|
Author
|
Topic: rape culture/victim culture
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
|
Message 145 of 209 (195527)
03-30-2005 5:15 PM
|
Reply to: Message 144 by Silent H
03-30-2005 4:22 PM
|
|
1) If you meant to only discuss the face hugger, rather than the alien itself, then you failed to make that clear. They're not different species, are they? They're just different instars of the same organism, right?
2) As I have just outlined, unlike the sequals, in the original the facehugger stays with the "victim" and nurtures both the victim and the eggs. Its description of care by the crew as they watch what is happening (something entirely devoid in any of the sequals) is one that is feminine. As Arach clearly pointed out it even had patently feminine features. The best description is that the facehugger laid its eggs into a living nest and then sat on them until they hatched. That's feminine. That's a fairly good argument. I don't recall disagreeing with it. It doesn't really contradict mine, exactly, and taken together, it refutes Arach's position that the alien has no gender whatsoever.
My criticism would only be that to look at only those elements in order to describe the entire entity, is to miss everything else about the entity and so come to an incorrect conclusion. Well, I wasn't really trying to describe the entire entity, or say that it had no feminine characteristics, or that it was on balance male or female. If you'll look back, this all started when Arach asserted that there was absolutely no gender interpretation you could apply to the creature, and between the two of us, I think we've pretty well disproven that. I don't feel a particular need for us to have the same interpretation or anything.
It would be like me staring at the large phallus an entity before me has and then not recognizing it is a girl with a strap-on. It is a girl, she has some elements which are masculine and she can act masculine with it, but may also act quite feminine (including with the object I view as overtly masculine). Yes, I agree, which is why I said:
quote:
3) When I say that the creature exhibits masculine qualities, I'm not saying that it exhibits no feminine ones.
But you've certainly given a compelling example. (Personal experience? Never mind, I don't want to know.)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 144 by Silent H, posted 03-30-2005 4:22 PM | | Silent H has replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
|
|
Message 150 of 209 (195787)
03-31-2005 3:14 PM
|
Reply to: Message 148 by Silent H
03-31-2005 1:48 PM
|
|
This is really an absurd argument to be making. Now you know how I feel. Sucks, doesn't it, when you find yourself in the position of having to address rebuttals to arguments you didn't make? Is it really the case that nobody ever has anal sex that isn't painful?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 148 by Silent H, posted 03-31-2005 1:48 PM | | Silent H has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 153 by Silent H, posted 03-31-2005 5:36 PM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
|
|
Message 154 of 209 (195840)
03-31-2005 5:52 PM
|
Reply to: Message 153 by Silent H
03-31-2005 5:36 PM
|
|
Or were you being serious? No, I was curious. But let me rephrase the question in a way that doesn't put words in your mouth. Does the person on the receiving end of anal sex ever stop feeling pain while they do it? Which to me is a different matter than "getting used to the pain."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 153 by Silent H, posted 03-31-2005 5:36 PM | | Silent H has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 156 by Silent H, posted 04-01-2005 5:30 AM | | crashfrog has not replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
i've sat out of this argument for a little while because frankly it both bores and offends me at the same time. and i've been busy. Well, if you want to jump back in, it would be nice if you could familiarize yourself with the recent posts I've made. Your post reiterates arguments that I have already addressed.
do you not understand how this is biased? I think I've literally come out and said that this is biased. So what? That's what we're talking about; the assertion was made by you that no such biases could be applied to the alien. Holmes and I have successfully applied several biases.
i think part of the ideas in at least the first two movies were to mess with typical gender roles, and throw them out of whack. Gosh, and how do you suppose they did that? By creating an alien antagonist that evokes the worst of both male and female sexual roles.
so calling you female because i think you're being irrational and nonsensical -- that's ok? just so we're on the same page here. That's ok. We're on the same page. If you see those qualities as feminine, and I think most people would, that's ok. I have no problem with that. But like I said I'm not the one with a huge chip on my shoulder about "generalizations" and "calling all men rapists" and judging the associations society makes with biological sex, which are always both good and bad. I'm just here to describe those associations, Arach. Not judge or advocate them.
no, saying ONLY men "love 'em and leave 'em" and then ascribing that as male characteristic to something purposefully genderless is a generalization, and demeaning. You need to get caught up to my post 132. Actually, I know you're caught up to it, because you replied to it. So why, again, do I see you refuting a position that you know I'm not taking?
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
is there an objective reality? If there is, I advise you to get a grip on it before you attempt to engage me in this debate again.
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
Look, arach, I can't help you. I don't know what it is you want from me. I'm not going to play the part you've written for me, ok? I'm not going to make the argument you so obviously want me to make, so why don't you just create another account and post the posts you so desperately want to reply to? Because I'm not going to do it, ok? I've made my argument, and it bears absolutely no relationship to the position you're so stridently arguing against. As anyone can read in this thread. You need help. I'm not the one that can give it to you.
