| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Malongo
Chile3472 Posts
On May 26 2009 21:57 AltaiR_ wrote: why is there a computer in the kitchen for her to write this then what the fuck is a spire? evo chamber = closest thing to a nutsack in sc? Cant compare to a real manly Pilon. | ||
|
no_comprender
Australia91 Posts
On May 17 2009 23:17 Foucault wrote: the whole thing is ironic to me, rejection of traditional roles like husband=breadwinner ,wife=homekeeper/childraiser is a reflection of the male self-preferential bias of men>women. maybe if women didn't already idolize men the pissed off / rejected ones wouldn't try to emulate their role in society and complain when it wasn't an option. what could possibly be more important than raising the next generation, and yet "career women" want to leave the child to a nanny and go and work? feminists are trying to make females more "male", if they were embracing the traditional roles women have in society instead of expanding their right to occupy the traditional role of men i'd have a lot more support for the movement because it wouldn't stink so strongly of self-esteem issuesI have one thing to say here: socially constructed gender roles. You seem to think that the differences between males and females are all biological, and I hardly think that is the case at all. Thus I don't agree with your assumptions on how women and men are. movements like feminism are luxuries of the ability to influence our own environment, and feminists have the ability (you could also call it a right) to push for them, but they are changing a status quo which has had a huge effect on our development, women have taken submissive roles for many years in most civilized societies.feminists are pushing gender roles (a huge cornerstone of society and interaction) in an abruptly different direction with no assurance of success, and shifting the paradigm like this so quickly is not good for the mental health of individuals in general imo. there is just no way to know at this point, not that we really have a choice but to accept it. eventually the gender roles will merge somewhat due to the efforts of feminists but don't call it a return to the "equilibrium". things like the starcraft thing completely destroys the credibility of the movement and reinforces the perception that a high % of them are failures (or their recruits) on a emotional crusade that has much more to do with the psychological issues of individuals than it does with a true desire to "equalize" society's gender roles of course with the individualistic direction society is taking things like feminism are inevitable, its not good enough anymore to be part of a collective and i think thats the bigger underlying problem. everyone want's to make their mark now, and because people respect that ideal they support evening the playing field to cater for the bleating disadvantaged. society is letting them so good for them, but back in the day people born with congenital defects or a crap immune system died instead of burdening other organisms with their disproportionate consumption, it makes me uncomfortable about the future. how long do we expend more and more resources protecting the rights of the individual without considering the health of the species and society as a whole? we have these ideals of basic human rights that simply don't fit with the fundamental rules of life on earth, the entire system is based on competition. not that that particular point is relevant to feminism in particular since male/female competition is not an issue on a evolutionary level, but it is a related concept in terms of the roots of feminism so of course the differences aren't all biological. but our social environment plays a huge part in our function because as organisms we are constructed to occupy an environment, and only in these modern times do we have truly significant control over that environment. i'm arguing not that we are born with the idea that men are dominant but that we are born to occupy a society in which the concept of male superiority in areas like leadership and providing resources prevails so we are conditioned to learn that concept. it's all part of one system, you can't separate things like gender roles from the greater reality and say "yeah lets just tweak the gender roles knob back to equal and everything will be a-ok", systems don't work like that, there are consequences to everything and in finely tuned systems consequences of change are usually negative | ||
|
scwizard
United States1195 Posts
The Zerg on the other hand, build up first a small and weak group of troops. These troops usually test the mettle of the enemy, and so you build up a slightly larger group to do the same. You then follow this with a larger, and more powerful, and a larger and more powerful, and a larger and more powerful group… until finally you have won, or you are struck in the instant of rebuilding before your next great thrust begins. While this argument is much more blatant when shown graphically, anyone who has studied either human sexuality, or gender-comparative literary styles should recognize this pattern. It is the comparative stages of sexual peaks, climaxes, and orgasm(s). I loled  | ||
|
Foucault
Sweden2826 Posts
