wrote:On May 03 2013 02:55 xM(Z wrote:On May 03 2013 02:49 KwarK wrote:On May 03 2013 02:38 xM(Z wrote:
about the rape following a win (in battle, match, or w/e) it's was not done as an act of dominance. the winers already dominated the losers, dominating the weaker sex too would not be at all fulfilling.
raping was just a way to spread the genes, the genes of the winers. it's what lions are still doing now.
it's a basic evolutionary mechanic shared by some species: come, conquer, kill infants, spread own genes, defend them as much as you can or until you are ousted. Humans aren't lions. humans aren't aliens either. the same evolutionary mechanics are share by different species just because. You're suggesting that an act that happens as part of warfare has some relation to evolution. Warfare is so recent it has no evolutionary impact. Furthermore the failure to provide for the women at all after rape, for example burning the town and taking the food, implies no reproductive motive.Again, humans aren't lions. Lions have evolved to be good at doing lion behaviour. Humans choose to do human behaviour independently of evolution. Those are the most absurd statements I've read all week! We were fighting other tribes, and impregnating their women, long before there was a word for it. And that is still not long for evolutionary pressures to manifest in meaningful ways. Farva that just isn't true. Humans have been fighting each other since humanity has been a thing. What do you mean it isn't long enough?
As Deleuze said, no one here is of enough authority to make a substantive claim in regards to humanity's evolution, but it isn't exactly difficult to look at the genetic line of homo sapiens and see that warfare induced evolutionary responses are not very likely given the time frame and heterogeneity of humanity's spread.
|
On May 03 2013 03:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 03:34 Kimaker wrote:On May 03 2013 02:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:35 Mothra wrote:On May 03 2013 02:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:16 Simberto wrote:On May 03 2013 02:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:03 Simberto wrote:On May 03 2013 01:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 01:45 discomatt wrote:
[quote]
"Rape and pillage" is a literal term. It's not uncommon for the civilian population to be tortured/slain/raped after being defeated. Yes... as I said... we equate rape with domination... we kill off the men and have our way with the civilians... ie, domination... There's a reason we call it rape and not really unfortunate sex accident. That is because that is the definition of rape. Rape is forcing sex onto someone. Not an accident. And domination is obviously a large part of that, because you need to be in a dominant position to do that. And the way our bodies work makes it a lot easier for a man to rape someone than for a woman. I am not quite sure what your point is. Because you didn't read what I wrote I will quote myself. we equate rape with the act of domination Discomatt then implied "rape and pillage" is a throwaway phrase only relevant in war. Which is why I said "equate" as in to compare to things and see them as similar. He was responding to my post wherein I was talking about the misogynistic tendencies of american culture to use the term fuck to mean domination--ie rape. As in an event either fucks us over or we fuck over something we dominate. Because we use that rape/fuck mindset in everyday affairs we also project that onto other people--ie rape culture. Where we dominate the feminine with the masculine. I read what you wrote. You are just not making a lot of obvious sense to me. I still don't quite get your point. We equate rape with domination. Yes. That is because domination is a large part of rape. What are you getting at with this? You are stating this like it is some kind of grand discovery. Is your point that fucking/raping something is used as an allegory for domination, which means...something? I'm saying misogyny is about domination--not about how much/little clothes a woman wears or how sexual she is. I'm saying things aren't sexist *because* people who stream are showing their boobs I'm saying it's sexist when women are told how to look and act and defined by how much they fit that standard. I'm saying that misogyny is the domination of the female identity. I'm saying rape, is the domination of the female. I'm saying that terms like "tits or gtfo" is about the domination of the female and phrases like "good job on not being slutty" is the domination of the female. When we set the parameters for how a person should or shouldn't act--we are being misogynists. So it is misogynist to tell people they shouldn't act misogynist. When you are telling a woman how she should behave/dress/act/be instead of letting her just be herself be it slutty or prudish--you're being misogynistic. Because you are dominating her ability to be her own person. If she wants to get on twitch, take off her top and ask guys to tell her how sexy she is--then it's her right to do it. If she wants to just stream herself playing mario games--then its her right to do it. People who try to shame a woman who loves having sex by calling her a slut is misogynistic because they are dictating how that person should act. People who try to shame a woman who likes playing videogames as being a prude for not showing her tits are being misogynistic because they are dictating how that person should act. Telling someone not be misogynistic has nothing to do with telling them how to be a person. It is telling them that they are intruding on someone's rights. When I tell them to stop being misogynistic they don't need to change their style of clothes, the way they present themselves, their sexual activity, their anything. It literally is telling them to stop attacking another human being. Wrong. It is her right to act like that. Certainly. It is equally my right to tell her shes acting like shit if I think she's acting like shit. Sorry if that makes people "feel bad", but last time I checked informing people of your reaction to something they're putting out in a public space isn't "dominating their ability to be their own person", it was freedom of speech. What you are proposing, that people cease not only expressing their judgments on things "put out there", but to cease having them, is nothing more than the creation of thought-crime. Language control IS thought control. You have no right not to be offended. You have no right to be happy. You DO have a right to walk away, or turn off your TV, etc. You DO have a right to pursue happiness, but no guarantees. Stop turning common courtesy into something bigger than it is. Talking to them about your lifestyle preferences is different from telling them that their lifestyle preferences are wrong.
I don't understand this at all. Certainly I don't think it's a good idea to say someone is a terrible person for any reason, but telling them that the way they live their life is unethical is certainly not a problem. Do you think, for instance, that the way the Westboro Baptist Church lives is a lifestyle entitled to equal respect as that of the average person? Do you think I'm being unfair to say that the Westboro Baptist Church is immoral in their treatment of pretty much everyone? Now, obviously the WBC is an incredibly extreme example, but how is thinking that someone's lifestyle is wrong a problem? As long as I don't try to pass laws that restrict people's freedom, I can definitely pass judgments on the way they choose to live.
|
11589 Posts
On May 03 2013 03:39 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 03:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:34 Kimaker wrote:On May 03 2013 02:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:35 Mothra wrote:On May 03 2013 02:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:16 Simberto wrote:On May 03 2013 02:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:03 Simberto wrote:On May 03 2013 01:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Yes... as I said... we equate rape with domination... we kill off the men and have our way with the civilians... ie, domination...
There's a reason we call it rape and not really unfortunate sex accident. That is because that is the definition of rape. Rape is forcing sex onto someone. Not an accident. And domination is obviously a large part of that, because you need to be in a dominant position to do that. And the way our bodies work makes it a lot easier for a man to rape someone than for a woman. I am not quite sure what your point is. Because you didn't read what I wrote I will quote myself. we equate rape with the act of domination Discomatt then implied "rape and pillage" is a throwaway phrase only relevant in war. Which is why I said "equate" as in to compare to things and see them as similar. He was responding to my post wherein I was talking about the misogynistic tendencies of american culture to use the term fuck to mean domination--ie rape. As in an event either fucks us over or we fuck over something we dominate. Because we use that rape/fuck mindset in everyday affairs we also project that onto other people--ie rape culture. Where we dominate the feminine with the masculine. I read what you wrote. You are just not making a lot of obvious sense to me. I still don't quite get your point. We equate rape with domination. Yes. That is because domination is a large part of rape. What are you getting at with this? You are stating this like it is some kind of grand discovery. Is your point that fucking/raping something is used as an allegory for domination, which means...something? I'm saying misogyny is about domination--not about how much/little clothes a woman wears or how sexual she is. I'm saying things aren't sexist *because* people who stream are showing their boobs I'm saying it's sexist when women are told how to look and act and defined by how much they fit that standard. I'm saying that misogyny is the domination of the female identity. I'm saying rape, is the domination of the female. I'm saying that terms like "tits or gtfo" is about the domination of the female and phrases like "good job on not being slutty" is the domination of the female. When we set the parameters for how a person should or shouldn't act--we are being misogynists. So it is misogynist to tell people they shouldn't act misogynist. When you are telling a woman how she should behave/dress/act/be instead of letting her just be herself be it slutty or prudish--you're being misogynistic. Because you are dominating her ability to be her own person. If she wants to get on twitch, take off her top and ask guys to tell her how sexy she is--then it's her right to do it. If she wants to just stream herself playing mario games--then its her right to do it. People who try to shame a woman who loves having sex by calling her a slut is misogynistic because they are dictating how that person should act. People who try to shame a woman who likes playing videogames as being a prude for not showing her tits are being misogynistic because they are dictating how that person should act. Telling someone not be misogynistic has nothing to do with telling them how to be a person. It is telling them that they are intruding on someone's rights. When I tell them to stop being misogynistic they don't need to change their style of clothes, the way they present themselves, their sexual activity, their anything. It literally is telling them to stop attacking another human being. Wrong. It is her right to act like that. Certainly. It is equally my right to tell her shes acting like shit if I think she's acting like shit. Sorry if that makes people "feel bad", but last time I checked informing people of your reaction to something they're putting out in a public space isn't "dominating their ability to be their own person", it was freedom of speech. What you are proposing, that people cease not only expressing their judgments on things "put out there", but to cease having them, is nothing more than the creation of thought-crime. Language control IS thought control. You have no right not to be offended. You have no right to be happy. You DO have a right to walk away, or turn off your TV, etc. You DO have a right to pursue happiness, but no guarantees. Stop turning common courtesy into something bigger than it is. Talking to them about your lifestyle preferences is different from telling them that their lifestyle preferences are wrong. I don't understand this at all. Certainly I don't think it's a good idea to say someone is a terrible person for any reason, but telling them that the way they live their life is unethical is certainly not a problem. Do you think, for instance, that the way the Westboro Baptist Church lives is a lifestyle entitled to equal respect as that of the average person? Do you think I'm being unfair to say that the Westboro Baptist Church is immoral in their treatment of pretty much everyone? Now, obviously the WBC is an incredibly extreme example, but how is thinking that someone's lifestyle is wrong a problem? As long as I don't try to pass laws that restrict people's freedom, I can definitely pass judgments on the way they choose to live.
