|
On June 11 2013 08:57 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +Feminism is the attempt to fight back the enforcement of the "feminine identity" wherein things that seem female are looked down on. Such as wearing dresses, having a high pitched voice, etc... Feminism also wishes to spread out and make more acceptable the masculine identity. Aggressive girls, sexually promiscuous girls, etc... Their goal is that there is no male way of doing things, or female way of doing things. No male personality, or female personality. That everyone be treated equally.
It's not the vilifying of men. It's the acceptance of the feminine. Men and women are different. It's that simple. Ever thought about that?
There are men who like dresses
And there are women who want power
Men who have high voices
And women who hate showers
Personalities are personalities and are not determined by a dick or vagina.
|
On June 11 2013 08:37 TheExile19 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 08:35 sunprince wrote:
The fact that feminism's basic tenets are objective wrong or the fact that feminists have engaged in terrorism rofl
I see that "rofl" is the best argument you can come up with. I'll assume that means you have no argument and therefore concede.
On June 11 2013 09:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 08:57 r.Evo wrote:Feminism is the attempt to fight back the enforcement of the "feminine identity" wherein things that seem female are looked down on. Such as wearing dresses, having a high pitched voice, etc... Feminism also wishes to spread out and make more acceptable the masculine identity. Aggressive girls, sexually promiscuous girls, etc... Their goal is that there is no male way of doing things, or female way of doing things. No male personality, or female personality. That everyone be treated equally.
It's not the vilifying of men. It's the acceptance of the feminine. Men and women are different. It's that simple. Ever thought about that? There are men who like dresses And there are women who want power Men who have high voices And women who hate showers Personalities are personalities and are not determined by a dick or vagina.
Anecdotes disprove all trends and therefore all general statements are wrong, amirite?
"There are men who are shorter than women. Therefore, men are not taller than women."
|
On June 11 2013 08:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 08:41 bardtown wrote:On June 11 2013 08:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 08:15 sunprince wrote:On June 11 2013 07:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 07:24 sunprince wrote:On June 11 2013 07:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 07:00 sunprince wrote:On June 11 2013 06:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 06:53 sunprince wrote:
[quote]
Not an MRA, but congratulations on the strawman.
Also, the amount of projection going on in your post is hilarious. Clearly, you're the one upset about others pointing out ssexism, simply because it's sexism against men. See exile  Like clockwork. Mention any kind of feminist idea and Sunprince shows up It's their way, happens all the time. If you're going to defame people by name, don't be surprised if they show up to defend themselves. Defame? So you actually believe that men have more rights than women? Surprise, surprise, more lies and mischaracterization from you. The post of yours I originally responded to encapsulates the following ideas: A. MRAs get upset when others point out discrimination. B. The whole existence of MRAs is to prove that men are the disenfranchised group. C. MRAs think women have more rights than men. D. Sunprince (and Jimmy) are MRAs, and therefore, all of the above is true of them. Therefore, you are accusing me of (A) getting upset when others point out discrimination, (B) my entire existence being to prove that men are the disenfranchised group, and (C), thinking that women have more rights than men. A is a baseless accusation as well as a shaming tactic, as well as a case of projection. If someone disagrees with your claims of discrimination, this does not imply they are upset, merely that they think you are factually incorrect. B is another baseless accusation. You cannot possibly know the purpose or entirety of my existence, and even if you were referring specifically to the existence of my TL account, even a cursory glance at my posting history suggests that this is not the case. C is the only notion there that is true. I do think that women have more "rights" than men, because this is objectively true. There is absolutely no area in which men have more legal "rights" than women, while men are clearly discriminated against with regards to reproductive and parental rights. Selective service is an obvious example as well, and there are many examples of funding allocated solely or predominantly to women, ranging from domestic violence funding to healthcare funding to special subsidies for women-owned businesses. D is another false statement. As stated, I do not identify as an MRA. I may agree and disagree with MRAs on some issues, but this is irrelevant to any arguments on those issues. Trying to use that to attack an argument instead of addressing the argument itself is a fallacy. It's plain for anyone to see that most of what you claimed (behind my back if I wasn't reading this thread, no less) was not accurate. But feel free to interpret my response as "evidence" that I hate women or some BS like that; that's clearly the kind of cowardly, fallacious tactic you prefer over logical discourse. I said Just listen to Sunprince and even Jimmy (earlier in the thread) talk about how women have more rights than men.
And you said I was defaming you. So unless you believe that men have more rights than women, I'm not defaming you. My talking about MRA is not my talking about you--it quite literally is me talking about the MRA. The fact that you have on many threads talked about how women more rights than men is a truth about you. I said that MRA guys get upset when you point out that what they're saying is ___cist in some way. My example is of you telling me that women have more rights than men, do you or do you not believe that? If you don't believe that women have more rights than men I'm sorry for my defamation. But if you do believe that women have more rights than men why are you upset? You conveniently left out the rest of your post. Here's the relevant part I was addressing in full: On June 11 2013 06:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Don't mind him. He's now responding to everything I say as if I'm talking to him. MRA guys get upset when you point out anything about them that is ___cist because their whole existence is to prove that men are the disenfranchised group. Just listen to Sunprince and even Jimmy (earlier in the thread) talk about how women have more rights than men Are you simply incapable of debating honestly? By clipping out only a single sentence, you left out the rest of the context that I was obviously replying to. Yes. I talked about the MRA. Then I talked about you, as an example. I did not state that you represented the entirety of the MRA. I simply chose you because I knew you'd show up if anything feminist gets stated in order to tell them they're wrong. You did. What did I accuse you of? Thinking women had more rights than men--which you do. I did not accuse you of being the entity known as the MRA. Just that people like you always show up in threads about women to tell us that women have all the rights and that feminists are terrorists. Also things you've said by the way Now, you say you're not someone who believes in MRA stuff. Sorry for me to think that a person who thinks women have more rights than men and who thinks feminists are terrorists is part of the MRA. I guess that's your own personal biases against them which just so happen to accidentally line up with MRA teachings. How exactly are you going to achieve equality (in whatever misguided sense this word is being used these days with regards to gender) for women? You cannot 'empower' women to 'equality', you can only subjugate men who by virtue of their masculinity are naturally dominant (permit my generalisations). Feminism is focused on stopping and reversing the perpetuation of the practices where the female is equated to the lesser. Their goals are constantly in flux because they are constantly debating with each other just how to execute their goals. Take, for example, prostitutes. Some feminists feel that a woman should have the ability to pursue any career she chooses--prostitution being one of them. Other feminists feel that anything that has historically been harmful to women needs to be expunged. They don't have a specific answer because the answer is always in flux. And this is true for all other aspects of life as well. The one constant in feminism is the seeking out of gender equality. To protect men and women who are being abused for seeming to have too feminine a trait. Homosexuals attacked for sounding too gay, trans people who get attacked for wearing dresses, women who get paid less than men, men who don't get children's rights because males are assumed to be less motherly than women. Feminism is the attempt to fight back the enforcement of the "feminine identity" wherein things that seem female are looked down on. Such as wearing dresses, having a high pitched voice, etc... Feminism also wishes to spread out and make more acceptable the masculine identity. Aggressive girls, sexually promiscuous girls, etc... Their goal is that there is no male way of doing things, or female way of doing things. No male personality, or female personality. That everyone be treated equally. It's not the vilifying of men. It's the acceptance of the feminine.
