Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2019 5:44 AM
19 online now:
AZPaul3, vimesey (2 members, 17 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,794 Year: 9,830/19,786 Month: 2,252/2,119 Week: 288/724 Day: 13/114 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12345
6
Author Topic:   The word Man is inherently confusing/sexist? Oh the huMANity!
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 1598 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 76 of 90 (345356)
08-31-2006 5:39 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Silent H
08-31-2006 4:48 AM


Re: feminist control of language
I stayed away from the specific discussion about the usage of "man" because I find it somewhat, but not wholly, silly.

However, as this is the topic I will respond.

My philosophy is that (and I have stated as much in the past few posts) that people should be able to define themselves as they see fit. That includes usage of words such as "womyn" "wimmin" etc. I do object to the attitude that all of society should adopt these words, but I can also see that making sure others understand what the alternative terminology means is sometimes tantamount to understanding the movement itself. For example, my statements about Black Power in a couple posts above. The original and basic meaning is one thing. What the term means from media representation and co-option from extremists is another.

The usage of "womyn" and "Black Power" et al were originally self-defining terms. The adoption of them were meant to signify the letting loose of bonds, but were not meant to take over mainstream linguistics. Rather, the mentality of independence was meant to permeate society, especially and originally the oppressed, but, eventually, the oppressors as well. Some extreme factions co-opted the words or phrases used by revolutionaries and inadvertently (or in some cases purposely) made them anathema to the general public and, hence, many have an aversion to "PC" language when it originally had nothing at all to do with them. Like I said before, "Black Power" has nothing to do with white people personally. It is just white arrogance to think so. "Feminism" has nothing to do with men personally, it is just male arrogance to think so.

These terms are defined by the struggle against the power structures by those who are struggling. Not by those who are watching it from the outside, no matter how much they think they know about it.

That said, I rebelled against the usage of the term "man" and still do in many cases.

I think that the words "chair" or "police officer" or "representative" are good examples of "feminism" in action. However, I still say "landlord" and "manning the phones" and other such phrases because they imply both sexes to me. But, I will never say "working man" I will instead say "working people" or "working families" depending on context because of the mental images suggested by such phrases.

The study Schraf mentioned in another thread which mentioned "Industrial Man" does imply to me that men were doing all the work when in fact many women and children were toiling away in factories (and still are). The implication comes from the fact that rich white men were calling all the shots and making mounds of money on the backs of working people.

I guess, to me, some of the definitions have more to do with class struggle (in many, but not all ways) than with all the other "divisive" lines.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Silent H, posted 08-31-2006 4:48 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Silent H, posted 08-31-2006 6:12 AM Jaderis has responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3992 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 77 of 90 (345359)
08-31-2006 6:12 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Jaderis
08-31-2006 5:39 AM


Re: feminist control of language
The usage of "womyn"

But I wasn't arguing about the creation of new words. In fact I thought my posts have supported that kind of behavior.

I was primarily addressing the removal of words, the suppression of what others say, by certain feminist factions. In that capacity I think they are coveting the fictionalized male role they invented.

"Black Power" has nothing to do with white people personally. It is just white arrogance to think so. "Feminism" has nothing to do with men personally, it is just male arrogance to think so.

Since there are many blacks and women in those movements that would say quite the opposite, I think that's a bit stretched to claim.

Indeed its a bit convenient (somewhat of a no true scotsman fallacy) to claim those elements don't count, or that people who take those elements at their word are showing bias?

I get your point though. One cannot say what either must be and that it is necessarily trying to create role reversal.

because of the mental images suggested by such phrases

Why should they unless you have bought a wholly fallacious argument. It's like a person saying I can't work (or must work) with anything that's the color red (or has red in the name) because it conjures the image of communism.

Indeed its much like expecting people who have used swastikas for ages to stop using them, because Hitler's Nazi movement used them. Bhuddists and others used them as symbols of peace long before the nazis did.

The word MAN has two different meanings. Only the willfully ignorant can state that it appears that when one uses man to mean "humanity" one seems to be saying male.