So long as the criteria you use to judge them on are objective to both sexes, sure.
If you are biased in your judgement, it's prejudice.
|
On May 03 2013 03:43 yamato77 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 03:39 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 03:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:34 Kimaker wrote:On May 03 2013 02:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:35 Mothra wrote:On May 03 2013 02:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:16 Simberto wrote:On May 03 2013 02:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:03 Simberto wrote:
[quote]
That is because that is the definition of rape. Rape is forcing sex onto someone. Not an accident. And domination is obviously a large part of that, because you need to be in a dominant position to do that. And the way our bodies work makes it a lot easier for a man to rape someone than for a woman.
I am not quite sure what your point is. Because you didn't read what I wrote I will quote myself. we equate rape with the act of domination Discomatt then implied "rape and pillage" is a throwaway phrase only relevant in war. Which is why I said "equate" as in to compare to things and see them as similar. He was responding to my post wherein I was talking about the misogynistic tendencies of american culture to use the term fuck to mean domination--ie rape. As in an event either fucks us over or we fuck over something we dominate. Because we use that rape/fuck mindset in everyday affairs we also project that onto other people--ie rape culture. Where we dominate the feminine with the masculine. I read what you wrote. You are just not making a lot of obvious sense to me. I still don't quite get your point. We equate rape with domination. Yes. That is because domination is a large part of rape. What are you getting at with this? You are stating this like it is some kind of grand discovery. Is your point that fucking/raping something is used as an allegory for domination, which means...something? I'm saying misogyny is about domination--not about how much/little clothes a woman wears or how sexual she is. I'm saying things aren't sexist *because* people who stream are showing their boobs I'm saying it's sexist when women are told how to look and act and defined by how much they fit that standard. I'm saying that misogyny is the domination of the female identity. I'm saying rape, is the domination of the female. I'm saying that terms like "tits or gtfo" is about the domination of the female and phrases like "good job on not being slutty" is the domination of the female. When we set the parameters for how a person should or shouldn't act--we are being misogynists. So it is misogynist to tell people they shouldn't act misogynist. When you are telling a woman how she should behave/dress/act/be instead of letting her just be herself be it slutty or prudish--you're being misogynistic. Because you are dominating her ability to be her own person. If she wants to get on twitch, take off her top and ask guys to tell her how sexy she is--then it's her right to do it. If she wants to just stream herself playing mario games--then its her right to do it. People who try to shame a woman who loves having sex by calling her a slut is misogynistic because they are dictating how that person should act. People who try to shame a woman who likes playing videogames as being a prude for not showing her tits are being misogynistic because they are dictating how that person should act. Telling someone not be misogynistic has nothing to do with telling them how to be a person. It is telling them that they are intruding on someone's rights. When I tell them to stop being misogynistic they don't need to change their style of clothes, the way they present themselves, their sexual activity, their anything. It literally is telling them to stop attacking another human being. Wrong. It is her right to act like that. Certainly. It is equally my right to tell her shes acting like shit if I think she's acting like shit. Sorry if that makes people "feel bad", but last time I checked informing people of your reaction to something they're putting out in a public space isn't "dominating their ability to be their own person", it was freedom of speech. What you are proposing, that people cease not only expressing their judgments on things "put out there", but to cease having them, is nothing more than the creation of thought-crime. Language control IS thought control. You have no right not to be offended. You have no right to be happy. You DO have a right to walk away, or turn off your TV, etc. You DO have a right to pursue happiness, but no guarantees. Stop turning common courtesy into something bigger than it is. Talking to them about your lifestyle preferences is different from telling them that their lifestyle preferences are wrong. I don't understand this at all. Certainly I don't think it's a good idea to say someone is a terrible person for any reason, but telling them that the way they live their life is unethical is certainly not a problem. Do you think, for instance, that the way the Westboro Baptist Church lives is a lifestyle entitled to equal respect as that of the average person? Do you think I'm being unfair to say that the Westboro Baptist Church is immoral in their treatment of pretty much everyone? Now, obviously the WBC is an incredibly extreme example, but how is thinking that someone's lifestyle is wrong a problem? As long as I don't try to pass laws that restrict people's freedom, I can definitely pass judgments on the way they choose to live. So long as the criteria you use to judge them on are objective to both sexes, sure. If you are biased in your judgement, it's prejudice.
Alright. Fair enough. I see no need to judge one sex more harshly than another, so I guess i'm alright.
|
Northern Ireland26446 Posts
On May 03 2013 03:37 yamato77 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 03:34 Kimaker wrote:On May 03 2013 02:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:35 Mothra wrote:On May 03 2013 02:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:16 Simberto wrote:On May 03 2013 02:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:03 Simberto wrote:On May 03 2013 01:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 01:45 discomatt wrote:
[quote]
"Rape and pillage" is a literal term. It's not uncommon for the civilian population to be tortured/slain/raped after being defeated. Yes... as I said... we equate rape with domination... we kill off the men and have our way with the civilians... ie, domination... There's a reason we call it rape and not really unfortunate sex accident. That is because that is the definition of rape. Rape is forcing sex onto someone. Not an accident. And domination is obviously a large part of that, because you need to be in a dominant position to do that. And the way our bodies work makes it a lot easier for a man to rape someone than for a woman. I am not quite sure what your point is. Because you didn't read what I wrote I will quote myself. we equate rape with the act of domination Discomatt then implied "rape and pillage" is a throwaway phrase only relevant in war. Which is why I said "equate" as in to compare to things and see them as similar. He was responding to my post wherein I was talking about the misogynistic tendencies of american culture to use the term fuck to mean domination--ie rape. As in an event either fucks us over or we fuck over something we dominate. Because we use that rape/fuck mindset in everyday affairs we also project that onto other people--ie rape culture. Where we dominate the feminine with the masculine. I read what you wrote. You are just not making a lot of obvious sense to me. I still don't quite get your point. We equate rape with domination. Yes. That is because domination is a large part of rape. What are you getting at with this? You are stating this like it is some kind of grand discovery. Is your point that fucking/raping something is used as an allegory for domination, which means...something? I'm saying misogyny is about domination--not about how much/little clothes a woman wears or how sexual she is. I'm saying things aren't sexist *because* people who stream are showing their boobs I'm saying it's sexist when women are told how to look and act and defined by how much they fit that standard. I'm saying that misogyny is the domination of the female identity. I'm saying rape, is the domination of the female. I'm saying that terms like "tits or gtfo" is about the domination of the female and phrases like "good job on not being slutty" is the domination of the female. When we set the parameters for how a person should or shouldn't act--we are being misogynists. So it is misogynist to tell people they shouldn't act misogynist. When you are telling a woman how she should behave/dress/act/be instead of letting her just be herself be it slutty or prudish--you're being misogynistic. Because you are dominating her ability to be her own person. If she wants to get on twitch, take off her top and ask guys to tell her how sexy she is--then it's her right to do it. If she wants to just stream herself playing mario games--then its her right to do it. People who try to shame a woman who loves having sex by calling her a slut is misogynistic because they are dictating how that person should act. People who try to shame a woman who likes playing videogames as being a prude for not showing her tits are being misogynistic because they are dictating how that person should act. Telling someone not be misogynistic has nothing to do with telling them how to be a person. It is telling them that they are intruding on someone's rights. When I tell them to stop being misogynistic they don't need to change their style of clothes, the way they present themselves, their sexual activity, their anything. It literally is telling them to stop attacking another human being. Wrong. It is her right to act like that. Certainly. It is equally my right to tell her shes acting like shit if I think she's acting like shit. Sorry if that makes people "feel bad", but last time I checked informing people of your reaction to something they're putting out in a public space isn't "dominating their ability to be their own person", it was freedom of speech. What you are proposing, that people cease not only expressing their judgments on things "put out there", but to cease having them, is nothing more than the creation of thought-crime. Language control IS thought control. You have no right not to be offended. You have no right to be happy. You DO have a right to walk away, or turn off your TV, etc. You DO have a right to pursue happiness, but no guarantees. Stop turning common courtesy into something bigger than it is. The problem is that you're judging her behavior in a special way because she's female. That's prejudice.
Not necessarily, if the content provider in question makes a big deal, or tries to create a niche for herself, based on being a female. You don't have to be a little shit and flame her either, but calling out such gimmickry isn't necessarily misogynist. I for one think women are capable of being good players, good commentators etc etc, but instead the women we get presented in the scene are all often just eye candy for pre-pubescents.
|
On May 03 2013 03:39 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 03:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:34 Kimaker wrote:On May 03 2013 02:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:35 Mothra wrote:On May 03 2013 02:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:16 Simberto wrote:On May 03 2013 02:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:03 Simberto wrote:On May 03 2013 01:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Yes... as I said... we equate rape with domination... we kill off the men and have our way with the civilians... ie, domination...