Acceptance of the feminine also means admiring them. I think it is biological, women are hardwired to receive pleasure from admiration.
|
On June 11 2013 08:52 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 08:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 08:27 r.Evo wrote:On June 11 2013 08:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 08:11 r.Evo wrote:On June 11 2013 08:00 TheExile19 wrote:On June 11 2013 07:53 r.Evo wrote:On June 11 2013 06:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 06:00 r.Evo wrote:
...what exactly is bad about sexualization in both men or women's sports? If someone is attractive it's simply human to say "Hey, he/she is sexy!" ~ that statement is not mutually exclusive with any statement about that persons capabilities as an athlete. Within the confines of the specific action there is no harm. The problem people like myself have with it is not that sports sexualizes athletes but how that sexualization perpetuates social normative practices that encourages gender norms as opposed to allowing the fullness of possibility within youth. I don't like it when a mother calls her daughter princess any more than I don't like it when a yahoo article of a high school high jumper who just broke an american high school record is described as a model instead of being described as a record breaking athlete. + Show Spoiler +http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/highschool-prep-rally/record-setting-oregon-high-jumper-top-fashion-model-152515924.html It's the pieces adding up to a larger problematic whole wherein girls are taught to only care about their looks. Sports is not the problem, western culture is the problem. There is no problem until someone in question has a problem with it. A mother calling her daughter princess is all fine, unless the daughter doesn't want to be called princess. The very article you linked is talking about how she started a career as a model, didn't enjoy the experience ("too stressful") and was critiqued as being “too tall and muscular". So what? It's part of her history, it's a part of who she is. The actual problem that you personally have only shows up because you want to fit her into one neat category: "high school jumper who just broke an american high school record" - besides that she used to be a teen model. She is also considered to be good looking and fit. If she wants to use that perception to be on the next playboy frontpage, start a career as a lawyer or simply keep on doing what she's doing, it's her choice. However, no matter which choice she makes the public and the press will react to it. What you're saying is that "you shouldn't call a daughter princess because it's bad" while I'm saying "it's none of your damn business". you're talking about a anecdotal microeffect, he's talking about a cultural macroeffect. this basically summarizes the entire thread "discourse", because unfortunately, as I am discovering, you really can't talk about institutionalized objectification of women (and men) in any context, let alone sexualization in sports, without eventually coming around to the overall package of cultural sexism. why is it none of his business? I assume we're all familiar with western cultural practices, we get flooded with these influences every day and you can't possibly reduce it to some sort of vacuum or every-woman-is-an-island situation like you would seem to be advocating. why are you saying he "personally" has a problem? how can you possibly conclude My "anecdotal microeffect" is an example the person I was responding to gave and is very much on point. The cultural macroeffect is the result of millions of anecdotal microeffects. If a random daughter wants to call herself princess, it's none of your business. If a random mother wants to call her random daughter princess, it's also none of your business. You can't look at a anecdotal microeffect and generalize it without knowing all the possible backgrounds, if it would be something that's not circumstantial we wouldn't even be having an argument in the first place. Why am I saying he personally has a problem? Because he said so. plenty of women could not give two shits either way about this and many other topics regarding the treatment of their gender, plenty of women are too indoctrinated to care, etc. If they don't give two shits either way about it, maybe it isn't that big of a deal? If this would be about cutting off someones genitals, they would give a shit about it. Simply because that is a big deal. Too indoctrinated? So what you're saying is that women can't speak up for themselves and that your job, as a privileged male who understands where when and how women are "too indoctrinated to care", is to speak up for that weak, defenseless gender? You don't speak up for a gender no more than you speak up for a slave. People who are indoctrinated are just that--indoctrinated. There is no sex that is specifically subjugated to indoctrination, its a societal deal. There are men and women who are against this normative construct, there are those that don't care, and there are those that will fight to keep this status quo. I do not want to keep this status quo, I'm not the only one. There are those who want to enforce this status quo, people such as yourself who wants people like me to mind my own business. I get bothered by moral wrongs, that's just me. So I won't shut up about seeing things I find wrong with the world. If you prefer keeping a blind eye and pretending its not a problem, go ahead. That's your prerogative, not mine. So let me sum up: #1) "plenty of women could not give two shits either way about this and many other topics regarding the treatment of their gender" #2) "plenty of women are too indoctrinated to care" #3) "You don't speak up for a gender no more than you speak up for a slave." Within those three statements I see women being called indifferent about how their gender is being treated, women being called indoctrinated (aka retarded in this context) and lastly being compared to slaves. And most of all, I see them grossly generalized. Personally, I want you to mind your own business instead of trying to tell other people how to treat women because I'm able to spot all the misogynistic implications in your statements. I was hoping to be able to turn a blind eye to this kind of hatred against women because I thought it to be over but your attempts are just as blatantly obvious as they are offensive. Here's where we disagree. The US in particular has been hacking away at women's right for the past 10 years from pro-choice rights to health care access to attacks on Planned Parenthood (a main way for lower income women to gain access to birth control). This combined with steadily increased regulations on adoptions as well a terribly regulated foster care system has made it worse and worse for a woman to be able to plan her future. She is less able to prevent unwanted pregnancies and is less able to protect herself when wanting to be sexually active. This forces women into fitting into the hetero-norm male/female marriage system to ensure stability in case of pregnancy. This is then enforced more when children and young women taught by mimicry to praise women who are beautiful moreso than praise women that are accomplished. This is enforced by little things such as mothers saying "little princess" to their daughters. This trains them to think of themselves as wives and birthers because there is dwindling support to becoming a single mother and increasing praise to being a male's sex object. The spiral you're describing says womens have their rights taken away, which forces them to abide an unfavorable system and are then stupid enough to tell their children that being beautiful is better than being accomplished. Apparently (judging from the lack of general outrage amongst women) their rights aren't that bad after all. As I mentioned earlier, try taking examples that are more extreme then "majority of sports viewers enjoy looking at nice boobies" and see if women would stand on the streets burning down cars to make noise. It's fine to say that being beautiful and being "princess-like" is a good thing. It's not fine to tell someone else that being accomplished in life is what their goal should be. One is expressing your view on an issue, the other is trying to tell someone else what view they should have on an issue.
it's almost like most people would rather hunker down, hoard the better aspects of their lives and just try to ride it out than actively ruminate on the ways they're getting fucked over. personally, I blame the two-party system and the constant media theatrics that keep people convinced they're up on things that matter.
There is no earth-wide mindcontrol project that tells women to be sex objects and single mothers. Women can speak up for themselves, so can men. All I see here is males rambling about how exactly they think they have to save women as a gender from just giving their rights away, pretending they're too inferior to men to defend themselves in the process.
people keep talking about rights, and tbh this thread hasn't focused much on rights until we started going down the planned parenthood rabbit hole. rights imply that there's something concrete, something legal to focus on here, and the reality is far more insidious and underground than that. incidentally, your pitiful claims about my motivations are just that.