In fact I will throw your own argument right back at you. How are the visions you are claiming regarding "man" not any more a biased media product, than a person who views statement of "black power" meaning black dominance? Man never was meant to mean male originally, and later man could also mean male, and presently it has two meanings defined totally by usage... just like any other word with two meanings.

Certain feminists created this concept that when a person says "man" it must be viewed as male or male centered, and it seems you cannot shake it? How does that make you any different from Jug?

The study Schraf mentioned in another thread which mentioned "Industrial Man"

I don't know what that was, and am curious, could you provide a link? In advance, if it is based on the idea that the general label "industrial man" and "pre-historic man" is sexist in connotation because it downplays the role of women and children, then I'm not going to agree. Again it is based on the idea that the fictional definition of "man" is correct and so must be read a certain way. Just as false as reading feminism and black power to mean something it historically never meant, and not used today for except by "male" extremists.

making mounds of money on the backs of working people.

Uhhhh... The fat rich cats tended to have fat rich wives that made mounds of money on the backs of working people. In fact they had fat rich kids who lived off of the backs of working people. For every fat rich man you were likely to find more than one rich woman and child.

Heck the fat rich women and kids didn't even have to put in time overseeing anything. They were just raking in the dough.

It seems we are using economic class struggle issues to try and cover/legitimate a false feminist semantic claim.


holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Jaderis, posted 08-31-2006 5:39 AM Jaderis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Jaderis, posted 08-31-2006 7:58 AM Silent H has responded

    
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 1598 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 78 of 90 (345370)
08-31-2006 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Silent H
08-31-2006 6:12 AM


Re: feminist control of language
Since there are many blacks and women in those movements that would say quite the opposite, I think that's a bit stretched to claim.

Indeed its a bit convenient (somewhat of a no true scotsman fallacy) to claim those elements don't count, or that people who take those elements at their word are showing bias?

I do not think that varying viewpoints within a certain ideology do not count, but I do look at where and how they came to certain conclusions.

On the counts of feminism, I do not claim that whatever some women are claiming is not "true" feminism, just that I do not agree with their interpretation of feminism.

However, my original point had not alot to do with arguments within movements, but with the interpretations of those "outside" the movements. Arguments within have alot to do with particulars (take scientists, for example) and definition of terms, but arguments against movements from without of the movements have much to do with how the movement is defined by the media or rumor often before the particulars are worked out by those trying to define the movement itself.

Claiming that certain elements "don't count" is not my intent. My intent is to show that individuals can and do define terms for themselves, but that when they co-opt phrases that are created for reasons wholly different than what they use them for and then are adopted by the "mainstream" then the orginal meanings are lost in the shuffle.

One must look at distortion of original intent. That is why I haven't said much about the whole "man" argument in this thread. I think that most cases of "man" are acceptable (i.e. manhole cover, manning the phones, mankind, descent of man, folly of man, etc), but I also think that certain other historical uses of man should be changed (i.e. chairman, fireman, policeman, congressman, etc). There are acceptable changes for words that blatantly imply a "man's" job and some that are completely neutral. The etymology of man has alot to do with common usage, but certain words do still carry a certain meaning.

In fact I will throw your own argument right back at you. How are the visions you are claiming regarding "man" not any more a biased media product, than a person who views statement of "black power" meaning black dominance? Man never was meant to mean male originally, and later man could also mean male, and presently it has two meanings defined totally by usage... just like any other word with two meanings.

Certain feminists created this concept that when a person says "man" it must be viewed as male or male centered, and it seems you cannot shake it? How does that make you any different from Jug?

When did I ever imply that I cannot "shake" an extremist feminist phraseology? In the past few posts I have said that that ideologies are given power by their phrases (whether it be by the media or by their own adherents).

I don't even feel that I have a traditional feminist ideology because I do not believe that women should view themselves as perpetual victims of a male system.