There's a reason we call it rape and not really unfortunate sex accident. That is because that is the definition of rape. Rape is forcing sex onto someone. Not an accident. And domination is obviously a large part of that, because you need to be in a dominant position to do that. And the way our bodies work makes it a lot easier for a man to rape someone than for a woman. I am not quite sure what your point is. Because you didn't read what I wrote I will quote myself. we equate rape with the act of domination Discomatt then implied "rape and pillage" is a throwaway phrase only relevant in war. Which is why I said "equate" as in to compare to things and see them as similar. He was responding to my post wherein I was talking about the misogynistic tendencies of american culture to use the term fuck to mean domination--ie rape. As in an event either fucks us over or we fuck over something we dominate. Because we use that rape/fuck mindset in everyday affairs we also project that onto other people--ie rape culture. Where we dominate the feminine with the masculine. I read what you wrote. You are just not making a lot of obvious sense to me. I still don't quite get your point. We equate rape with domination. Yes. That is because domination is a large part of rape. What are you getting at with this? You are stating this like it is some kind of grand discovery. Is your point that fucking/raping something is used as an allegory for domination, which means...something? I'm saying misogyny is about domination--not about how much/little clothes a woman wears or how sexual she is. I'm saying things aren't sexist *because* people who stream are showing their boobs I'm saying it's sexist when women are told how to look and act and defined by how much they fit that standard. I'm saying that misogyny is the domination of the female identity. I'm saying rape, is the domination of the female. I'm saying that terms like "tits or gtfo" is about the domination of the female and phrases like "good job on not being slutty" is the domination of the female. When we set the parameters for how a person should or shouldn't act--we are being misogynists. So it is misogynist to tell people they shouldn't act misogynist. When you are telling a woman how she should behave/dress/act/be instead of letting her just be herself be it slutty or prudish--you're being misogynistic. Because you are dominating her ability to be her own person. If she wants to get on twitch, take off her top and ask guys to tell her how sexy she is--then it's her right to do it. If she wants to just stream herself playing mario games--then its her right to do it. People who try to shame a woman who loves having sex by calling her a slut is misogynistic because they are dictating how that person should act. People who try to shame a woman who likes playing videogames as being a prude for not showing her tits are being misogynistic because they are dictating how that person should act. Telling someone not be misogynistic has nothing to do with telling them how to be a person. It is telling them that they are intruding on someone's rights. When I tell them to stop being misogynistic they don't need to change their style of clothes, the way they present themselves, their sexual activity, their anything. It literally is telling them to stop attacking another human being. Wrong. It is her right to act like that. Certainly. It is equally my right to tell her shes acting like shit if I think she's acting like shit. Sorry if that makes people "feel bad", but last time I checked informing people of your reaction to something they're putting out in a public space isn't "dominating their ability to be their own person", it was freedom of speech. What you are proposing, that people cease not only expressing their judgments on things "put out there", but to cease having them, is nothing more than the creation of thought-crime. Language control IS thought control. You have no right not to be offended. You have no right to be happy. You DO have a right to walk away, or turn off your TV, etc. You DO have a right to pursue happiness, but no guarantees. Stop turning common courtesy into something bigger than it is. Talking to them about your lifestyle preferences is different from telling them that their lifestyle preferences are wrong. I don't understand this at all. Certainly I don't think it's a good idea to say someone is a terrible person for any reason, but telling them that the way they live their life is unethical is certainly not a problem. Do you think, for instance, that the way the Westboro Baptist Church lives is a lifestyle entitled to equal respect as that of the average person? Do you think I'm being unfair to say that the Westboro Baptist Church is immoral in their treatment of pretty much everyone? Now, obviously the WBC is an incredibly extreme example, but how is thinking that someone's lifestyle is wrong a problem? As long as I don't try to pass laws that restrict people's freedom, I can definitely pass judgments on the way they choose to live.
The Westboro church is perfectly fine having the beliefs they have. But since they spend a good deal of time attacking and forcing others to match their beliefs--that is when there is a problem.
When you dominate another person, then you are in the wrong since everyone is entitled to their viewpoint.
For example, imagine if the WBC never protested anything. They just met up, did their thing in church, and went home. Would they be a bother? No, and they wouldn't be on TV either. In fact, nothing all that bad would happen until they start enforcing their lifestyle on others.
it's the same thing with misogyny. Women should be allowed to do what they want--but they are constantly policed about it.
|
On May 03 2013 03:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 03:39 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 03:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:34 Kimaker wrote:On May 03 2013 02:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:35 Mothra wrote:On May 03 2013 02:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:16 Simberto wrote:On May 03 2013 02:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:03 Simberto wrote:
[quote]
That is because that is the definition of rape. Rape is forcing sex onto someone. Not an accident. And domination is obviously a large part of that, because you need to be in a dominant position to do that. And the way our bodies work makes it a lot easier for a man to rape someone than for a woman.
I am not quite sure what your point is. Because you didn't read what I wrote I will quote myself. we equate rape with the act of domination Discomatt then implied "rape and pillage" is a throwaway phrase only relevant in war. Which is why I said "equate" as in to compare to things and see them as similar. He was responding to my post wherein I was talking about the misogynistic tendencies of american culture to use the term fuck to mean domination--ie rape. As in an event either fucks us over or we fuck over something we dominate. Because we use that rape/fuck mindset in everyday affairs we also project that onto other people--ie rape culture. Where we dominate the feminine with the masculine. I read what you wrote. You are just not making a lot of obvious sense to me. I still don't quite get your point. We equate rape with domination. Yes. That is because domination is a large part of rape. What are you getting at with this? You are stating this like it is some kind of grand discovery. Is your point that fucking/raping something is used as an allegory for domination, which means...something? I'm saying misogyny is about domination--not about how much/little clothes a woman wears or how sexual she is. I'm saying things aren't sexist *because* people who stream are showing their boobs I'm saying it's sexist when women are told how to look and act and defined by how much they fit that standard. I'm saying that misogyny is the domination of the female identity. I'm saying rape, is the domination of the female. I'm saying that terms like "tits or gtfo" is about the domination of the female and phrases like "good job on not being slutty" is the domination of the female. When we set the parameters for how a person should or shouldn't act--we are being misogynists. So it is misogynist to tell people they shouldn't act misogynist. When you are telling a woman how she should behave/dress/act/be instead of letting her just be herself be it slutty or prudish--you're being misogynistic. Because you are dominating her ability to be her own person. If she wants to get on twitch, take off her top and ask guys to tell her how sexy she is--then it's her right to do it. If she wants to just stream herself playing mario games--then its her right to do it. People who try to shame a woman who loves having sex by calling her a slut is misogynistic because they are dictating how that person should act. People who try to shame a woman who likes playing videogames as being a prude for not showing her tits are being misogynistic because they are dictating how that person should act. Telling someone not be misogynistic has nothing to do with telling them how to be a person. It is telling them that they are intruding on someone's rights. When I tell them to stop being misogynistic they don't need to change their style of clothes, the way they present themselves, their sexual activity, their anything. It literally is telling them to stop attacking another human being. Wrong. It is her right to act like that. Certainly. It is equally my right to tell her shes acting like shit if I think she's acting like shit. Sorry if that makes people "feel bad", but last time I checked informing people of your reaction to something they're putting out in a public space isn't "dominating their ability to be their own person", it was freedom of speech. What you are proposing, that people cease not only expressing their judgments on things "put out there", but to cease having them, is nothing more than the creation of thought-crime. Language control IS thought control. You have no right not to be offended. You have no right to be happy. You DO have a right to walk away, or turn off your TV, etc. You DO have a right to pursue happiness, but no guarantees. Stop turning common courtesy into something bigger than it is. Talking to them about your lifestyle preferences is different from telling them that their lifestyle preferences are wrong. I don't understand this at all. Certainly I don't think it's a good idea to say someone is a terrible person for any reason, but telling them that the way they live their life is unethical is certainly not a problem. Do you think, for instance, that the way the Westboro Baptist Church lives is a lifestyle entitled to equal respect as that of the average person? Do you think I'm being unfair to say that the Westboro Baptist Church is immoral in their treatment of pretty much everyone? Now, obviously the WBC is an incredibly extreme example, but how is thinking that someone's lifestyle is wrong a problem? As long as I don't try to pass laws that restrict people's freedom, I can definitely pass judgments on the way they choose to live. The Westboro church is perfectly fine having the beliefs they have. But since they spend a good deal of time attacking and forcing others to match their beliefs--that is when there is a problem. When you dominate another person, then you are in the wrong since everyone is entitled to their viewpoint. For example, imagine if the WBC never protested anything. They just met up, did their thing in church, and went home. Would they be a bother? No, and they wouldn't be on TV either. In fact, nothing all that bad would happen until they start enforcing their lifestyle on others. it's the same thing with misogyny. Women should be allowed to do what they want--but they are constantly policed about it.
You don't think there are any moral problems with the WBC's beliefs?
Everyone is entitled to their viewpoint. Not everyone's viewpoint is entitled to my respect.
I'm not suggesting policing anyone. I'm suggesting that for me to think someone who lives in a certain way is doing something immoral is not misogyny, bigotry, or anything other than a consequence of a moral code.
|
lol I can't help but agree with that article. The instinct to reproduce is strong in men, and some resent that and the power women hold over them.
|
Are we really bringing church and evolution into this discussion? How does this happen? The closest thing to rape-induced evolution that occurred here was a rape joke or a thousand that changed someone's perspective. So many pages wasted on off-topic banter. No wonder women feel ignored.
|
On May 03 2013 03:46 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 03:37 yamato77 wrote:On May 03 2013 03:34 Kimaker wrote:On May 03 2013 02:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:35 Mothra wrote:On May 03 2013 02:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:16 Simberto wrote:On May 03 2013 02:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:03 Simberto wrote:On May 03 2013 01:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Yes... as I said... we equate rape with domination... we kill off the men and have our way with the civilians... ie, domination...