On June 11 2013 09:01 sunprince wrote:
I see that "rofl" is the best argument you can come up with. I'll assume that means you have no argument and therefore concede.
and...you do have a supporting argument? all I'm seeing is a throwaway statement about "feminist terrorism". I have zero problem with your posts until you pull out quotes in that vein, so I match them with equal banality.
|
On June 11 2013 09:02 yepenaxa wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 08:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 08:41 bardtown wrote:On June 11 2013 08:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 08:15 sunprince wrote:On June 11 2013 07:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 07:24 sunprince wrote:On June 11 2013 07:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 07:00 sunprince wrote:On June 11 2013 06:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:[quote] See exile Like clockwork. Mention any kind of feminist idea and Sunprince shows up It's their way, happens all the time. If you're going to defame people by name, don't be surprised if they show up to defend themselves. Defame? So you actually believe that men have more rights than women? Surprise, surprise, more lies and mischaracterization from you. The post of yours I originally responded to encapsulates the following ideas: A. MRAs get upset when others point out discrimination. B. The whole existence of MRAs is to prove that men are the disenfranchised group. C. MRAs think women have more rights than men. D. Sunprince (and Jimmy) are MRAs, and therefore, all of the above is true of them. Therefore, you are accusing me of (A) getting upset when others point out discrimination, (B) my entire existence being to prove that men are the disenfranchised group, and (C), thinking that women have more rights than men. A is a baseless accusation as well as a shaming tactic, as well as a case of projection. If someone disagrees with your claims of discrimination, this does not imply they are upset, merely that they think you are factually incorrect. B is another baseless accusation. You cannot possibly know the purpose or entirety of my existence, and even if you were referring specifically to the existence of my TL account, even a cursory glance at my posting history suggests that this is not the case. C is the only notion there that is true. I do think that women have more "rights" than men, because this is objectively true. There is absolutely no area in which men have more legal "rights" than women, while men are clearly discriminated against with regards to reproductive and parental rights. Selective service is an obvious example as well, and there are many examples of funding allocated solely or predominantly to women, ranging from domestic violence funding to healthcare funding to special subsidies for women-owned businesses. D is another false statement. As stated, I do not identify as an MRA. I may agree and disagree with MRAs on some issues, but this is irrelevant to any arguments on those issues. Trying to use that to attack an argument instead of addressing the argument itself is a fallacy. It's plain for anyone to see that most of what you claimed (behind my back if I wasn't reading this thread, no less) was not accurate. But feel free to interpret my response as "evidence" that I hate women or some BS like that; that's clearly the kind of cowardly, fallacious tactic you prefer over logical discourse. I said Just listen to Sunprince and even Jimmy (earlier in the thread) talk about how women have more rights than men.
And you said I was defaming you. So unless you believe that men have more rights than women, I'm not defaming you. My talking about MRA is not my talking about you--it quite literally is me talking about the MRA. The fact that you have on many threads talked about how women more rights than men is a truth about you. I said that MRA guys get upset when you point out that what they're saying is ___cist in some way. My example is of you telling me that women have more rights than men, do you or do you not believe that? If you don't believe that women have more rights than men I'm sorry for my defamation. But if you do believe that women have more rights than men why are you upset? You conveniently left out the rest of your post. Here's the relevant part I was addressing in full: On June 11 2013 06:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Don't mind him. He's now responding to everything I say as if I'm talking to him. MRA guys get upset when you point out anything about them that is ___cist because their whole existence is to prove that men are the disenfranchised group. Just listen to Sunprince and even Jimmy (earlier in the thread) talk about how women have more rights than men Are you simply incapable of debating honestly? By clipping out only a single sentence, you left out the rest of the context that I was obviously replying to. Yes. I talked about the MRA. Then I talked about you, as an example. I did not state that you represented the entirety of the MRA. I simply chose you because I knew you'd show up if anything feminist gets stated in order to tell them they're wrong. You did. What did I accuse you of? Thinking women had more rights than men--which you do. I did not accuse you of being the entity known as the MRA. Just that people like you always show up in threads about women to tell us that women have all the rights and that feminists are terrorists. Also things you've said by the way Now, you say you're not someone who believes in MRA stuff. Sorry for me to think that a person who thinks women have more rights than men and who thinks feminists are terrorists is part of the MRA. I guess that's your own personal biases against them which just so happen to accidentally line up with MRA teachings. How exactly are you going to achieve equality (in whatever misguided sense this word is being used these days with regards to gender) for women? You cannot 'empower' women to 'equality', you can only subjugate men who by virtue of their masculinity are naturally dominant (permit my generalisations). Feminism is focused on stopping and reversing the perpetuation of the practices where the female is equated to the lesser. Their goals are constantly in flux because they are constantly debating with each other just how to execute their goals. Take, for example, prostitutes. Some feminists feel that a woman should have the ability to pursue any career she chooses--prostitution being one of them. Other feminists feel that anything that has historically been harmful to women needs to be expunged. They don't have a specific answer because the answer is always in flux. And this is true for all other aspects of life as well. The one constant in feminism is the seeking out of gender equality. To protect men and women who are being abused for seeming to have too feminine a trait. Homosexuals attacked for sounding too gay, trans people who get attacked for wearing dresses, women who get paid less than men, men who don't get children's rights because males are assumed to be less motherly than women. Feminism is the attempt to fight back the enforcement of the "feminine identity" wherein things that seem female are looked down on. Such as wearing dresses, having a high pitched voice, etc... Feminism also wishes to spread out and make more acceptable the masculine identity. Aggressive girls, sexually promiscuous girls, etc... Their goal is that there is no male way of doing things, or female way of doing things. No male personality, or female personality. That everyone be treated equally. It's not the vilifying of men. It's the acceptance of the feminine. Acceptance of the feminine also means admiring them. I think it is biological, women are hardwired to receive pleasure from admiration.
There is nothing in feminism against admiring women. Simply on putting their looks ahead of their accomplishments.