I'm sorry if I did not make myself clearer, but I do not feel that the word "man" is deragotory on its face. I think I clarified this in other posts on this thread. My point is that those without "power" should have the right to define their lives and exposing certain negative terms ( sometimes minor, sometimes major) as biased (i.e. Negro - meaning "lazy, shiftless, ignorant, etc even if some people didn't automatically conjure up these notions, but many did) should be one of the main points of a social movement.

I don't know what that was, and am curious, could you provide a link? In advance, if it is based on the idea that the general label "industrial man" and "pre-historic man" is sexist in connotation because it downplays the role of women and children, then I'm not going to agree. Again it is based on the idea that the fictional definition of "man" is correct and so must be read a certain way. Just as false as reading feminism and black power to mean something it historically never meant, and not used today for except by "male" extremists

Message 230 Here's the message link. I will not argue for Schraf's position, but I think that the terms "industrial Man" and "pre-historic man" inherently have different and significant ramifications (pre-historic man implies "mankind" whereas industrial man implies males).

Uhhhh... The fat rich cats tended to have fat rich wives that made mounds of money on the backs of working people. In fact they had fat rich kids who lived off of the backs of working people. For every fat rich man you were likely to find more than one rich woman and child.

Heck the fat rich women and kids didn't even have to put in time overseeing anything. They were just raking in the dough.

It seems we are using economic class struggle issues to try and cover/legitimate a false feminist semantic claim.

Your invocation of rich wives and kids only illustrates my argument of the necessary perpetuation of the system.

I agree that my use of "rich white men" also negated the fact that women were in the picture. However, like you said, the women and children benefited from this structure but they were not in control over it (at least not in a strict sense).

I indeed think that most struggles have alot to do with class struggle. Class has alot to do with power. There are many women in power throughout history. Their kids also gained power.

The "right to work" was not an lower class issue. Lower class women always worked. So did their children. The "right to work" came along with the middle class and more education. Same with voting rights. Poor women were not too much concerned with poltics unless it directly concerned them. Just like poor men. Working 16 hour days does that to a person. Workers' rights and women's rights and then black rights stemmed from the same tree. Recognition of work and dignity. That's all it is in essence. Words and definitions play a huge role because they define the struggle, but some people get too caught up in semntics, which I believe your thread is all about.

Edited by Jaderis, : fleshed out class struggle


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Silent H, posted 08-31-2006 6:12 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Silent H, posted 09-01-2006 4:02 AM Jaderis has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 90 (345397)
08-31-2006 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Hyroglyphx
08-30-2006 6:11 PM


Re: Undue criticism
Instead of competing with one another, why not recognize that we both have certain strengths and weaknesses that God/nature bestowed upon us.

I don't think that anybody's taking the position that all human beings are precisely identical.

I'm male. That makes me generally taller than most women. But I'm usually taller than most men, too. When something's on the top shelf, I'm the one that gets asked to grab it a lot, and I'm ok with that.

If one of the women I worked with was a lot taller than me, she'd probably be the one who got asked. People wouldn't ignore her height just because she was a woman and women tend to be shorter than men. Her individual qualifications and traits are what are relevant, not the generalities of her gender. In fact I can't think of a single situation where a decision should begin and end at "what's your sex?" It always should come down to the individual, because the individual is what you get. You don't ever get the generality. Every human being has their own individual strengths and weakenesses, and that's what they should be judged on.

That's the feminist position. It doesn't ignore biological differences between men and women. That would be idiotic! But unlike the position of the sexists, it realizes that the "generalized woman" or the "generalized man" are not individuals that actually exist. So what does it matter what qualities they have? Those are never the qualities you're going to get.

Do you understand what I'm saying?

I also mentioned that it was a matter of statistical fact that men are typically more adept at mathemtaics than women and that women are more linguistic than men. I was shocked to hear that no one knew what I was talking about.

Everybody already knew what you were talking about. We're all shocked by what you don't seem to know - that when you correct for an educational culture that doesn't prize or promote mathematical ability in women, those differences in aptitude largely vanish.

Of course the average female score is lower than the male. Women are always told how bad at math they are? Never mind that, among married couples, the wife is usually the one who balances the checkbook.