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
Erm, this seems like an appeal to the popularity of that fallacy. Well, that's exactly what it is. That is, after all, what we're talking about - what characteristics are "masculine" and "feminine" popularly associated with? It's not a fallacy to appeal to popularity when the position is that a certain stereotype is popularly held.
But you have to buy into the sterotype of a gender pshycology to assign such characteristics to a gender - and that is indeed invalid, and a replication of the sterotype. You don't have to "buy into it", you simply have to recognize that these stereotypes exist, and are not uncommon. You may not like it, but as I've said over and over again, I'm merely describing the stereotypes that exist, not advocating or approving those stereotypes. And quite frankly its staggeringly insulting that I have to repeat that to people.
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
Lets say there is a differeince between saying violence is a male characteristic, and saying that violence is falsely percieved to be a male characteristic. The former requires buy-in to the sexist stereotype; the latter is a criticism of that stereotype. Would it be possible to employ language that neither buys in to the stereotype, nor criticizes it, but merely acknowledges that it exists? Might we say that "sexual violence is a characteristic associated with males in our culture"?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 172 by contracycle, posted 04-04-2005 11:36 AM | | contracycle has not replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
|
|
Message 175 of 209 (196686)
04-04-2005 3:13 PM
|
Reply to: Message 173 by nator
04-04-2005 11:43 AM
|
|
I really don't see what the big difficulty in understanding is. Ah, Schaf, if we weren't both married...  I suspect its my language that causes the difficulty. It's hard in English not to conflate biological sex and cultureal gender. I guess the Chinese employ the "Yin/Yang" concept to recitfy this ambiguity. Perhaps I will as well. If I can remember which is which.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 173 by nator, posted 04-04-2005 11:43 AM | | nator has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 176 by nator, posted 04-05-2005 9:45 AM | | crashfrog has not replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
are you insane? Are you? If not, why are you acting like it? You need to be having the discussion with me, not with the voices in your head, ok?
i'm telling you that the argument you ARE making is based on gender bias and stereotyping. no, Arach, no. How many times do we have to go over this? The argument I'm making descibes gender biases and stereotypes. It doesn't support them, and it's not based on them. You don't have to "buy into them" in order to observe that some people do. Some people hold these stereotypes, as much as you'd like to pretend that they don't exist. Why is that such an enormous fucking problem for you? This message has been edited by crashfrog, 04-05-2005 06:59 PM
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
i know he argues that he's not endorsing this stereotype So, I can't say that "The Nazis exterminated millions of Jews during WWII" without supporting that action? I can't say that "Terrorists attacked the World Trade Center on 9/11" without advocating for Al-Qaida? I can't describe anything at all without implicitly supporting that action or position? This is idiocy of the highest caliber, Arach. A grown adult should be embarassed to be taking such a position. Here in the real world, its possible to describe things without saying those things are good. I'm sure you've done it yourself. And that's why its stupidity bordering on insanity for you to continue to repeat this claim.
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
if we were to call him female, we're reading our OWN gender roles into it, and our own societal biases and stereotypes. and that's invalid. It's not invalid, because we don't do that to understand seahorses, we do that to understand ourselves. Don't you get it, yet?
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
Re: consolidated response.
nowhere do you state, "some people may read that as masculine" or "in terms of society, those are masculine features." Implicit in the word "gender". You didn't understand the termonology then, which is why you got so confused about the argument. So what's your excuse now?
now, if we call rape a male quality, isn't that saying something bad about men? No. But, as I've repeatedly stated, I don't have the huge chip on my shoulder about gender associtations that you do. It's no surprise that you constantly belabor this point - you're obsessed with the idea that I'm calling all men rapists by describing an association between sexual violence and masculinity, which is insanity, because I'm a man. Why would I call myself a rapist? Get over yourself, already.
you're only reading your own bias and stereotypes. Isn't that exactly what I just said, Arach?
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
Re: consolidated response.
I don't talk to people that don't trouble themselves to work towards a consensus, dispite effort after effort on my part to help you understand. It's a waste of my time. Anyway I don't talk to anti-semites.
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
Re: consolidated response.
well if that was because he didn't understand the terminology, then you are at fault for not defining yourself. If the two of you are too lazy to look up an accepted dictionary definition of a word, then the least you're required to do is ask "what did you mean by this?" and not go off half-cocked based on definitions that obviously don't apply to the argument in question. It's not, nor has it ever been, my responsibility to correct your lazy mental habits, got it? This message has been edited by crashfrog, 04-07-2005 03:19 PM
|
™ Version 4.2