|
On June 11 2013 08:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 08:52 r.Evo wrote:On June 11 2013 08:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 08:27 r.Evo wrote:On June 11 2013 08:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 08:11 r.Evo wrote:On June 11 2013 08:00 TheExile19 wrote:On June 11 2013 07:53 r.Evo wrote:On June 11 2013 06:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 06:00 r.Evo wrote:
...what exactly is bad about sexualization in both men or women's sports? If someone is attractive it's simply human to say "Hey, he/she is sexy!" ~ that statement is not mutually exclusive with any statement about that persons capabilities as an athlete. Within the confines of the specific action there is no harm. The problem people like myself have with it is not that sports sexualizes athletes but how that sexualization perpetuates social normative practices that encourages gender norms as opposed to allowing the fullness of possibility within youth. I don't like it when a mother calls her daughter princess any more than I don't like it when a yahoo article of a high school high jumper who just broke an american high school record is described as a model instead of being described as a record breaking athlete. + Show Spoiler +http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/highschool-prep-rally/record-setting-oregon-high-jumper-top-fashion-model-152515924.html It's the pieces adding up to a larger problematic whole wherein girls are taught to only care about their looks. Sports is not the problem, western culture is the problem. There is no problem until someone in question has a problem with it. A mother calling her daughter princess is all fine, unless the daughter doesn't want to be called princess. The very article you linked is talking about how she started a career as a model, didn't enjoy the experience ("too stressful") and was critiqued as being “too tall and muscular". So what? It's part of her history, it's a part of who she is. The actual problem that you personally have only shows up because you want to fit her into one neat category: "high school jumper who just broke an american high school record" - besides that she used to be a teen model. She is also considered to be good looking and fit. If she wants to use that perception to be on the next playboy frontpage, start a career as a lawyer or simply keep on doing what she's doing, it's her choice. However, no matter which choice she makes the public and the press will react to it. What you're saying is that "you shouldn't call a daughter princess because it's bad" while I'm saying "it's none of your damn business". you're talking about a anecdotal microeffect, he's talking about a cultural macroeffect. this basically summarizes the entire thread "discourse", because unfortunately, as I am discovering, you really can't talk about institutionalized objectification of women (and men) in any context, let alone sexualization in sports, without eventually coming around to the overall package of cultural sexism. why is it none of his business? I assume we're all familiar with western cultural practices, we get flooded with these influences every day and you can't possibly reduce it to some sort of vacuum or every-woman-is-an-island situation like you would seem to be advocating. why are you saying he "personally" has a problem? how can you possibly conclude My "anecdotal microeffect" is an example the person I was responding to gave and is very much on point. The cultural macroeffect is the result of millions of anecdotal microeffects. If a random daughter wants to call herself princess, it's none of your business. If a random mother wants to call her random daughter princess, it's also none of your business. You can't look at a anecdotal microeffect and generalize it without knowing all the possible backgrounds, if it would be something that's not circumstantial we wouldn't even be having an argument in the first place. Why am I saying he personally has a problem? Because he said so. plenty of women could not give two shits either way about this and many other topics regarding the treatment of their gender, plenty of women are too indoctrinated to care, etc. If they don't give two shits either way about it, maybe it isn't that big of a deal? If this would be about cutting off someones genitals, they would give a shit about it. Simply because that is a big deal. Too indoctrinated? So what you're saying is that women can't speak up for themselves and that your job, as a privileged male who understands where when and how women are "too indoctrinated to care", is to speak up for that weak, defenseless gender? You don't speak up for a gender no more than you speak up for a slave. People who are indoctrinated are just that--indoctrinated. There is no sex that is specifically subjugated to indoctrination, its a societal deal. There are men and women who are against this normative construct, there are those that don't care, and there are those that will fight to keep this status quo. I do not want to keep this status quo, I'm not the only one. There are those who want to enforce this status quo, people such as yourself who wants people like me to mind my own business. I get bothered by moral wrongs, that's just me. So I won't shut up about seeing things I find wrong with the world. If you prefer keeping a blind eye and pretending its not a problem, go ahead. That's your prerogative, not mine. So let me sum up: #1) "plenty of women could not give two shits either way about this and many other topics regarding the treatment of their gender" #2) "plenty of women are too indoctrinated to care" #3) "You don't speak up for a gender no more than you speak up for a slave." Within those three statements I see women being called indifferent about how their gender is being treated, women being called indoctrinated (aka retarded in this context) and lastly being compared to slaves. And most of all, I see them grossly generalized. Personally, I want you to mind your own business instead of trying to tell other people how to treat women because I'm able to spot all the misogynistic implications in your statements. I was hoping to be able to turn a blind eye to this kind of hatred against women because I thought it to be over but your attempts are just as blatantly obvious as they are offensive. Here's where we disagree. The US in particular has been hacking away at women's right for the past 10 years from pro-choice rights to health care access to attacks on Planned Parenthood (a main way for lower income women to gain access to birth control). This combined with steadily increased regulations on adoptions as well a terribly regulated foster care system has made it worse and worse for a woman to be able to plan her future. She is less able to prevent unwanted pregnancies and is less able to protect herself when wanting to be sexually active. This forces women into fitting into the hetero-norm male/female marriage system to ensure stability in case of pregnancy. This is then enforced more when children and young women taught by mimicry to praise women who are beautiful moreso than praise women that are accomplished. This is enforced by little things such as mothers saying "little princess" to their daughters. This trains them to think of themselves as wives and birthers because there is dwindling support to becoming a single mother and increasing praise to being a male's sex object. The spiral you're describing says womens have their rights taken away, which forces them to abide an unfavorable system and are then stupid enough to tell their children that being beautiful is better than being accomplished. Apparently (judging from the lack of general outrage amongst women) their rights aren't that bad after all. As I mentioned earlier, try taking examples that are more extreme then "majority of sports viewers enjoy looking at nice boobies" and see if women would stand on the streets burning down cars to make noise. It's fine to say that being beautiful and being "princess-like" is a good thing. It's not fine to tell someone else that being accomplished in life is what their goal should be. One is expressing your view on an issue, the other is trying to tell someone else what view they should have on an issue.There is no earth-wide mindcontrol project that tells women to be sex objects and single mothers. Women can speak up for themselves, so can men. All I see here is males rambling about how exactly they think they have to save women as a gender from just giving their rights away, pretending they're too inferior to men to defend themselves in the process. The reason you see mostly males in a video game forum has more to do with problems in gaming (and, in a sense, all male dominated) culture. There's a reason most people on TL are dudes--and its not genes, it's the way we treat men and women in society. As much as people would love for it to be true--there is no videogame gene.
Do you seriously believe that men and women have completely identical preferences and that most gamers being male is entirely culturally constructed?
That there are no differences in, say, hormones like testosterone, which might lead more men to prefer video games, the vast majority of which are violent and competitive?
|
|
|
On June 11 2013 09:05 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 08:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 08:52 r.Evo wrote:On June 11 2013 08:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 08:27 r.Evo wrote:On June 11 2013 08:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 08:11 r.Evo wrote:On June 11 2013 08:00 TheExile19 wrote:On June 11 2013 07:53 r.Evo wrote:On June 11 2013 06:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:[quote] Within the confines of the specific action there is no harm. The problem people like myself have with it is not that sports sexualizes athletes but how that sexualization perpetuates social normative practices that encourages gender norms as opposed to allowing the fullness of possibility within youth. I don't like it when a mother calls her daughter princess any more than I don't like it when a yahoo article of a high school high jumper who just broke an american high school record is described as a model instead of being described as a record breaking athlete. + Show Spoiler +http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/highschool-prep-rally/record-setting-oregon-high-jumper-top-fashion-model-152515924.html It's the pieces adding up to a larger problematic whole wherein girls are taught to only care about their looks. Sports is not the problem, western culture is the problem. There is no problem until someone in question has a problem with it. A mother calling her daughter princess is all fine, unless the daughter doesn't want to be called princess. The very article you linked is talking about how she started a career as a model, didn't enjoy the experience ("too stressful") and was critiqued as being “too tall and muscular". So what? It's part of her history, it's a part of who she is. The actual problem that you personally have only shows up because you want to fit her into one neat category: "high school jumper who just broke an american high school record" - besides that she used to be a teen model. She is also considered to be good looking and fit. If she wants to use that perception to be on the next playboy frontpage, start a career as a lawyer or simply keep on doing what she's doing, it's her choice. However, no matter which choice she makes the public and the press will react to it. What you're saying is that "you shouldn't call a daughter princess because it's bad" while I'm saying "it's none of your damn business". you're talking about a anecdotal microeffect, he's talking about a cultural macroeffect. this basically summarizes the entire thread "discourse", because unfortunately, as I am discovering, you really can't talk about institutionalized objectification of women (and men) in any context, let alone sexualization in sports, without eventually coming around to the overall package of cultural sexism. why is it none of his business? I assume we're all familiar with western cultural practices, we get flooded with these influences every day and you can't possibly reduce it to some sort of vacuum or every-woman-is-an-island situation like you would seem to be advocating. why are you saying he "personally" has a problem? how can you possibly conclude My "anecdotal microeffect" is an example the person I was responding to gave and is very much on point. The cultural macroeffect is the result of millions of anecdotal microeffects. If a random daughter wants to call herself princess, it's none of your business. If a random mother wants to call her random daughter princess, it's also none of your business. You can't look at a anecdotal microeffect and generalize it without knowing all the possible backgrounds, if it would be something that's not circumstantial we wouldn't even be having an argument in the first place. Why am I saying he personally has a problem? Because he said so. plenty of women could not give two shits either way about this and many other topics regarding the treatment of their gender, plenty of women are too indoctrinated to care, etc. If they don't give two shits either way about it, maybe it isn't that big of a deal? If this would be about cutting off someones genitals, they would give a shit about it. Simply because that is a big deal. Too indoctrinated? So what you're saying is that women can't speak up for themselves and that your job, as a privileged male who understands where when and how women are "too indoctrinated to care", is to speak up for that weak, defenseless gender? You don't speak up for a gender no more than you speak up for a slave. People who are indoctrinated are just that--indoctrinated. There is no sex that is specifically subjugated to indoctrination, its a societal deal. There are men and women who are against this normative construct, there are those that don't care, and there are those that will fight to keep this status quo. I do not want to keep this status quo, I'm not the only one. There are those who want to enforce this status quo, people such as yourself who wants people like me to mind my own business. I get bothered by moral wrongs, that's just me. So I won't shut up about seeing things I find wrong with the world. If you prefer keeping a blind eye and pretending its not a problem, go ahead. That's your prerogative, not mine. So let me sum up: #1) "plenty of women could not give two shits either way about this and many other topics regarding the treatment of their gender" #2) "plenty of women are too indoctrinated to care" #3) "You don't speak up for a gender no more than you speak up for a slave." Within those three statements I see women being called indifferent about how their gender is being treated, women being called indoctrinated (aka retarded in this context) and lastly being compared to slaves. And most of all, I see them grossly generalized. Personally, I want you to mind your own business instead of trying to tell other people how to treat women because I'm able to spot all the misogynistic implications in your statements. I was hoping to be able to turn a blind eye to this kind of hatred against women because I thought it to be over but your attempts are just as blatantly obvious as they are offensive. Here's where we disagree. The US in particular has been hacking away at women's right for the past 10 years from pro-choice rights to health care access to attacks on Planned Parenthood (a main way for lower income women to gain access to birth control). This combined with steadily increased regulations on adoptions as well a terribly regulated foster care system has made it worse and worse for a woman to be able to plan her future. She is less able to prevent unwanted pregnancies and is less able to protect herself when wanting to be sexually active. This forces women into fitting into the hetero-norm male/female marriage system to ensure stability in case of pregnancy. This is then enforced more when children and young women taught by mimicry to praise women who are beautiful moreso than praise women that are accomplished. This is enforced by little things such as mothers saying "little princess" to their daughters. This trains them to think of themselves as wives and birthers because there is dwindling support to becoming a single mother and increasing praise to being a male's sex object. The spiral you're describing says womens have their rights taken away, which forces them to abide an unfavorable system and are then stupid enough to tell their children that being beautiful is better than being accomplished. Apparently (judging from the lack of general outrage amongst women) their rights aren't that bad after all. As I mentioned earlier, try taking examples that are more extreme then "majority of sports viewers enjoy looking at nice boobies" and see if women would stand on the streets burning down cars to make noise. It's fine to say that being beautiful and being "princess-like" is a good thing. It's not fine to tell someone else that being accomplished in life is what their goal should be. One is expressing your view on an issue, the other is trying to tell someone else what view they should have on an issue.There is no earth-wide mindcontrol project that tells women to be sex objects and single mothers. Women can speak up for themselves, so can men. All I see here is males rambling about how exactly they think they have to save women as a gender from just giving their rights away, pretending they're too inferior to men to defend themselves in the process. The reason you see mostly males in a video game forum has more to do with problems in gaming (and, in a sense, all male dominated) culture. There's a reason most people on TL are dudes--and its not genes, it's the way we treat men and women in society. As much as people would love for it to be true--there is no videogame gene. Do you seriously believe that men and women have completely identical preferences and that most gamers being male is entirely culturally constructed? That there are no differences in, say, hormones like testosterone, which might lead more men to prefer video games, the vast majority of which are violent and competitive?
I'd give it a 95% artificial/5% natural breakdown in construction. incidentally, your line of argument is far better served by focusing on an increased preference for socialization in females, which is practically the only biological behavior that is researched and supports any sort of natural reasoning for differences in gender participation in video gaming. since I guess that's where this thread is at now.
|
On June 11 2013 09:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 08:57 r.Evo wrote:Feminism is the attempt to fight back the enforcement of the "feminine identity" wherein things that seem female are looked down on. Such as wearing dresses, having a high pitched voice, etc... Feminism also wishes to spread out and make more acceptable the masculine identity. Aggressive girls, sexually promiscuous girls, etc... Their goal is that there is no male way of doing things, or female way of doing things. No male personality, or female personality. That everyone be treated equally.
It's not the vilifying of men. It's the acceptance of the feminine. Men and women are different. It's that simple. Ever thought about that? There are men who like dresses And there are women who want power Men who have high voices And women who hate showers Personalities are personalities and are not determined by a dick or vagina.
The majority of men doesn't like to wear dresses.
The majority of women don't want positions of power. (This point is obviously the one you brought up that's debatable.)
The majority of men don't have high voices.
The majority of women don't hate showers. (Do men?)
The preference of a small group of individuals is completely irrelevant when you're trying to look at norms. The statement "it's normal for humans to be heterosexual" doesn't say "gay people don't exist" nor "gay people should be burned because they're different". All it says is "the majority of humans is heterosexual" which in itself is a factual statement. Not more, not less.
Countries like Norway with arguably the most "pro-feminism" society actually have less women working "traditionally male jobs" than societies who are seen as "repressing women". The more equal choices women and men have in terms of how they want to spend their time, the more will the divergence represent trends that stem from personal choice. If these trends now are still significant when it comes to looking at male/female distribution then, well... either there might be mind control at work or maybe, just maybe men and women enjoy doing different tasks more than others.
As an analogue example that's usually easier to understand: The more equally children are treated at a school, the more will the divergence in test results represent the individuals capabilities and the environment they were brought up in. Differences in distributions are not a sign for unequal treatment.
e: I'd give it a 95% artificial/5% natural breakdown in construction.
Welp, I should just post this link whenever this topic comes up in the first place.
http://vimeo.com/19707588 ~ Probably the best summation of sources when you want to look at nature vs nurture. Should be pretty much a mandatory watch for either side that wants to throw out numbers because said documentary actually looks for them from multiple sources and disciplines.
|
|
|
On June 11 2013 09:15 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +I'd give it a 95% artificial/5% natural breakdown in construction. incidentally, your line of argument is far better served by focusing on an increased preference for socialization in females, which is practically the only biological behavior that is researched and supports any sort of natural reasoning for differences in gender participation in video gaming. since I guess that's where this thread is at now. Great I would give it 5% artificial and 95% natural. Oh wait I'm just throwing out numbers with out facts, studies or anything to back it out. But now that I have said it I'm going to act as though it's true because thats how smart I am and you should all agree with me based on that. Honestly stop making stuff up.
sorry, I guess the last 21 pages, full of scientific rigor and studded with links to academic journals, made me think that just lightly giving my opinion on something that is utterly impossible to quantify was acceptable.
|
|
|
On June 11 2013 09:17 TheExile19 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 09:15 JimmiC wrote:I'd give it a 95% artificial/5% natural breakdown in construction. incidentally, your line of argument is far better served by focusing on an increased preference for socialization in females, which is practically the only biological behavior that is researched and supports any sort of natural reasoning for differences in gender participation in video gaming. since I guess that's where this thread is at now. Great I would give it 5% artificial and 95% natural. Oh wait I'm just throwing out numbers with out facts, studies or anything to back it out. But now that I have said it I'm going to act as though it's true because thats how smart I am and you should all agree with me based on that. Honestly stop making stuff up. sorry, I guess the last 21 pages, full of scientific rigor and studded with links to academic journals, made me think that just lightly giving my opinion on something that is utterly impossible to quantify was acceptable.