This doesn't mean that men are stupid and women are smart, or vice versa, it means exactly what I stated, that we share different strengths and weaknesses and that we compliment one another quite nicely.

I don't see how it means that at all. People have individual strengths and weaknesses. Why is that something we have to link to sex? What possible relevance would sex be on a person's individual qualities? Either they're strong, or they're weak. Smart, or dumb. What's the relevance of their gender to that?

life is all about duality not some androgenous and monotonously drab existence.

Life is about individuality, not assuming that because someone belongs to a group, they're exactly identical to the average member of that group.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-30-2006 6:11 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 80 of 90 (345405)
08-31-2006 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Hyroglyphx
08-30-2006 6:11 PM


Re: Undue criticism
I also mentioned that it was a matter of statistical fact that men are typically more adept at mathemtaics than women and that women are more linguistic than men.

I'll note that your "statistical fact" appears to fact about that part of the population that takes the SAT test, rather than a fact about the population as a whole.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-30-2006 6:11 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5692
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 81 of 90 (345488)
08-31-2006 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Jaderis
08-31-2006 3:23 AM


Re: What's at stake?
Yes massa, I's be quiet so's not to upset you. I's jus keeps mah head down and agrees wit you so's you doesn't get angry.

:frazzled: Wow, that was extremely derogatory. :confused:

So you're essentially saying that black people having more power over their own lives or even having an equal playing field upsets too many white people and should be stopped immediately. What complete and utter horseshit.

How you could derive something so extreme is shockingly ignorant. I guess you also think that "Black Power" in the form of "Black Panthers" was a healthy and productive outlet to combat the EQUALLY stupid "KKK" and "White Power" movement. God bless Martin Luther King who got things done without the ridiculous, counter-productive antics of the Nation of Islam. I understand that some people are easily led under the leftist media swoon over what Black Power or Feminism mean, but from my vantage point they are a slap in the face of true pioneers, such as Martin Luther King, and a slap in the face to all women.

quote:
Its not like they revel in the notion of masculinity, theyrevel in the notion of spinning together masculintiy with feminity so that there is this stagnate, androgenous, gender neutral society.

Again, examples please.

1. "The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist."- (National NOW Times, Jan.1988).

2. "Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage." -Sheila Cronan.

3. "Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession... The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice that shouldn't be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that." -Vivian Gornick, feminist author, University of Illinois, "The Daily Illini," April 25, 1981.

4. "In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them." -Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman.

5. "Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women... We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men... All of history must be re-written in terms of oppression of women. We must go back to ancient female religions like witchcraft." -"The Declaration of Feminism," November, 1971

So, first the attack is on the institution of marriage, as if women were accosted into it in prior times, then when that didn't go over too well, the new goal was to make it so that a woman can marry another woman. Which is it? Is marriage good or bad? Or is it just bad when a man is involved? And then we shouldn't forget how it was once a Feminist tragedy to exploit women in pornography, (which I happen to agree with), but now the new Feminist movement is in complete accord with the pornography industry by claiming that women are empowering their sexual destinies. LOL! Which is it? This is what Feminism has done. Once again, this is not an attack on the freedoms of women. Again, I think the woman's sufferage movement was a wonderful and neccesary thing. But its Feminists, by and large, that took this to the extreme. Its no longer about parity, its about superiority. And anyone that advocates Feminism isn't advocating femininity or female rights any longer, they are beginning to espouse something far beyond its original purpose. Does everyone understand my distinction?

First of all, those companies espousing racist ideologies should be exposed for what they are and changed or destroyed. That is what "working within the system to destroy the system" means.

They should be exposed, of course! So why knowingly work for a company that hates your guts and only gave the job out of governmental pity? What a joke. What a condescending slap in the face. As for "destroying" the company, your tactic is a bit fascist don't you think?

That said, this is why most "Black Power" adherents oppose affirmative action, at least in that sense.