There's a reason we call it rape and not really unfortunate sex accident. That is because that is the definition of rape. Rape is forcing sex onto someone. Not an accident. And domination is obviously a large part of that, because you need to be in a dominant position to do that. And the way our bodies work makes it a lot easier for a man to rape someone than for a woman. I am not quite sure what your point is. Because you didn't read what I wrote I will quote myself. we equate rape with the act of domination Discomatt then implied "rape and pillage" is a throwaway phrase only relevant in war. Which is why I said "equate" as in to compare to things and see them as similar. He was responding to my post wherein I was talking about the misogynistic tendencies of american culture to use the term fuck to mean domination--ie rape. As in an event either fucks us over or we fuck over something we dominate. Because we use that rape/fuck mindset in everyday affairs we also project that onto other people--ie rape culture. Where we dominate the feminine with the masculine. I read what you wrote. You are just not making a lot of obvious sense to me. I still don't quite get your point. We equate rape with domination. Yes. That is because domination is a large part of rape. What are you getting at with this? You are stating this like it is some kind of grand discovery. Is your point that fucking/raping something is used as an allegory for domination, which means...something? I'm saying misogyny is about domination--not about how much/little clothes a woman wears or how sexual she is. I'm saying things aren't sexist *because* people who stream are showing their boobs I'm saying it's sexist when women are told how to look and act and defined by how much they fit that standard. I'm saying that misogyny is the domination of the female identity. I'm saying rape, is the domination of the female. I'm saying that terms like "tits or gtfo" is about the domination of the female and phrases like "good job on not being slutty" is the domination of the female. When we set the parameters for how a person should or shouldn't act--we are being misogynists. So it is misogynist to tell people they shouldn't act misogynist. When you are telling a woman how she should behave/dress/act/be instead of letting her just be herself be it slutty or prudish--you're being misogynistic. Because you are dominating her ability to be her own person. If she wants to get on twitch, take off her top and ask guys to tell her how sexy she is--then it's her right to do it. If she wants to just stream herself playing mario games--then its her right to do it. People who try to shame a woman who loves having sex by calling her a slut is misogynistic because they are dictating how that person should act. People who try to shame a woman who likes playing videogames as being a prude for not showing her tits are being misogynistic because they are dictating how that person should act. Telling someone not be misogynistic has nothing to do with telling them how to be a person. It is telling them that they are intruding on someone's rights. When I tell them to stop being misogynistic they don't need to change their style of clothes, the way they present themselves, their sexual activity, their anything. It literally is telling them to stop attacking another human being. Wrong. It is her right to act like that. Certainly. It is equally my right to tell her shes acting like shit if I think she's acting like shit. Sorry if that makes people "feel bad", but last time I checked informing people of your reaction to something they're putting out in a public space isn't "dominating their ability to be their own person", it was freedom of speech. What you are proposing, that people cease not only expressing their judgments on things "put out there", but to cease having them, is nothing more than the creation of thought-crime. Language control IS thought control. You have no right not to be offended. You have no right to be happy. You DO have a right to walk away, or turn off your TV, etc. You DO have a right to pursue happiness, but no guarantees. Stop turning common courtesy into something bigger than it is. The problem is that you're judging her behavior in a special way because she's female. That's prejudice. Not necessarily, if the content provider in question makes a big deal, or tries to create a niche for herself, based on being a female. You don't have to be a little shit and flame her either, but calling out such gimmickry isn't necessarily misogynist. I for one think women are capable of being good players, good commentators etc etc, but instead the women we get presented in the scene are all often just eye candy for pre-pubescents.
If what she's proud of doing is being a beautiful female why is it your right to tell her she can't be?
You could say she's dishonest. You could say that you want more content. You could say you would rather she have a different focus.
But to say she's wrong for being proud enough about her body to present it to the world? That is attacking the part of her that is female, not the actual content of her product.
|
On May 03 2013 03:37 yamato77 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 03:34 Kimaker wrote:On May 03 2013 02:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:35 Mothra wrote:On May 03 2013 02:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:16 Simberto wrote:On May 03 2013 02:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:03 Simberto wrote:On May 03 2013 01:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 01:45 discomatt wrote:
[quote]
"Rape and pillage" is a literal term. It's not uncommon for the civilian population to be tortured/slain/raped after being defeated. Yes... as I said... we equate rape with domination... we kill off the men and have our way with the civilians... ie, domination... There's a reason we call it rape and not really unfortunate sex accident. That is because that is the definition of rape. Rape is forcing sex onto someone. Not an accident. And domination is obviously a large part of that, because you need to be in a dominant position to do that. And the way our bodies work makes it a lot easier for a man to rape someone than for a woman. I am not quite sure what your point is. Because you didn't read what I wrote I will quote myself. we equate rape with the act of domination Discomatt then implied "rape and pillage" is a throwaway phrase only relevant in war. Which is why I said "equate" as in to compare to things and see them as similar. He was responding to my post wherein I was talking about the misogynistic tendencies of american culture to use the term fuck to mean domination--ie rape. As in an event either fucks us over or we fuck over something we dominate. Because we use that rape/fuck mindset in everyday affairs we also project that onto other people--ie rape culture. Where we dominate the feminine with the masculine. I read what you wrote. You are just not making a lot of obvious sense to me. I still don't quite get your point. We equate rape with domination. Yes. That is because domination is a large part of rape. What are you getting at with this? You are stating this like it is some kind of grand discovery. Is your point that fucking/raping something is used as an allegory for domination, which means...something? I'm saying misogyny is about domination--not about how much/little clothes a woman wears or how sexual she is. I'm saying things aren't sexist *because* people who stream are showing their boobs I'm saying it's sexist when women are told how to look and act and defined by how much they fit that standard. I'm saying that misogyny is the domination of the female identity. I'm saying rape, is the domination of the female. I'm saying that terms like "tits or gtfo" is about the domination of the female and phrases like "good job on not being slutty" is the domination of the female. When we set the parameters for how a person should or shouldn't act--we are being misogynists. So it is misogynist to tell people they shouldn't act misogynist. When you are telling a woman how she should behave/dress/act/be instead of letting her just be herself be it slutty or prudish--you're being misogynistic. Because you are dominating her ability to be her own person. If she wants to get on twitch, take off her top and ask guys to tell her how sexy she is--then it's her right to do it. If she wants to just stream herself playing mario games--then its her right to do it. People who try to shame a woman who loves having sex by calling her a slut is misogynistic because they are dictating how that person should act. People who try to shame a woman who likes playing videogames as being a prude for not showing her tits are being misogynistic because they are dictating how that person should act. Telling someone not be misogynistic has nothing to do with telling them how to be a person. It is telling them that they are intruding on someone's rights. When I tell them to stop being misogynistic they don't need to change their style of clothes, the way they present themselves, their sexual activity, their anything. It literally is telling them to stop attacking another human being. Wrong. It is her right to act like that. Certainly. It is equally my right to tell her shes acting like shit if I think she's acting like shit. Sorry if that makes people "feel bad", but last time I checked informing people of your reaction to something they're putting out in a public space isn't "dominating their ability to be their own person", it was freedom of speech. What you are proposing, that people cease not only expressing their judgments on things "put out there", but to cease having them, is nothing more than the creation of thought-crime. Language control IS thought control. You have no right not to be offended. You have no right to be happy. You DO have a right to walk away, or turn off your TV, etc. You DO have a right to pursue happiness, but no guarantees. Stop turning common courtesy into something bigger than it is. The problem is that you're judging her behavior in a special way because she's female. That's prejudice.
And I judge a soldier by a different standard than a civilian in a firefight.
And a doctor by a different standard than a layman in surgery.
And a professional orchestra by a different standard than a middle school orchestra.
But hell, those examples all are about things you DO not who you are...so let's try this:
...and a child by a different standard than an adult.
And my son by a different standard than a random child.
And my parents by a different standard than my teachers.
When are we finally going to do away with this religious mantra that gender is a social construct? Where does a social norm derive from? Could it be rooted natural developments? Does it really matter? The fact is that women tend to act a certain way, and men tend to react to those actions in a certain way. No one makes a fuss when we treat animals as animals, just because they're animals (some nut-jobs do, I'll grant you that). Imagine that. We're treating with reality on reality's terms. Mind blown.
I judge her as a woman, because she is a woman.
If that's prejudice, then I am proudly prejudiced.
Reality doesn't care how you feel about it.
|
On May 03 2013 03:43 yamato77 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 03:39 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 03:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:34 Kimaker wrote:On May 03 2013 02:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:35 Mothra wrote:On May 03 2013 02:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:16 Simberto wrote:On May 03 2013 02:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:03 Simberto wrote:
[quote]
That is because that is the definition of rape. Rape is forcing sex onto someone. Not an accident. And domination is obviously a large part of that, because you need to be in a dominant position to do that. And the way our bodies work makes it a lot easier for a man to rape someone than for a woman.