The 95:5 thing was ridiculous.
|
On June 11 2013 09:17 TheExile19 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 09:15 JimmiC wrote:I'd give it a 95% artificial/5% natural breakdown in construction. incidentally, your line of argument is far better served by focusing on an increased preference for socialization in females, which is practically the only biological behavior that is researched and supports any sort of natural reasoning for differences in gender participation in video gaming. since I guess that's where this thread is at now. Great I would give it 5% artificial and 95% natural. Oh wait I'm just throwing out numbers with out facts, studies or anything to back it out. But now that I have said it I'm going to act as though it's true because thats how smart I am and you should all agree with me based on that. Honestly stop making stuff up. sorry, I guess the last 21 pages, full of scientific rigor and studded with links to academic journals, made me think that just lightly giving my opinion on something that is utterly impossible to quantify was acceptable.
It's actually possible to quantify. Check the above link.
There have been studies on freshly born babies regarding this topic. Literally taken out of the womb and put in front of certain "gender specific" pictures or objects.
|
|
|
On June 11 2013 09:15 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +I'd give it a 95% artificial/5% natural breakdown in construction. incidentally, your line of argument is far better served by focusing on an increased preference for socialization in females, which is practically the only biological behavior that is researched and supports any sort of natural reasoning for differences in gender participation in video gaming. since I guess that's where this thread is at now. Great I would give it 5% artificial and 95% natural. Oh wait I'm just throwing out numbers with out facts, studies or anything to back it out. But now that I have said it I'm going to act as though it's true because thats how smart I am and you should all agree with me based on that. Honestly stop making stuff up.
All things should be presumed as incidental unless someone can prove they are necessary i.e. it is infinitely more reasonable to assume that a given behaviour is a product of the environment (since environments are contingent and can change) rather than that a behaviour is a necessary genetic consequence, because the latter is a much stronger claim.
Kinda like: you go to a particular country and see a black sheep. Then you see a couple more or perhaps a herd. It would be incorrect to presume that all sheep are black since that's too broad a variable for what you've observed. Instead, it would be much more reasonable to conclude that at least one species from this particular country is black.
The problem with the debate right now is that somewhere we're equivocating "there are biochemical differences between men and women" and "men and women have wildly different behaviours/preferences/aptitudes" when there's pretty much no indication of how powerful the biochemical influence actually is. The reason there is very little evidence is that, unfortunately, no one beyond infancy hasn't been exposed to culture, so culture can't really be eliminated as a variable, especially since varying cultures tend to have had some perspectives on sexuality that are more or less analogous in relevant ways.Yes, I'm aware of studies that show varying interests among infant boys and girls, but to move from this subtle distinction to a grand dismissal of the fucking huge skewing that we observe among adults is simply not substantiated by science.
|
On June 11 2013 09:11 TheExile19 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 09:05 sunprince wrote:On June 11 2013 08:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 08:52 r.Evo wrote:On June 11 2013 08:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 08:27 r.Evo wrote:On June 11 2013 08:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 08:11 r.Evo wrote:On June 11 2013 08:00 TheExile19 wrote:On June 11 2013 07:53 r.Evo wrote:
[quote]
There is no problem until someone in question has a problem with it.
A mother calling her daughter princess is all fine, unless the daughter doesn't want to be called princess. The very article you linked is talking about how she started a career as a model, didn't enjoy the experience ("too stressful") and was critiqued as being “too tall and muscular". So what? It's part of her history, it's a part of who she is.
The actual problem that you personally have only shows up because you want to fit her into one neat category: "high school jumper who just broke an american high school record" - besides that she used to be a teen model. She is also considered to be good looking and fit. If she wants to use that perception to be on the next playboy frontpage, start a career as a lawyer or simply keep on doing what she's doing, it's her choice. However, no matter which choice she makes the public and the press will react to it.
What you're saying is that "you shouldn't call a daughter princess because it's bad" while I'm saying "it's none of your damn business". you're talking about a anecdotal microeffect, he's talking about a cultural macroeffect. this basically summarizes the entire thread "discourse", because unfortunately, as I am discovering, you really can't talk about institutionalized objectification of women (and men) in any context, let alone sexualization in sports, without eventually coming around to the overall package of cultural sexism. why is it none of his business? I assume we're all familiar with western cultural practices, we get flooded with these influences every day and you can't possibly reduce it to some sort of vacuum or every-woman-is-an-island situation like you would seem to be advocating. why are you saying he "personally" has a problem? how can you possibly conclude My "anecdotal microeffect" is an example the person I was responding to gave and is very much on point. The cultural macroeffect is the result of millions of anecdotal microeffects. If a random daughter wants to call herself princess, it's none of your business. If a random mother wants to call her random daughter princess, it's also none of your business. You can't look at a anecdotal microeffect and generalize it without knowing all the possible backgrounds, if it would be something that's not circumstantial we wouldn't even be having an argument in the first place. Why am I saying he personally has a problem? Because he said so. plenty of women could not give two shits either way about this and many other topics regarding the treatment of their gender, plenty of women are too indoctrinated to care, etc. If they don't give two shits either way about it, maybe it isn't that big of a deal? If this would be about cutting off someones genitals, they would give a shit about it. Simply because that is a big deal. Too indoctrinated? So what you're saying is that women can't speak up for themselves and that your job, as a privileged male who understands where when and how women are "too indoctrinated to care", is to speak up for that weak, defenseless gender? You don't speak up for a gender no more than you speak up for a slave. People who are indoctrinated are just that--indoctrinated. There is no sex that is specifically subjugated to indoctrination, its a societal deal. There are men and women who are against this normative construct, there are those that don't care, and there are those that will fight to keep this status quo. I do not want to keep this status quo, I'm not the only one. There are those who want to enforce this status quo, people such as yourself who wants people like me to mind my own business. I get bothered by moral wrongs, that's just me. So I won't shut up about seeing things I find wrong with the world. If you prefer keeping a blind eye and pretending its not a problem, go ahead. That's your prerogative, not mine. So let me sum up: #1) "plenty of women could not give two shits either way about this and many other topics regarding the treatment of their gender" #2) "plenty of women are too indoctrinated to care" #3) "You don't speak up for a gender no more than you speak up for a slave." Within those three statements I see women being called indifferent about how their gender is being treated, women being called indoctrinated (aka retarded in this context) and lastly being compared to slaves. And most of all, I see them grossly generalized. Personally, I want you to mind your own business instead of trying to tell other people how to treat women because I'm able to spot all the misogynistic implications in your statements. I was hoping to be able to turn a blind eye to this kind of hatred against women because I thought it to be over but your attempts are just as blatantly obvious as they are offensive. Here's where we disagree. The US in particular has been hacking away at women's right for the past 10 years from pro-choice rights to health care access to attacks on Planned Parenthood (a main way for lower income women to gain access to birth control). This combined with steadily increased regulations on adoptions as well a terribly regulated foster care system has made it worse and worse for a woman to be able to plan her future. She is less able to prevent unwanted pregnancies and is less able to protect herself when wanting to be sexually active. This forces women into fitting into the hetero-norm male/female marriage system to ensure stability in case of pregnancy. This is then enforced more when children and young women taught by mimicry to praise women who are beautiful moreso than praise women that are accomplished. This is enforced by little things such as mothers saying "little princess" to their daughters. This trains them to think of themselves as wives and birthers because there is dwindling support to becoming a single mother and increasing praise to being a male's sex object. The spiral you're describing says womens have their rights taken away, which forces them to abide an unfavorable system and are then stupid enough to tell their children that being beautiful is better than being accomplished. Apparently (judging from the lack of general outrage amongst women) their rights aren't that bad after all. As I mentioned earlier, try taking examples that are more extreme then "majority of sports viewers enjoy looking at nice boobies" and see if women would stand on the streets burning down cars to make noise. It's fine to say that being beautiful and being "princess-like" is a good thing. It's not fine to tell someone else that being accomplished in life is what their goal should be. One is expressing your view on an issue, the other is trying to tell someone else what view they should have on an issue.There is no earth-wide mindcontrol project that tells women to be sex objects and single mothers. Women can speak up for themselves, so can men. All I see here is males rambling about how exactly they think they have to save women as a gender from just giving their rights away, pretending they're too inferior to men to defend themselves in the process. The reason you see mostly males in a video game forum has more to do with problems in gaming (and, in a sense, all male dominated) culture. There's a reason most people on TL are dudes--and its not genes, it's the way we treat men and women in society. As much as people would love for it to be true--there is no videogame gene. Do you seriously believe that men and women have completely identical preferences and that most gamers being male is entirely culturally constructed? That there are no differences in, say, hormones like testosterone, which might lead more men to prefer video games, the vast majority of which are violent and competitive? I'd give it a 95% artificial/5% natural breakdown in construction.