That's the ONLY context that AA exists in. That is the parameters. Everyone seems to be confusing "Equal Opportunity" employing with AA. They are NOT the same thing. An EO employer is giving you their word that they do not discriminate, but rather, hire according to skill. Affirmative Action is governmenatally sanctioned racism that gives people handouts just for being a specific race. LOL! That's not racist???

It implies something that the white establishment is "giving" to black people perpetuating the dependence of black people on others.

Black people and women have been "free" for along time now. Both are doing just fine without being pampered, don't you think? Wouldn't you be a little ticked to know that you got a job just because you are black or female? I would. Now, this doesn't undermine the fact that action taken in the early days wasn't wonderful. It was! God bless the strength of them. But its just synthesized into this monster that has become the very antithesis of what they were seeking in the first place, which is equality! Its no longer about equality. Its about some sort of retribution, as if I had anything to do with the social norms of 50 years ago.

Instead, black people doing for themselves and fighting blatant exclusion is what the fight is really about. Same with women. I don't want to be given a job because I am a woman, but because I am qualified and I educated myself and fought hard to get it. But if I am excluded because I am a woman, you can bet there'll be a fight.

I don't blame you, whatsoever. And the more that you speak, you seem to share the same vision as I do. The only difference being we see the interpretation of Feminism to mean different things.

Many of the people involved in the feminist movement especially, but also in other movements, maintain a victim mentality and that is where affirmative action plays a huge role. It began as an attempt to expose the disparities in education and employment, but became another rut in the dependence cycle because instead of continuing the real fight against inequality, we took what little we got at first and became complacent, continuing to view ourselves as victims of the system (while being a part of the system) instead of fighting for real change.

Exactly! You've worded better in this one paragraph than I've managed to in 4 posts. I recognize that both movements started with the best of intentions. I just think that for some its gotten out of control and the victims are becoming the victimizers against a society that is laregly on their side to begin with.

I agree that any person given a job should meet the requirements for that job. I agree that a 120 pound woman should not be given a combat role that would require her to drag a wounded 200 pound comrade to safety in a combat situation. Same goes for the 120 pound man (Yes they exist!). However, that is not the argument. The argument stems from the COMPLETE exclusion of women from combat duties no matter their strength or ability. There are MANY women who can perform all combat roles (my ex, for example, is 5'11 and weighs about 175 of mostly muscle from lifelong athletics and is currently serving in Iraq. There are many women even larger and/or stronger than her, tho). The argument IS that duties/jobs should be given based on ability, not gender or race or sexuality or religion or lack thereof. The argument is to be able to determine your own future without being told "no" from the get go because you are the wrong gender or race or sexuality or nationality, etc.

Here's the thing: I know that women exist who are capable of doing an excellent job in combat situations. They exist. And I don't want to undermine them. And if they want to be SWAT cops, which some are and do a fine job, more power to them. However, there really are certain jobs in the military which it becomes very impractical that they even be allowed to try out. I will give one such example in the Special Operations community. This is going to sound like a cheezy spinoff of the movie GI Jane, but when I was 23 years old I went to BUD/S which is the Navy Seal indoctrination course. The reason why its impractical is because BUD/S has anywhere from a 65-75% dropout rate due to DOR's and Performance Drops. Now, the average BUD/S student costs the US taxpayers 200,000 a pop, depending on the completion of the program. Imagine how much money it would cost just to get the one or two females who make it through the program a year. Think how many would quit, how many would be dropped for their performance. Its too high of a number to simply try and be Politically Correct over.

This is just to get into the program. The problems grow exponentially with everytime I think of another variable. Its nothing against women, but they are just built differently. And in a high-speed combat situation where you need strength, endurance, speed, etc, the chances of having a woman perform the same role that nature has naturally made a man, are very slim. Its like getting mad at a women because she can't produce sperm or getting mad at a man because he can't birth a child. Its nobody's fault, we are just built differently-- physically and mentally.

I'm not really sure what this means. Men are perfectly capable of being caregivers. What parents are you referring to?