I am not quite sure what your point is. Because you didn't read what I wrote I will quote myself. we equate rape with the act of domination Discomatt then implied "rape and pillage" is a throwaway phrase only relevant in war. Which is why I said "equate" as in to compare to things and see them as similar. He was responding to my post wherein I was talking about the misogynistic tendencies of american culture to use the term fuck to mean domination--ie rape. As in an event either fucks us over or we fuck over something we dominate. Because we use that rape/fuck mindset in everyday affairs we also project that onto other people--ie rape culture. Where we dominate the feminine with the masculine. I read what you wrote. You are just not making a lot of obvious sense to me. I still don't quite get your point. We equate rape with domination. Yes. That is because domination is a large part of rape. What are you getting at with this? You are stating this like it is some kind of grand discovery. Is your point that fucking/raping something is used as an allegory for domination, which means...something? I'm saying misogyny is about domination--not about how much/little clothes a woman wears or how sexual she is. I'm saying things aren't sexist *because* people who stream are showing their boobs I'm saying it's sexist when women are told how to look and act and defined by how much they fit that standard. I'm saying that misogyny is the domination of the female identity. I'm saying rape, is the domination of the female. I'm saying that terms like "tits or gtfo" is about the domination of the female and phrases like "good job on not being slutty" is the domination of the female. When we set the parameters for how a person should or shouldn't act--we are being misogynists. So it is misogynist to tell people they shouldn't act misogynist. When you are telling a woman how she should behave/dress/act/be instead of letting her just be herself be it slutty or prudish--you're being misogynistic. Because you are dominating her ability to be her own person. If she wants to get on twitch, take off her top and ask guys to tell her how sexy she is--then it's her right to do it. If she wants to just stream herself playing mario games--then its her right to do it. People who try to shame a woman who loves having sex by calling her a slut is misogynistic because they are dictating how that person should act. People who try to shame a woman who likes playing videogames as being a prude for not showing her tits are being misogynistic because they are dictating how that person should act. Telling someone not be misogynistic has nothing to do with telling them how to be a person. It is telling them that they are intruding on someone's rights. When I tell them to stop being misogynistic they don't need to change their style of clothes, the way they present themselves, their sexual activity, their anything. It literally is telling them to stop attacking another human being. Wrong. It is her right to act like that. Certainly. It is equally my right to tell her shes acting like shit if I think she's acting like shit. Sorry if that makes people "feel bad", but last time I checked informing people of your reaction to something they're putting out in a public space isn't "dominating their ability to be their own person", it was freedom of speech. What you are proposing, that people cease not only expressing their judgments on things "put out there", but to cease having them, is nothing more than the creation of thought-crime. Language control IS thought control. You have no right not to be offended. You have no right to be happy. You DO have a right to walk away, or turn off your TV, etc. You DO have a right to pursue happiness, but no guarantees. Stop turning common courtesy into something bigger than it is. Talking to them about your lifestyle preferences is different from telling them that their lifestyle preferences are wrong. I don't understand this at all. Certainly I don't think it's a good idea to say someone is a terrible person for any reason, but telling them that the way they live their life is unethical is certainly not a problem. Do you think, for instance, that the way the Westboro Baptist Church lives is a lifestyle entitled to equal respect as that of the average person? Do you think I'm being unfair to say that the Westboro Baptist Church is immoral in their treatment of pretty much everyone? Now, obviously the WBC is an incredibly extreme example, but how is thinking that someone's lifestyle is wrong a problem? As long as I don't try to pass laws that restrict people's freedom, I can definitely pass judgments on the way they choose to live. So long as the criteria you use to judge them on are objective to both sexes, sure. If you are biased in your judgement, it's prejudice.
Maybe this is why female happiness in the West is paradoxically low.
Would it be too far to suggest that men and women are different biologically and have had evolution guide them into different places in the complexity of human interaction?
I would like to judge men and women from an objective standpoint for men and an objective standpoint for women, not one that judges both simultaneously. You can understand men are men and women are women without believing one is better or that gender roles are fixed. And you can do so in a way that judges both fairly.
|
On May 03 2013 03:49 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 03:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:39 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 03:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:34 Kimaker wrote:On May 03 2013 02:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:35 Mothra wrote:On May 03 2013 02:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:16 Simberto wrote:On May 03 2013 02:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Because you didn't read what I wrote I will quote myself.
[quote]
Discomatt then implied "rape and pillage" is a throwaway phrase only relevant in war. Which is why I said "equate" as in to compare to things and see them as similar.
He was responding to my post wherein I was talking about the misogynistic tendencies of american culture to use the term fuck to mean domination--ie rape. As in an event either fucks us over or we fuck over something we dominate. Because we use that rape/fuck mindset in everyday affairs we also project that onto other people--ie rape culture. Where we dominate the feminine with the masculine. I read what you wrote. You are just not making a lot of obvious sense to me. I still don't quite get your point. We equate rape with domination. Yes. That is because domination is a large part of rape. What are you getting at with this? You are stating this like it is some kind of grand discovery. Is your point that fucking/raping something is used as an allegory for domination, which means...something? I'm saying misogyny is about domination--not about how much/little clothes a woman wears or how sexual she is. I'm saying things aren't sexist *because* people who stream are showing their boobs I'm saying it's sexist when women are told how to look and act and defined by how much they fit that standard. I'm saying that misogyny is the domination of the female identity. I'm saying rape, is the domination of the female. I'm saying that terms like "tits or gtfo" is about the domination of the female and phrases like "good job on not being slutty" is the domination of the female. When we set the parameters for how a person should or shouldn't act--we are being misogynists. So it is misogynist to tell people they shouldn't act misogynist. When you are telling a woman how she should behave/dress/act/be instead of letting her just be herself be it slutty or prudish--you're being misogynistic. Because you are dominating her ability to be her own person. If she wants to get on twitch, take off her top and ask guys to tell her how sexy she is--then it's her right to do it. If she wants to just stream herself playing mario games--then its her right to do it. People who try to shame a woman who loves having sex by calling her a slut is misogynistic because they are dictating how that person should act. People who try to shame a woman who likes playing videogames as being a prude for not showing her tits are being misogynistic because they are dictating how that person should act. Telling someone not be misogynistic has nothing to do with telling them how to be a person. It is telling them that they are intruding on someone's rights. When I tell them to stop being misogynistic they don't need to change their style of clothes, the way they present themselves, their sexual activity, their anything. It literally is telling them to stop attacking another human being. Wrong. It is her right to act like that. Certainly. It is equally my right to tell her shes acting like shit if I think she's acting like shit. Sorry if that makes people "feel bad", but last time I checked informing people of your reaction to something they're putting out in a public space isn't "dominating their ability to be their own person", it was freedom of speech. What you are proposing, that people cease not only expressing their judgments on things "put out there", but to cease having them, is nothing more than the creation of thought-crime. Language control IS thought control. You have no right not to be offended. You have no right to be happy. You DO have a right to walk away, or turn off your TV, etc. You DO have a right to pursue happiness, but no guarantees. Stop turning common courtesy into something bigger than it is. Talking to them about your lifestyle preferences is different from telling them that their lifestyle preferences are wrong. I don't understand this at all. Certainly I don't think it's a good idea to say someone is a terrible person for any reason, but telling them that the way they live their life is unethical is certainly not a problem. Do you think, for instance, that the way the Westboro Baptist Church lives is a lifestyle entitled to equal respect as that of the average person? Do you think I'm being unfair to say that the Westboro Baptist Church is immoral in their treatment of pretty much everyone? Now, obviously the WBC is an incredibly extreme example, but how is thinking that someone's lifestyle is wrong a problem? As long as I don't try to pass laws that restrict people's freedom, I can definitely pass judgments on the way they choose to live. The Westboro church is perfectly fine having the beliefs they have. But since they spend a good deal of time attacking and forcing others to match their beliefs--that is when there is a problem. When you dominate another person, then you are in the wrong since everyone is entitled to their viewpoint. For example, imagine if the WBC never protested anything. They just met up, did their thing in church, and went home. Would they be a bother? No, and they wouldn't be on TV either. In fact, nothing all that bad would happen until they start enforcing their lifestyle on others. it's the same thing with misogyny. Women should be allowed to do what they want--but they are constantly policed about it. You don't think there are any moral problems with the WBC's beliefs? Everyone is entitled to their viewpoint. Not everyone's viewpoint is entitled to my respect. I'm not suggesting policing anyone. I'm suggesting that for me to think someone who lives in a certain way is doing something immoral is not misogyny, bigotry, or anything other than a consequence of a moral code.
I'm saying that it's wrong to hate someone for having different beliefs than yourself. I might disagree with their beliefs--but I don't hate them. I do hate that they force their beliefs on others because that is attempting to dominate someone else's lifestyle and choices--which is not allowed.
Is that really such a hard concept?
|
11589 Posts
On May 03 2013 03:46 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 03:37 yamato77 wrote:On May 03 2013 03:34 Kimaker wrote:On May 03 2013 02:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:35 Mothra wrote:On May 03 2013 02:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:16 Simberto wrote:On May 03 2013 02:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:03 Simberto wrote:On May 03 2013 01:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Yes... as I said... we equate rape with domination... we kill off the men and have our way with the civilians... ie, domination...
There's a reason we call it rape and not really unfortunate sex accident. That is because that is the definition of rape. Rape is forcing sex onto someone. Not an accident. And domination is obviously a large part of that, because you need to be in a dominant position to do that. And the way our bodies work makes it a lot easier for a man to rape someone than for a woman. I am not quite sure what your point is. Because you didn't read what I wrote I will quote myself. we equate rape with the act of domination Discomatt then implied "rape and pillage" is a throwaway phrase only relevant in war. Which is why I said "equate" as in to compare to things and see them as similar. He was responding to my post wherein I was talking about the misogynistic tendencies of american culture to use the term fuck to mean domination--ie rape. As in an event either fucks us over or we fuck over something we dominate. Because we use that rape/fuck mindset in everyday affairs we also project that onto other people--ie rape culture. Where we dominate the feminine with the masculine. I read what you wrote. You are just not making a lot of obvious sense to me. I still don't quite get your point. We equate rape with domination. Yes. That is because domination is a large part of rape. What are you getting at with this? You are stating this like it is some kind of grand discovery. Is your point that fucking/raping something is used as an allegory for domination, which means...something? I'm saying misogyny is about domination--not about how much/little clothes a woman wears or how sexual she is. I'm saying things aren't sexist *because* people who stream are showing their boobs I'm saying it's sexist when women are told how to look and act and defined by how much they fit that standard. I'm saying that misogyny is the domination of the female identity. I'm saying rape, is the domination of the female. I'm saying that terms like "tits or gtfo" is about the domination of the female and phrases like "good job on not being slutty" is the domination of the female. When we set the parameters for how a person should or shouldn't act--we are being misogynists. So it is misogynist to tell people they shouldn't act misogynist. When you are telling a woman how she should behave/dress/act/be instead of letting her just be herself be it slutty or prudish--you're being misogynistic. Because you are dominating her ability to be her own person. If she wants to get on twitch, take off her top and ask guys to tell her how sexy she is--then it's her right to do it. If she wants to just stream herself playing mario games--then its her right to do it. People who try to shame a woman who loves having sex by calling her a slut is misogynistic because they are dictating how that person should act. People who try to shame a woman who likes playing videogames as being a prude for not showing her tits are being misogynistic because they are dictating how that person should act. Telling someone not be misogynistic has nothing to do with telling them how to be a person. It is telling them that they are intruding on someone's rights. When I tell them to stop being misogynistic they don't need to change their style of clothes, the way they present themselves, their sexual activity, their anything. It literally is telling them to stop attacking another human being. Wrong. It is her right to act like that. Certainly. It is equally my right to tell her shes acting like shit if I think she's acting like shit. Sorry if that makes people "feel bad", but last time I checked informing people of your reaction to something they're putting out in a public space isn't "dominating their ability to be their own person", it was freedom of speech. What you are proposing, that people cease not only expressing their judgments on things "put out there", but to cease having them, is nothing more than the creation of thought-crime. Language control IS thought control. You have no right not to be offended. You have no right to be happy. You DO have a right to walk away, or turn off your TV, etc. You DO have a right to pursue happiness, but no guarantees. Stop turning common courtesy into something bigger than it is. The problem is that you're judging her behavior in a special way because she's female. That's prejudice. Not necessarily, if the content provider in question makes a big deal, or tries to create a niche for herself, based on being a female. You don't have to be a little shit and flame her either, but calling out such gimmickry isn't necessarily misogynist. I for one think women are capable of being good players, good commentators etc etc, but instead the women we get presented in the scene are all often just eye candy for pre-pubescents.