This is baseless speculation, supported by neither empirical evidence nor logic. It's clearly some combination of both, but if you look at the psychological symptoms associated with altering a person's sex hormone balance you can see that it's nowhere near as insignificant as you claim.
On June 11 2013 09:11 TheExile19 wrote:incidentally, your line of argument is far better served by focusing on an increased preference for socialization in females, which is practically the only biological behavior that is researched and supports any sort of natural reasoning for differences in gender participation in video gaming. since I guess that's where this thread is at now.
I gave a single example to show the absurdity in arguing that the differences between men and women in gaming are entirely cultural.
The main reason for the disparity between men and women in gaming is that the majority of game developers are men (an extension of the fact that most women choose not to go into STEM fields like computer science). As a consequence, the vast majority of video games are made by men and tailored to common male interests such as fast-paced action and combat.
Another reason for the disparity is that gaming was, until very recently, considered a "nerd" or "loser" thing to do. Women, who are much more sensitive to things like social positioning, therefore avoided gaming (and gamers) like the plague. Rarely do women gravitate towards interests primarily enjoyed by losers, and this is part of the reason that women avoided careers in technology even more until very recently, when such careers became mainstream and well-paid instead of a bunch of guys working out of a garage for sweat equity.
|
On June 11 2013 09:24 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 09:15 JimmiC wrote:I'd give it a 95% artificial/5% natural breakdown in construction. incidentally, your line of argument is far better served by focusing on an increased preference for socialization in females, which is practically the only biological behavior that is researched and supports any sort of natural reasoning for differences in gender participation in video gaming. since I guess that's where this thread is at now. Great I would give it 5% artificial and 95% natural. Oh wait I'm just throwing out numbers with out facts, studies or anything to back it out. But now that I have said it I'm going to act as though it's true because thats how smart I am and you should all agree with me based on that. Honestly stop making stuff up. All things should be presumed as incidental unless someone can prove they are necessary i.e. it is infinitely more reasonable to assume that a given behaviour is a product of the environment (since environments are contingent and can change) rather than that a behaviour is a necessary genetic consequence, because the latter is a much stronger claim. Kinda like: you go to a particular country and see a black sheep. Then you see a couple more or perhaps a herd. It would be incorrect to presume that all sheep are black since that's too broad a variable for what you've observed. Instead, it would be much more reasonable to conclude that at least one species from this particular country is black. The problem with the debate right now is that somewhere we're equivocating "there are biochemical differences between men and women" and "men and women have wildly different behaviours/preferences/aptitudes" when there's pretty much no indication of how powerful the biochemical influence actually is. The reason there is very little evidence is that, unfortunately, no one beyond infancy hasn't been exposed to culture, so culture can't really be eliminated as a variable, especially since varying cultures tend to have had some perspectives on sexuality that are more or less analogous in relevant ways.Yes, I'm aware of studies that show varying interests among infant boys and girls, but to move from this subtle distinction to a grand dismissal of the fucking huge skewing that we observe among adults is simply not substantiated by science.
No doubt the development of those cultures has no basis in the biology of humankind...
When you see running themes in cultures across the world since time immemorial, it's actually much simpler to apply the differences between the sexes to biology than to culture, so you've completely misapplied Occam's razor.
|
On June 11 2013 09:05 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 08:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 08:52 r.Evo wrote:On June 11 2013 08:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 08:27 r.Evo wrote:On June 11 2013 08:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 08:11 r.Evo wrote:On June 11 2013 08:00 TheExile19 wrote:On June 11 2013 07:53 r.Evo wrote:On June 11 2013 06:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:[quote] Within the confines of the specific action there is no harm. The problem people like myself have with it is not that sports sexualizes athletes but how that sexualization perpetuates social normative practices that encourages gender norms as opposed to allowing the fullness of possibility within youth. I don't like it when a mother calls her daughter princess any more than I don't like it when a yahoo article of a high school high jumper who just broke an american high school record is described as a model instead of being described as a record breaking athlete. + Show Spoiler +http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/highschool-prep-rally/record-setting-oregon-high-jumper-top-fashion-model-152515924.html It's the pieces adding up to a larger problematic whole wherein girls are taught to only care about their looks. Sports is not the problem, western culture is the problem. There is no problem until someone in question has a problem with it. A mother calling her daughter princess is all fine, unless the daughter doesn't want to be called princess. The very article you linked is talking about how she started a career as a model, didn't enjoy the experience ("too stressful") and was critiqued as being “too tall and muscular". So what? It's part of her history, it's a part of who she is. The actual problem that you personally have only shows up because you want to fit her into one neat category: "high school jumper who just broke an american high school record" - besides that she used to be a teen model. She is also considered to be good looking and fit. If she wants to use that perception to be on the next playboy frontpage, start a career as a lawyer or simply keep on doing what she's doing, it's her choice. However, no matter which choice she makes the public and the press will react to it. What you're saying is that "you shouldn't call a daughter princess because it's bad" while I'm saying "it's none of your damn business". you're talking about a anecdotal microeffect, he's talking about a cultural macroeffect. this basically summarizes the entire thread "discourse", because unfortunately, as I am discovering, you really can't talk about institutionalized objectification of women (and men) in any context, let alone sexualization in sports, without eventually coming around to the overall package of cultural sexism. why is it none of his business? I assume we're all familiar with western cultural practices, we get flooded with these influences every day and you can't possibly reduce it to some sort of vacuum or every-woman-is-an-island situation like you would seem to be advocating. why are you saying he "personally" has a problem? how can you possibly conclude My "anecdotal microeffect" is an example the person I was responding to gave and is very much on point. The cultural macroeffect is the result of millions of anecdotal microeffects. If a random daughter wants to call herself princess, it's none of your business. If a random mother wants to call her random daughter princess, it's also none of your business. You can't look at a anecdotal microeffect and generalize it without knowing all the possible backgrounds, if it would be something that's not circumstantial we wouldn't even be having an argument in the first place. Why am I saying he personally has a problem? Because he said so. plenty of women could not give two shits either way about this and many other topics regarding the treatment of their gender, plenty of women are too indoctrinated to care, etc. If they don't give two shits either way about it, maybe it isn't that big of a deal? If this would be about cutting off someones genitals, they would give a shit about it. Simply because that is a big deal. Too indoctrinated? So what you're saying is that women can't speak up for themselves and that your job, as a privileged male who understands where when and how women are "too indoctrinated to care", is to speak up for that weak, defenseless gender? You don't speak up for a gender no more than you speak up for a slave. People who are indoctrinated are just that--indoctrinated. There is no sex that is specifically