It was a statement about preferences. I would prefer taking a man in combat on average, just like someone would prefer having a female be the daycare provider over most men. Can I really get mad over that? Not really. Does it mean that I'll be a worse caregiver because I'm a man? No, not neccessarily but the perception is borne out of reality. Will a women automatically be less succesful than I on a battlefield? Certainly not. But we can't get angry over people perceptions because they are often grounded in reality, not some supercilious act of bigotry.

Yes, males and females ARE different, but their gender does not define their roles. Their ability and desire do. The differences ARE reason for celebration, but the lives of people should not be defined for them by someone else just because they are "uncomfortable" with the direction that that particular person chose.

Look, if somebody said, "All men must be auto mechanics because that's what men are," I'd be a little perturbed because I'm not very mechanically inclined. What makes men, men, and women, women, is a subtle thing called femininity and masculinity. Femininity obviously has certain characteristics, does it not? And masculine traits have certain characteristsics, do they not? So, if females are taking on predominantly male characteristics or males are taking on predominantly female characteristics, isn't that indicative that either has grown malcontent with their own nature?

Did anyone ever accuse you of being a bigot simply because you are white?

Uh, yes! I don't know how many times I've been called a "Cracker," "Honkey", etc just walking down the street. Isn't that incredibly racist? Obviously. But the ACLU might be inclined to justify their behavior over mine. Because if I saw a Vietnamese man walking down the street and decided to call him a "Gook" I'd probably have an ACLU lawsuit on my hand.

Or did they accuse you of being a bigot because you are a bigot

I've been called a bigot several times on this thread. Its so unfounded to me. Its like, unless I have radical views, I must somehow be a bigot because I'm calling people out on their own bigotted tendencies. I once was affiliated with a group known as the S.H.A.R.P.S which pretty much engaged in clandestine acts against racist organizations or some more overt actions at hardcore shows, beating up the Whitelaced Skinheads. Do I need to be violent against one specific group of racists in order to prove myself? I don't think so. I don't need to be radical at all. All I need to do is be fair, and I think I've expressed that I treat all people fairly, (except Liberal's because they aren't really people) :laugh:

I might be a couple days too late, but I didn't see that title on the main page and I don't care much for trusting radio personalities (of whatever persuasion) to report news accurately. Could you post a link to the actual policy or even just the school or school board's website so I can verify this claim?

Yeah, the board has already changed. As for looking for more articles on it I've looked for more. There isn't any. But that doesn't really surprise me. There was an instance a few days ago where an Afghan man went crazy and ran down 14 people in San Francsico. Why is it underreported? Because he was an Afghan and he ran people over in a Jewish neighborhood. Can't have anyone thinking that two are connected, whether they are or not. That's not a good reason to not report it. If it were the opposite, (A Jew running down Afhgans) it would probably make world headlines. To add: From what details I do know of the case, I doubt that it was anything more than a man going on an indiscriminate rampage.

Do you have any evidence for the assertion that anti-homophobia programs in schools make kids gay?

It doesn't "make" people gay, it opens doors that don't need to be open. There is no way to quantify this, but suppose we were able to know that there are more homosexuals today than ever before. Would it be nature or society that is contributing to the increased levels?

It is possible that in a non-hostile climate more kids feel comfortable asserting the fact that they are gay, but these programs do not a homosexual make.

Kids don't know themselves, least of all, their own sexuality. I think its innapproriate to discuss sex in a school of young, impressionable minds.

In fact I would think that a kid who finally comes to understand what "fag" and "dyke" really mean and, realizing that it means them, will try to hide the fact (even in a less hostile environment) that they are gay to avoid such slurs.

No slurs should be tollerated in school, including the derogatory and mean-spirited epithets "fags," and "dykes." However, if were going to devote precious school time to niceties, then homosexuals will have to take their own advice to heart, don't you think?

Case in point: me. I used those words as a kid, not really knowing what they meant. Once I found out what they meant, I realized that I was a "dyke" and tried to cover it up, even deny it, because I knew that I could be beat up for it just like the girl I knew in 8th grade that was put into the hospital because she dared to come out and "flaunt" her orientation (I don't say sexuality because it wasn't about sex for her at that point...it was who she was without ever having sex).