Perhaps that is your perception, and perhaps that may be the case, but that is not due to the incapacity of women to be passionate about gaming, it is due to the sexist ideology that leads these types of women to be the only ones that get hired or become successful in this context.
I don't believe that the woman who wrote the article was doing what you suggest. I think she obviously wanted to be accepted on a basis that wasn't her being female.
|
On May 03 2013 03:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 03:49 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 03:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:39 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 03:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:34 Kimaker wrote:On May 03 2013 02:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:35 Mothra wrote:On May 03 2013 02:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:16 Simberto wrote:
[quote]
I read what you wrote. You are just not making a lot of obvious sense to me. I still don't quite get your point. We equate rape with domination. Yes. That is because domination is a large part of rape. What are you getting at with this? You are stating this like it is some kind of grand discovery. Is your point that fucking/raping something is used as an allegory for domination, which means...something? I'm saying misogyny is about domination--not about how much/little clothes a woman wears or how sexual she is. I'm saying things aren't sexist *because* people who stream are showing their boobs I'm saying it's sexist when women are told how to look and act and defined by how much they fit that standard. I'm saying that misogyny is the domination of the female identity. I'm saying rape, is the domination of the female. I'm saying that terms like "tits or gtfo" is about the domination of the female and phrases like "good job on not being slutty" is the domination of the female. When we set the parameters for how a person should or shouldn't act--we are being misogynists. So it is misogynist to tell people they shouldn't act misogynist. When you are telling a woman how she should behave/dress/act/be instead of letting her just be herself be it slutty or prudish--you're being misogynistic. Because you are dominating her ability to be her own person. If she wants to get on twitch, take off her top and ask guys to tell her how sexy she is--then it's her right to do it. If she wants to just stream herself playing mario games--then its her right to do it. People who try to shame a woman who loves having sex by calling her a slut is misogynistic because they are dictating how that person should act. People who try to shame a woman who likes playing videogames as being a prude for not showing her tits are being misogynistic because they are dictating how that person should act. Telling someone not be misogynistic has nothing to do with telling them how to be a person. It is telling them that they are intruding on someone's rights. When I tell them to stop being misogynistic they don't need to change their style of clothes, the way they present themselves, their sexual activity, their anything. It literally is telling them to stop attacking another human being. Wrong. It is her right to act like that. Certainly. It is equally my right to tell her shes acting like shit if I think she's acting like shit. Sorry if that makes people "feel bad", but last time I checked informing people of your reaction to something they're putting out in a public space isn't "dominating their ability to be their own person", it was freedom of speech. What you are proposing, that people cease not only expressing their judgments on things "put out there", but to cease having them, is nothing more than the creation of thought-crime. Language control IS thought control. You have no right not to be offended. You have no right to be happy. You DO have a right to walk away, or turn off your TV, etc. You DO have a right to pursue happiness, but no guarantees. Stop turning common courtesy into something bigger than it is. Talking to them about your lifestyle preferences is different from telling them that their lifestyle preferences are wrong. I don't understand this at all. Certainly I don't think it's a good idea to say someone is a terrible person for any reason, but telling them that the way they live their life is unethical is certainly not a problem. Do you think, for instance, that the way the Westboro Baptist Church lives is a lifestyle entitled to equal respect as that of the average person? Do you think I'm being unfair to say that the Westboro Baptist Church is immoral in their treatment of pretty much everyone? Now, obviously the WBC is an incredibly extreme example, but how is thinking that someone's lifestyle is wrong a problem? As long as I don't try to pass laws that restrict people's freedom, I can definitely pass judgments on the way they choose to live. The Westboro church is perfectly fine having the beliefs they have. But since they spend a good deal of time attacking and forcing others to match their beliefs--that is when there is a problem. When you dominate another person, then you are in the wrong since everyone is entitled to their viewpoint. For example, imagine if the WBC never protested anything. They just met up, did their thing in church, and went home. Would they be a bother? No, and they wouldn't be on TV either. In fact, nothing all that bad would happen until they start enforcing their lifestyle on others. it's the same thing with misogyny. Women should be allowed to do what they want--but they are constantly policed about it. You don't think there are any moral problems with the WBC's beliefs? Everyone is entitled to their viewpoint. Not everyone's viewpoint is entitled to my respect. I'm not suggesting policing anyone. I'm suggesting that for me to think someone who lives in a certain way is doing something immoral is not misogyny, bigotry, or anything other than a consequence of a moral code. I'm saying that it's wrong to hate someone for having different beliefs than yourself. I might disagree with their beliefs--but I don't hate them. I do hate that they force their beliefs on others because that is attempting to dominate someone else's lifestyle and choices--which is not allowed. Is that really such a hard concept?
The problem is that you're equivocating between "hating" people for having different beliefs and making it known that you believe they're wrong. I am not hating a drug addict to say that drug abuse is immoral.
|
On May 03 2013 03:50 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 03:37 yamato77 wrote:On May 03 2013 03:34 Kimaker wrote:On May 03 2013 02:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:35 Mothra wrote:On May 03 2013 02:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:16 Simberto wrote:On May 03 2013 02:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:03 Simberto wrote:On May 03 2013 01:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Yes... as I said... we equate rape with domination... we kill off the men and have our way with the civilians... ie, domination...
There's a reason we call it rape and not really unfortunate sex accident. That is because that is the definition of rape. Rape is forcing sex onto someone. Not an accident. And domination is obviously a large part of that, because you need to be in a dominant position to do that. And the way our bodies work makes it a lot easier for a man to rape someone than for a woman. I am not quite sure what your point is. Because you didn't read what I wrote I will quote myself. we equate rape with the act of domination Discomatt then implied "rape and pillage" is a throwaway phrase only relevant in war. Which is why I said "equate" as in to compare to things and see them as similar. He was responding to my post wherein I was talking about the misogynistic tendencies of american culture to use the term fuck to mean domination--ie rape. As in an event either fucks us over or we fuck over something we dominate. Because we use that rape/fuck mindset in everyday affairs we also project that onto other people--ie rape culture. Where we dominate the feminine with the masculine. I read what you wrote. You are just not making a lot of obvious sense to me. I still don't quite get your point. We equate rape with domination. Yes. That is because domination is a large part of rape. What are you getting at with this? You are stating this like it is some kind of grand discovery. Is your point that fucking/raping something is used as an allegory for domination, which means...something? I'm saying misogyny is about domination--not about how much/little clothes a woman wears or how sexual she is. I'm saying things aren't sexist *because* people who stream are showing their boobs I'm saying it's sexist when women are told how to look and act and defined by how much they fit that standard. I'm saying that misogyny is the domination of the female identity. I'm saying rape, is the domination of the female. I'm saying that terms like "tits or gtfo" is about the domination of the female and phrases like "good job on not being slutty" is the domination of the female. When we set the parameters for how a person should or shouldn't act--we are being misogynists. So it is misogynist to tell people they shouldn't act misogynist. When you are telling a woman how she should behave/dress/act/be instead of letting her just be herself be it slutty or prudish--you're being misogynistic. Because you are dominating her ability to be her own person. If she wants to get on twitch, take off her top and ask guys to tell her how sexy she is--then it's her right to do it. If she wants to just stream herself playing mario games--then its her right to do it. People who try to shame a woman who loves having sex by calling her a slut is misogynistic because they are dictating how that person should act. People who try to shame a woman who likes playing videogames as being a prude for not showing her tits are being misogynistic because they are dictating how that person should act. Telling someone not be misogynistic has nothing to do with telling them how to be a person. It is telling them that they are intruding on someone's rights. When I tell them to stop being misogynistic they don't need to change their style of clothes, the way they present themselves, their sexual activity, their anything. It literally is telling them to stop attacking another human being. Wrong. It is her right to act like that. Certainly. It is equally my right to tell her shes acting like shit if I think she's acting like shit. Sorry if that makes people "feel bad", but last time I checked informing people of your reaction to something they're putting out in a public space isn't "dominating their ability to be their own person", it was freedom of speech. What you are proposing, that people cease not only expressing their judgments on things "put out there", but to cease having them, is nothing more than the creation of thought-crime. Language control IS thought control. You have no right not to be offended. You have no right to be happy. You DO have a right to walk away, or turn off your TV, etc. You DO have a right to pursue happiness, but no guarantees. Stop turning common courtesy into something bigger than it is. The problem is that you're judging her behavior in a special way because she's female. That's prejudice. And I judge a soldier by a different standard than a civilian in a firefight. And a doctor by a different standard than a layman in surgery. And a professional orchestra by a different standard than a middle school orchestra. But hell, those examples all are about things you DO not who you are...so let's try this: ...and a child by a different standard than an adult. And my son by a different standard than a random child. And my parents by a different standard than my teachers. When are we finally going to do away with this religious mantra that gender is a social construct? Where does a social norm derive from? Could it be rooted natural developments? Does it really matter? The fact is that women tend to act a certain way, and men tend to react to those actions in a certain way. No one makes a fuss when we treat animals as animals, just because they're animals (some nut-jobs do, I'll grant you that). Imagine that. We're treating with reality on reality's terms. Mind blown. I judge her as a woman, because she is a woman. If that's prejudice, then I am proudly prejudiced. Reality doesn't care how you feel about it.