On May 27 2009 02:29 no_comprender wrote: movements like feminism are luxuries of the ability to influence our own environment, and feminists have the ability (you could also call it a right) to push for them, but they are changing a status quo which has had a huge effect on our development, women have taken submissive roles for many years in most civilized societies.feminists are pushing gender roles (a huge cornerstone of society and interaction) in an abruptly different direction with no assurance of success Ok sorry I don't have time to answer to your entire post but this I want to respond to since I think it's essential. Women haven't taken any roles, they have been given roles by men really. Since men have set the standards for acceptable behaviour for women, the women have pretty much been forced into submission. So I hope you don't think that women throughout history have chosen to be submissive, they are born into a pre-made gender role. Men are too, however since men have had much greater power than women historically speaking (and still today) they don't really complain now do they. What do you mean "with no assurance of success". So you are saying it's dangerous to let women be equal and be in charge more? lol please. Think of all the shit man has started; wars and what not. I don't really know what to say about this one, except that I think you're having too much bias against women, going into this discussion. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
of course with the individualistic direction society is taking things like feminism are inevitable, its not good enough anymore to be part of a collective and i think thats the bigger underlying problem. everyone want's to make their mark now But is that really individualism? | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
His post, for instance, is heavily post-feminist, probably motivated by some of the failures of third wave feminism. But if the critique was aimed more at the later part of his phrase, I'd argue that his beef lies largely with an outgrowth of individualism rather than individualism itself. | ||
|
no_comprender
Australia91 Posts
On May 27 2009 03:35 Foucault wrote: i mean taken only in that those are the roles that they have occupied, nothing else is implied. Ok sorry I don't have time to answer to your entire post but this I want to respond to since I think it's essential. Women haven't taken any roles, they have been given roles by men really. Since men have set the standards for acceptable behaviour for women, the women have pretty much been forced into submission. So I hope you don't think that women throughout history have chosen to be submissive, they are born into a pre-made gender role. Men are too, however since men have had much greater power than women historically speaking (and still today) they don't really complain now do they. What do you mean "with no assurance of success". So you are saying it's dangerous to let women be equal and be in charge more? lol please. Think of all the shit man has started; wars and what not. I don't really know what to say about this one, except that I think you're having too much bias against women, going into this discussion. i mean no assurance of success in the sense that who knows if using gender neutral pronouns and promoting whatever other measures are going to alleviate suffering that occurs as a result of the things feminists fight to banish, it's not as if feminism is science and we know the issues we're tackling and we know how they function and how to counter them. it's enthusiastic action based on a lot of hypothesizing imo i don't think it's "dangerous" to have less gender role separation wrt wars etc, i mean it as a conservative position that too much change in too short time has inherent vulnerability in poorly understood complex systems (psychology/society in this case). wars weren't started because of males anyway, they result from disputes over resources/land between entities generally, not individual men with a power complex blindly starting fights for no reason. changing the gender in charge wouldn't stop those disputes arising, the idea that with women in charge we'd all make up peacefully and international disputes wouldn't be a problem is a myth. women can be just as competitive and ruthless as men can be | ||
|
Hypnotikdel
United States333 Posts
| ||
|
Scaramanga
Australia8093 Posts
On May 27 2009 21:46 Hypnotikdel wrote: Sooooo... How many people have emailed this woman to tell her how retarded she is? I want to, but id get a long reply about how im a pig, you cant argue with retards | ||
|
cyronc
218 Posts
| ||
|
R3condite
Korea (South)1541 Posts
haha it's like one of those arguments where giving a women birth control pill is sexist because men don't have such pills or like giving women estrogen therapy is sexist because men don't get such therapies done frggin retarded! every time i read something like this i lose faith in humanity (and women, just cus these feminists r being dumb) | ||
|
Gray[FH
152 Posts
On May 17 2009 04:39 Megalisk wrote: Stupid people are the great equalizers of the world, unfortunately, they must exist. | ||
|
Priapus
United States36 Posts
| ||
|
ActualSteve
United States627 Posts
| ||
|
MarauderX
Canada16 Posts
A Nydus Canal is a large, vaginal opening, that if a Zerg unit enters, it may emerge at the other end, in a manner that "greatly puzzles most Terran scientists." WtF??// | ||
|
dirtnap
United States20 Posts
only other unit are valkyries. valks suck! we demand equality | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10881 Posts
| ||
|
freelander
Hungary4707 Posts
On May 28 2009 18:30 dirtnap wrote: why are women the medics in the game. only other unit are valkyries. valks suck! we demand equality dropship pilot is female too also, the cybergirl in the CC! | ||
|
redneck_mike
United States124 Posts
And terrans are definitely male. I mean everytime i get mutalisks I encounter big balls that spray that liquid-gas stuff all over my mutalisks and big rods (carriers) that pump out hundreds interceptors. And don't even get me started on how those hydralisks squirt out their juice onto the other team's medics. | ||
|
Vilda
Sweden111 Posts
Oh yeah, the valk is totally my fav unit speech -.- edit: spelling | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
herO vs TriGGeR
NightMare vs Solar
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
BSL
IPSL
eOnzErG vs TBD
G5 vs Nesh
Patches Events
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
Afreeca Starleague
Jaedong vs Light
Monday Night Weeklies
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