The word, "Cracker" is just as ambiguous to kids. In fact, its come to be a derogatory term for a white person. But that's only half the story. The term "Cracker" was given by Floridian slaves to denote some of the violent slave owners, "Crackers" meaning (those who crack the whip). Do you think anyone cares about that? You think they are going to hold special meetings for that? No. Likewise, the word "Nigger" is a derogatory term for black people, but who would know any different when in any given rap song the epithet is lovingly tossed around in a candid term of endearment. Do you think classtime should be devoted to such things, complete with pamphlets describing every little thing that we don't like? No. Just tell them not to say these epithets. Every kid knows when its wrong to say these words. Cripes, my (I'm not kidding here), I said the word, "ass" while speaking on the phone the other day and my 2 year old said to me, "Don't say that word, Daddy." LOL! Hey, he was right. I was wrong.

Man, this is a really long post. I can't tackle all of it right now. This will have to do currently. Good post Jaderis. We don't see eye to eye in all aspects but I see that you have good points and I appreciate the dialogue.


“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." —G. K. Chesterton
This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Jaderis, posted 08-31-2006 3:23 AM Jaderis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Jaderis, posted 09-11-2006 2:27 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5692
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 82 of 90 (345493)
08-31-2006 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Jaderis
08-31-2006 4:19 AM


Re: What's at stake?
Shows how little you actually know about homosexuals. Kinda like the line I get from time to time - "So who's the man in your relationship?" Answer: There is no man.

Heh... Well, in my relationship my wife is very assertive, very outspoken, and certainly extroverted, where as I tend to be more reserved and subdued, and occasionally comatosed. Heh. And we jokingly say that she "wears the pants." Now, how did such a sterotype come to be? I mean, on some level sterotypes are at least a little bit rooted in reality. There must be a standard that everybody noticed, whether its right or wrong, for people to behave in their roles. Now, I'm not saying that we have to assign roles, but maybe nature does.

Well, your link showed a program in middle schools, which you seem to be implying is OK. I would now like you to show that 5 year olds are being introduced to matters of homosexual SEX.

I didn't say homosexual sex, I said Gender Neutrality. But if you must know, I think its all a push to gain more acceptance for homosexuality.

Not "Heather has two mommies," or introducing to kids that some other kids have "non-traditional families," but SEX. Exploring cultural differences is and should be a part of elementary curriculum.

Yeah, I'm kind of under the impression that language and mathematics are bit more important than whether or not Timmy gets a funny feeling when he thinks about Billy. I guess I'm just old-fashioned when it comes to school.

Sex usually is not and should not be (except as you say in "upper elementary" where basic sex-ed is usually introduced). If you can show me of any elementary curriculum which tells kids about homosexual sex acts, I will shut my mouth forever on this topic.

Once again, I was referring to Gender Neutrality, but if you must know who is advocating and perpetuating the exposure to young children, its this organization
Obviously, this is very subtle and unassuming. But you'll have to forgive me when I see NAMbLA asserting that "Freedom is indivisible. The liberation of children, women, boy-lovers, and homosexuals in general, can occur only as complementary facets of the same dream."- David Thorstad

I happen to believe that he is right. The only way pedophilia is truly going to be acceptible is by the slow, methodical inculcation that enters the mainstream through the guise of love. This was the horse that homosexuality rode in on and its not far-fetched to assume that something more insidious might rear its ugly face in a similar fashion. And who can compete with light-hearted humor of the token gay guy on damn near every sitcom? Why couldn't it be the same for pedophiles. It can, and I assure you they are seeking the same results, and to do that effectively, they have to piggyback of the Feminist and Homosexual movement. Its all connected and everyone is either blind or indifferent to it.

You can object to it all you want, but you should not be able to dictate what I should do based on your own personal objection as long as I am not hurting anyone (objectively) by doing what you find morally offensive.