I do not judge people by their genitalia. I judge them as a person--because their a person.
|
On May 03 2013 03:50 Kimaker wrote:
But hell, those examples all are about things you DO not who you are...so let's try this:
...and a child by a different standard than an adult.
Children are not adults. Their cognitive functions are not fully developed (among others), comparing them shows ignorance.
|
11589 Posts
On May 03 2013 03:50 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 03:37 yamato77 wrote:On May 03 2013 03:34 Kimaker wrote:On May 03 2013 02:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:35 Mothra wrote:On May 03 2013 02:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:16 Simberto wrote:On May 03 2013 02:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:03 Simberto wrote:On May 03 2013 01:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Yes... as I said... we equate rape with domination... we kill off the men and have our way with the civilians... ie, domination...
There's a reason we call it rape and not really unfortunate sex accident. That is because that is the definition of rape. Rape is forcing sex onto someone. Not an accident. And domination is obviously a large part of that, because you need to be in a dominant position to do that. And the way our bodies work makes it a lot easier for a man to rape someone than for a woman. I am not quite sure what your point is. Because you didn't read what I wrote I will quote myself. we equate rape with the act of domination Discomatt then implied "rape and pillage" is a throwaway phrase only relevant in war. Which is why I said "equate" as in to compare to things and see them as similar. He was responding to my post wherein I was talking about the misogynistic tendencies of american culture to use the term fuck to mean domination--ie rape. As in an event either fucks us over or we fuck over something we dominate. Because we use that rape/fuck mindset in everyday affairs we also project that onto other people--ie rape culture. Where we dominate the feminine with the masculine. I read what you wrote. You are just not making a lot of obvious sense to me. I still don't quite get your point. We equate rape with domination. Yes. That is because domination is a large part of rape. What are you getting at with this? You are stating this like it is some kind of grand discovery. Is your point that fucking/raping something is used as an allegory for domination, which means...something? I'm saying misogyny is about domination--not about how much/little clothes a woman wears or how sexual she is. I'm saying things aren't sexist *because* people who stream are showing their boobs I'm saying it's sexist when women are told how to look and act and defined by how much they fit that standard. I'm saying that misogyny is the domination of the female identity. I'm saying rape, is the domination of the female. I'm saying that terms like "tits or gtfo" is about the domination of the female and phrases like "good job on not being slutty" is the domination of the female. When we set the parameters for how a person should or shouldn't act--we are being misogynists. So it is misogynist to tell people they shouldn't act misogynist. When you are telling a woman how she should behave/dress/act/be instead of letting her just be herself be it slutty or prudish--you're being misogynistic. Because you are dominating her ability to be her own person. If she wants to get on twitch, take off her top and ask guys to tell her how sexy she is--then it's her right to do it. If she wants to just stream herself playing mario games--then its her right to do it. People who try to shame a woman who loves having sex by calling her a slut is misogynistic because they are dictating how that person should act. People who try to shame a woman who likes playing videogames as being a prude for not showing her tits are being misogynistic because they are dictating how that person should act. Telling someone not be misogynistic has nothing to do with telling them how to be a person. It is telling them that they are intruding on someone's rights. When I tell them to stop being misogynistic they don't need to change their style of clothes, the way they present themselves, their sexual activity, their anything. It literally is telling them to stop attacking another human being. Wrong. It is her right to act like that. Certainly. It is equally my right to tell her shes acting like shit if I think she's acting like shit. Sorry if that makes people "feel bad", but last time I checked informing people of your reaction to something they're putting out in a public space isn't "dominating their ability to be their own person", it was freedom of speech. What you are proposing, that people cease not only expressing their judgments on things "put out there", but to cease having them, is nothing more than the creation of thought-crime. Language control IS thought control. You have no right not to be offended. You have no right to be happy. You DO have a right to walk away, or turn off your TV, etc. You DO have a right to pursue happiness, but no guarantees. Stop turning common courtesy into something bigger than it is. The problem is that you're judging her behavior in a special way because she's female. That's prejudice. And I judge a soldier by a different standard than a civilian in a firefight. And a doctor by a different standard than a layman in surgery. And a professional orchestra by a different standard than a middle school orchestra. But hell, those examples all are about things you DO not who you are...so let's try this: ...and a child by a different standard than an adult. And my son by a different standard than a random child. And my parents by a different standard than my teachers. When are we finally going to do away with this religious mantra that gender is a social construct? Where does a social norm derive from? Could it be rooted natural developments? Does it really matter? The fact is that women tend to act a certain way, and men tend to react to those actions in a certain way. No one makes a fuss when we treat animals as animals, just because they're animals (some nut-jobs do, I'll grant you that). Imagine that. We're treating with reality on reality's terms. Mind blown. I judge her as a woman, because she is a woman. If that's prejudice, then I am proudly prejudiced. Reality doesn't care how you feel about it.
If you don't believe that men and women are conditioned to act in the perceived different ways that you feel they tend to act, you obviously are delusional and there's no reason to continue this discussion. I know better.
|
On May 03 2013 03:54 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 03:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:49 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 03:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:39 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 03:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:34 Kimaker wrote:On May 03 2013 02:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:35 Mothra wrote:On May 03 2013 02:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
I'm saying misogyny is about domination--not about how much/little clothes a woman wears or how sexual she is.
I'm saying things aren't sexist *because* people who stream are showing their boobs I'm saying it's sexist when women are told how to look and act and defined by how much they fit that standard. I'm saying that misogyny is the domination of the female identity. I'm saying rape, is the domination of the female. I'm saying that terms like "tits or gtfo" is about the domination of the female and phrases like "good job on not being slutty" is the domination of the female.
When we set the parameters for how a person should or shouldn't act--we are being misogynists.
So it is misogynist to tell people they shouldn't act misogynist. When you are telling a woman how she should behave/dress/act/be instead of letting her just be herself be it slutty or prudish--you're being misogynistic. Because you are dominating her ability to be her own person. If she wants to get on twitch, take off her top and ask guys to tell her how sexy she is--then it's her right to do it. If she wants to just stream herself playing mario games--then its her right to do it. People who try to shame a woman who loves having sex by calling her a slut is misogynistic because they are dictating how that person should act. People who try to shame a woman who likes playing videogames as being a prude for not showing her tits are being misogynistic because they are dictating how that person should act. Telling someone not be misogynistic has nothing to do with telling them how to be a person. It is telling them that they are intruding on someone's rights. When I tell them to stop being misogynistic they don't need to change their style of clothes, the way they present themselves, their sexual activity, their anything. It literally is telling them to stop attacking another human being. Wrong. It is her right to act like that. Certainly. It is equally my right to tell her shes acting like shit if I think she's acting like shit. Sorry if that makes people "feel bad", but last time I checked informing people of your reaction to something they're putting out in a public space isn't "dominating their ability to be their own person", it was freedom of speech. What you are proposing, that people cease not only expressing their judgments on things "put out there", but to cease having them, is nothing more than the creation of thought-crime. Language control IS thought control. You have no right not to be offended. You have no right to be happy. You DO have a right to walk away, or turn off your TV, etc. You DO have a right to pursue happiness, but no guarantees. Stop turning common courtesy into something bigger than it is. Talking to them about your lifestyle preferences is different from telling them that their lifestyle preferences are wrong. I don't understand this at all. Certainly I don't think it's a good idea to say someone is a terrible person for any reason, but telling them that the way they live their life is unethical is certainly not a problem. Do you think, for instance, that the way the Westboro Baptist Church lives is a lifestyle entitled to equal respect as that of the average person? Do you think I'm being unfair to say that the Westboro Baptist Church is immoral in their treatment of pretty much everyone? Now, obviously the WBC is an incredibly extreme example, but how is thinking that someone's lifestyle is wrong a problem? As long as I don't try to pass laws that restrict people's freedom, I can definitely pass judgments on the way they choose to live. The Westboro church is perfectly fine having the beliefs they have. But since they spend a good deal of time attacking and forcing others to match their beliefs--that is when there is a problem. When you dominate another person, then you are in the wrong since everyone is entitled to their viewpoint. For example, imagine if the WBC never protested anything. They just met up, did their thing in church, and went home. Would they be a bother? No, and they wouldn't be on TV either. In fact, nothing all that bad would happen until they start enforcing their lifestyle on others. it's the same thing with misogyny. Women should be allowed to do what they want--but they are constantly policed about it. You don't think there are any moral problems with the WBC's beliefs? Everyone is entitled to their viewpoint. Not everyone's viewpoint is entitled to my respect. I'm not suggesting policing anyone. I'm suggesting that for me to think someone who lives in a certain way is doing something immoral is not misogyny, bigotry, or anything other than a consequence of a moral code. I'm saying that it's wrong to hate someone for having different beliefs than yourself. I might disagree with their beliefs--but I don't hate them. I do hate that they force their beliefs on others because that is attempting to dominate someone else's lifestyle and choices--which is not allowed. Is that really such a hard concept? The problem is that you're equivocating between "hating" people for having different beliefs and making it known that you believe they're wrong. I am not hating a drug addict to say that drug abuse is immoral.