subjugated to indoctrination, its a societal deal. There are men and women who are against this normative construct, there are those that don't care, and there are those that will fight to keep this status quo. I do not want to keep this status quo, I'm not the only one. There are those who want to enforce this status quo, people such as yourself who wants people like me to mind my own business. I get bothered by moral wrongs, that's just me. So I won't shut up about seeing things I find wrong with the world. If you prefer keeping a blind eye and pretending its not a problem, go ahead. That's your prerogative, not mine. So let me sum up: #1) "plenty of women could not give two shits either way about this and many other topics regarding the treatment of their gender" #2) "plenty of women are too indoctrinated to care" #3) "You don't speak up for a gender no more than you speak up for a slave." Within those three statements I see women being called indifferent about how their gender is being treated, women being called indoctrinated (aka retarded in this context) and lastly being compared to slaves. And most of all, I see them grossly generalized. Personally, I want you to mind your own business instead of trying to tell other people how to treat women because I'm able to spot all the misogynistic implications in your statements. I was hoping to be able to turn a blind eye to this kind of hatred against women because I thought it to be over but your attempts are just as blatantly obvious as they are offensive. Here's where we disagree. The US in particular has been hacking away at women's right for the past 10 years from pro-choice rights to health care access to attacks on Planned Parenthood (a main way for lower income women to gain access to birth control). This combined with steadily increased regulations on adoptions as well a terribly regulated foster care system has made it worse and worse for a woman to be able to plan her future. She is less able to prevent unwanted pregnancies and is less able to protect herself when wanting to be sexually active. This forces women into fitting into the hetero-norm male/female marriage system to ensure stability in case of pregnancy. This is then enforced more when children and young women taught by mimicry to praise women who are beautiful moreso than praise women that are accomplished. This is enforced by little things such as mothers saying "little princess" to their daughters. This trains them to think of themselves as wives and birthers because there is dwindling support to becoming a single mother and increasing praise to being a male's sex object. The spiral you're describing says womens have their rights taken away, which forces them to abide an unfavorable system and are then stupid enough to tell their children that being beautiful is better than being accomplished. Apparently (judging from the lack of general outrage amongst women) their rights aren't that bad after all. As I mentioned earlier, try taking examples that are more extreme then "majority of sports viewers enjoy looking at nice boobies" and see if women would stand on the streets burning down cars to make noise. It's fine to say that being beautiful and being "princess-like" is a good thing. It's not fine to tell someone else that being accomplished in life is what their goal should be. One is expressing your view on an issue, the other is trying to tell someone else what view they should have on an issue.There is no earth-wide mindcontrol project that tells women to be sex objects and single mothers. Women can speak up for themselves, so can men. All I see here is males rambling about how exactly they think they have to save women as a gender from just giving their rights away, pretending they're too inferior to men to defend themselves in the process. The reason you see mostly males in a video game forum has more to do with problems in gaming (and, in a sense, all male dominated) culture. There's a reason most people on TL are dudes--and its not genes, it's the way we treat men and women in society. As much as people would love for it to be true--there is no videogame gene. Do you seriously believe that men and women have completely identical preferences and that most gamers being male is entirely culturally constructed? That there are no differences in, say, hormones like testosterone, which might lead more men to prefer video games, the vast majority of which are violent and competitive?
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2005/How-Women-and-Men-Use-the-Internet.aspx
This survey lends credence to the hypothesis that men might be gamers for the same reason men are more adept with the internet and more daring with technology by way of pointing out that there is a difference between older men and older women when it comes to internet usage. Considering that post-computer youth live under the influence of egalitarian movements like first/second wave feminism, it stands to reason that there, at the very least, was a major cultural construction which made it more likely for men to attach themselves to technology than women.
The very fact that this has changed over a period of a few generations establishes that this is a cultural phenomenon.
|
On June 11 2013 09:29 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 09:24 Shiori wrote:On June 11 2013 09:15 JimmiC wrote:I'd give it a 95% artificial/5% natural breakdown in construction. incidentally, your line of argument is far better served by focusing on an increased preference for socialization in females, which is practically the only biological behavior that is researched and supports any sort of natural reasoning for differences in gender participation in video gaming. since I guess that's where this thread is at now. Great I would give it 5% artificial and 95% natural. Oh wait I'm just throwing out numbers with out facts, studies or anything to back it out. But now that I have said it I'm going to act as though it's true because thats how smart I am and you should all agree with me based on that. Honestly stop making stuff up. All things should be presumed as incidental unless someone can prove they are necessary i.e. it is infinitely more reasonable to assume that a given behaviour is a product of the environment (since environments are contingent and can change) rather than that a behaviour is a necessary genetic consequence, because the latter is a much stronger claim. Kinda like: you go to a particular country and see a black sheep. Then you see a couple more or perhaps a herd. It would be incorrect to presume that all sheep are black since that's too broad a variable for what you've observed. Instead, it would be much more reasonable to conclude that at least one species from this particular country is black. The problem with the debate right now is that somewhere we're equivocating "there are biochemical differences between men and women" and "men and women have wildly different behaviours/preferences/aptitudes" when there's pretty much no indication of how powerful the biochemical influence actually is. The reason there is very little evidence is that, unfortunately, no one beyond infancy hasn't been exposed to culture, so culture can't really be eliminated as a variable, especially since varying cultures tend to have had some perspectives on sexuality that are more or less analogous in relevant ways.Yes, I'm aware of studies that show varying interests among infant boys and girls, but to move from this subtle distinction to a grand dismissal of the fucking huge skewing that we observe among adults is simply not substantiated by science. No doubt the development of those cultures has no basis in the biology of humankind... When you see running themes in cultures across the world since time immemorial, it's actually much simpler to apply the differences between the sexes to biology than to culture, so you've completely misapplied Occam's razor.
Except there are enough major differences across cultures that biological distinctions don't help us much, especially since our knowledge of different cultures diminishes greatly as we move farther into the past. Furthermore, there are a great many variations that seem like the norm over a long period of time but actually don't represent a uniform thing at all. For example, a cursory look at Western civilization might lead one to believe that homosexuality is something that we have some sort of genetic basis for hating, because the last millennium and a half is filled with various cultures simultaneously reviling it. But if you go back just a little farther, you find a much more relaxed (though not egalitarian, by any means) approach to homosexuality in ancient Greek society.
So no, there aren't really any relevant "running themes" that are truly universal since "time immemorial" aside from general monogamy (or at least serial monogamy) and that men have penises and women vaginas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