Yes you are. Don't you understand modern Critical Theory Dialectics? Silly-head.
On May 03 2013 03:57 yamato77 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 03:50 Kimaker wrote:On May 03 2013 03:37 yamato77 wrote:On May 03 2013 03:34 Kimaker wrote:On May 03 2013 02:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:35 Mothra wrote:On May 03 2013 02:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:16 Simberto wrote:On May 03 2013 02:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:03 Simberto wrote:
[quote]
That is because that is the definition of rape. Rape is forcing sex onto someone. Not an accident. And domination is obviously a large part of that, because you need to be in a dominant position to do that. And the way our bodies work makes it a lot easier for a man to rape someone than for a woman.
I am not quite sure what your point is. Because you didn't read what I wrote I will quote myself. we equate rape with the act of domination Discomatt then implied "rape and pillage" is a throwaway phrase only relevant in war. Which is why I said "equate" as in to compare to things and see them as similar. He was responding to my post wherein I was talking about the misogynistic tendencies of american culture to use the term fuck to mean domination--ie rape. As in an event either fucks us over or we fuck over something we dominate. Because we use that rape/fuck mindset in everyday affairs we also project that onto other people--ie rape culture. Where we dominate the feminine with the masculine. I read what you wrote. You are just not making a lot of obvious sense to me. I still don't quite get your point. We equate rape with domination. Yes. That is because domination is a large part of rape. What are you getting at with this? You are stating this like it is some kind of grand discovery. Is your point that fucking/raping something is used as an allegory for domination, which means...something? I'm saying misogyny is about domination--not about how much/little clothes a woman wears or how sexual she is. I'm saying things aren't sexist *because* people who stream are showing their boobs I'm saying it's sexist when women are told how to look and act and defined by how much they fit that standard. I'm saying that misogyny is the domination of the female identity. I'm saying rape, is the domination of the female. I'm saying that terms like "tits or gtfo" is about the domination of the female and phrases like "good job on not being slutty" is the domination of the female. When we set the parameters for how a person should or shouldn't act--we are being misogynists. So it is misogynist to tell people they shouldn't act misogynist. When you are telling a woman how she should behave/dress/act/be instead of letting her just be herself be it slutty or prudish--you're being misogynistic. Because you are dominating her ability to be her own person. If she wants to get on twitch, take off her top and ask guys to tell her how sexy she is--then it's her right to do it. If she wants to just stream herself playing mario games--then its her right to do it. People who try to shame a woman who loves having sex by calling her a slut is misogynistic because they are dictating how that person should act. People who try to shame a woman who likes playing videogames as being a prude for not showing her tits are being misogynistic because they are dictating how that person should act. Telling someone not be misogynistic has nothing to do with telling them how to be a person. It is telling them that they are intruding on someone's rights. When I tell them to stop being misogynistic they don't need to change their style of clothes, the way they present themselves, their sexual activity, their anything. It literally is telling them to stop attacking another human being. Wrong. It is her right to act like that. Certainly. It is equally my right to tell her shes acting like shit if I think she's acting like shit. Sorry if that makes people "feel bad", but last time I checked informing people of your reaction to something they're putting out in a public space isn't "dominating their ability to be their own person", it was freedom of speech. What you are proposing, that people cease not only expressing their judgments on things "put out there", but to cease having them, is nothing more than the creation of thought-crime. Language control IS thought control. You have no right not to be offended. You have no right to be happy. You DO have a right to walk away, or turn off your TV, etc. You DO have a right to pursue happiness, but no guarantees. Stop turning common courtesy into something bigger than it is. The problem is that you're judging her behavior in a special way because she's female. That's prejudice. And I judge a soldier by a different standard than a civilian in a firefight. And a doctor by a different standard than a layman in surgery. And a professional orchestra by a different standard than a middle school orchestra. But hell, those examples all are about things you DO not who you are...so let's try this: ...and a child by a different standard than an adult. And my son by a different standard than a random child. And my parents by a different standard than my teachers. When are we finally going to do away with this religious mantra that gender is a social construct? Where does a social norm derive from? Could it be rooted natural developments? Does it really matter? The fact is that women tend to act a certain way, and men tend to react to those actions in a certain way. No one makes a fuss when we treat animals as animals, just because they're animals (some nut-jobs do, I'll grant you that). Imagine that. We're treating with reality on reality's terms. Mind blown. I judge her as a woman, because she is a woman. If that's prejudice, then I am proudly prejudiced. Reality doesn't care how you feel about it. If you don't believe that men and women are conditioned to act in the perceived different ways that you feel they tend to act, you obviously are delusional and there's no reason to continue this discussion. I know better.
"You're wrong and I'm right because I'm good and you're bad."-You
Congratulations, I never said that genders couldn't be self-reinforcing over time. I believe they are. But I also don't preclude the existence of actual biological differences.
|
Northern Ireland26446 Posts
On May 03 2013 03:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 03:46 Wombat_NI wrote:On May 03 2013 03:37 yamato77 wrote:On May 03 2013 03:34 Kimaker wrote:On May 03 2013 02:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:35 Mothra wrote:On May 03 2013 02:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:16 Simberto wrote:On May 03 2013 02:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:03 Simberto wrote:
[quote]
That is because that is the definition of rape. Rape is forcing sex onto someone. Not an accident. And domination is obviously a large part of that, because you need to be in a dominant position to do that. And the way our bodies work makes it a lot easier for a man to rape someone than for a woman.
I am not quite sure what your point is. Because you didn't read what I wrote I will quote myself. we equate rape with the act of domination Discomatt then implied "rape and pillage" is a throwaway phrase only relevant in war. Which is why I said "equate" as in to compare to things and see them as similar. He was responding to my post wherein I was talking about the misogynistic tendencies of american culture to use the term fuck to mean domination--ie rape. As in an event either fucks us over or we fuck over something we dominate. Because we use that rape/fuck mindset in everyday affairs we also project that onto other people--ie rape culture. Where we dominate the feminine with the masculine. I read what you wrote. You are just not making a lot of obvious sense to me. I still don't quite get your point. We equate rape with domination. Yes. That is because domination is a large part of rape. What are you getting at with this? You are stating this like it is some kind of grand discovery. Is your point that fucking/raping something is used as an allegory for domination, which means...something? I'm saying misogyny is about domination--not about how much/little clothes a woman wears or how sexual she is. I'm saying things aren't sexist *because* people who stream are showing their boobs I'm saying it's sexist when women are told how to look and act and defined by how much they fit that standard. I'm saying that misogyny is the domination of the female identity. I'm saying rape, is the domination of the female. I'm saying that terms like "tits or gtfo" is about the domination of the female and phrases like "good job on not being slutty" is the domination of the female. When we set the parameters for how a person should or shouldn't act--we are being misogynists. So it is misogynist to tell people they shouldn't act misogynist. When you are telling a woman how she should behave/dress/act/be instead of letting her just be herself be it slutty or prudish--you're being misogynistic. Because you are dominating her ability to be her own person. If she wants to get on twitch, take off her top and ask guys to tell her how sexy she is--then it's her right to do it. If she wants to just stream herself playing mario games--then its her right to do it. People who try to shame a woman who loves having sex by calling her a slut is misogynistic because they are dictating how that person should act. People who try to shame a woman who likes playing videogames as being a prude for not showing her tits are being misogynistic because they are dictating how that person should act. Telling someone not be misogynistic has nothing to do with telling them how to be a person. It is telling them that they are intruding on someone's rights. When I tell them to stop being misogynistic they don't need to change their style of clothes, the way they present themselves, their sexual activity, their anything. It literally is telling them to stop attacking another human being. Wrong. It is her right to act like that. Certainly. It is equally my right to tell her shes acting like shit if I think she's acting like shit. Sorry if that makes people "feel bad", but last time I checked informing people of your reaction to something they're putting out in a public space isn't "dominating their ability to be their own person", it was freedom of speech. What you are proposing, that people cease not only expressing their judgments on things "put out there", but to cease having them, is nothing more than the creation of thought-crime. Language control IS thought control. You have no right not to be offended. You have no right to be happy. You DO have a right to walk away, or turn off your TV, etc. You DO have a right to pursue happiness, but no guarantees. Stop turning common courtesy into something bigger than it is. The problem is that you're judging her behavior in a special way because she's female. That's prejudice. Not necessarily, if the content provider in question makes a big deal, or tries to create a niche for herself, based on being a female. You don't have to be a little shit and flame her either, but calling out such gimmickry isn't necessarily misogynist. I for one think women are capable of being good players, good commentators etc etc, but instead the women we get presented in the scene are all often just eye candy for pre-pubescents. If what she's proud of doing is being a beautiful female why is it your right to tell her she can't be? You could say she's dishonest. You could say that you want more content. You could say you would rather she have a different focus. But to say she's wrong for being proud enough about her body to present it to the world? That is attacking the part of her that is female, not the actual content of her product.
It's really not that at all. Soe, I judge on her output, which is good. 'Girl gamer streaming!!' is a TL thread. It's ok to define yourself by your gender if it's to benefit yourself.
I don't particularly like when people when they use their ethnic or sexual identity as something to pull in viewers over and above their other attributes, over and above people who put in actual work at being good at what they do. I don't go out of my way to be a dick to such folks, but equally I won't watch their streams, so I guess that sets me apart from idiots in Twitch chats.
I have all the right in the world to say what I want about that, as long as it's not abusive or harassment or whatever.
There's a video like this every other week, it's getting tiresome. Incontrol, to take one example has gotten a hell of a lot more abuse than most, or other community figures. Abuse is abuse imo. I don't put misogynistic abuse on a pedestal of unacceptability, it's not at all a separate issue but interrelated to ALL the abusive behaviour that the internet fosters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