Oh no, you're right. You can do that all day long and tell other people to do it if it feels good. But I have the right to counter that and say that it does have moral implications and I can speak out about it if I so desire. Believe me, I understand the plight of homosexuals and homosexual sympathizers. I really do. And I can understand why anyone might be bewildered by someone's opposition towards it. But if I were allowed to give a lengthy treatise on why I feel the way I do on the subject, it might make it easier to understand those objections. I don't hate gay people and I don't view the sin any worse than someone who lies all the time. And it is unfortunate that some denominations incorrectly focus on homosexuals as if their sexual sin were any worse than the premarital sex they just engaged in ten minutes prior to their denunciations of homosexuals.

As for the homophobia, it has mostly always meant the hatred for, not fear of, homosexuals. The "phobia" was/is used to highlight the irrational reaction people had towards gays.

The only thing irrational is calling everyone who simply disagrees that homosexuality is a normal and natural aspect of life, a homophobe. What an unfair slander. Are there homophobes out there? Yes. Some really freaky ones, at that. But calling me a homophobe (not saying you said it about it, I'm generalizing), is innaccurate and its slanderous.

I'm not one of those who says that "everyone is gay in some way," because I do not define others for them. Just as I do not want someone else to define me. But I have been witness to a few cases where someone who appeared to be very anti-gay turned out to be gay and it tortured them to admit it after years of denial and did many very self-destructive things to "prove" that they were straight.

Oh, I believe it. I went over a similar discourse about atheists awhile back. To me, it seemed terribly irrational to spend inordinate amounts of time attempting to destroy the notion of God. To me, that seems like a counter-intuitive point because if something doesn't exist, and you truly believe that God doesn't exist, why spend so much time on that unless somewhere in the dusty recesses of the mind, the claimant fears the very belief they claim to hate? Now, this doesn't refer to all atheists, just the maniacal ones. Similarly, anyone like the losers at "Godehatesfags.com" follow people around the country to harrass them. I have no problem with picketing and protesting to be heard, and not everyone that does it is radical, but when it becomes an unhealthy obssession, like following people around the country, one has to wonder if its actually themsleves that they hate and that they would go to great lengths to prove to themselves that they don't hate homosexual tendencies.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: There are extremists for every point of view.

Certainly.

Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : No reason given.

Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : edit to add


“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." —G. K. Chesterton
This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Jaderis, posted 08-31-2006 4:19 AM Jaderis has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3992 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 83 of 90 (345640)
09-01-2006 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Jaderis
08-31-2006 7:58 AM


Re: feminist control of language
I don't see how you can say this...

However, my original point had not alot to do with arguments within movements, but with the interpretations of those "outside" the movements.

... which I should say I do agree with... and then say...

I also think that certain other historical uses of man should be changed (i.e. chairman, fireman, policeman, congressman, etc). There are acceptable changes for words that blatantly imply a "man's" job and some that are completely neutral. The etymology of man has alot to do with common usage, but certain words do still carry a certain meaning.

The "meaning" as you call it, was derived by people "outside" the creation of that language. I am fine with using "woman" or "person" at the end of those if a person wants that, or my knowledge of that person suggests they might want that, it's just a title after all. But the idea that there is an implication is based solely on recent cultural pressure to view it that way. It really means police person, fire person, chair person. It is not just the etymology heading back 100s of years one has to look at. That really was how it was used in language up till recently, when pogroms of language were introduced to support a specific feminist interpretation.

And again I am going to call you back to your own argument. I people outside the feminist and black power movements come to view those terms as meaning something and so feel there is an implication, why can't they make that claim?... regardless of etymology and current usage.

When did I ever imply that I cannot "shake" an extremist feminist phraseology?

When you say certain terms "still carry a certain meaning", when they actually don't beyond feminist revisionist history of language, I get the above impression.

That said you have greatly clarified your position which is not as radical in nature as some within the semantic feminist movement. Can you see how your position may be viewed as a point on a gradient regarding the use of man? Extreme feminists on one end, you pretty close to center, me on the other side of close to center, and perhaps some extreme male sexists on the far end pretending there never was sexist us of language at all?

Here's the message link. I will not argue for Schraf's position

Thanks. The study is not only pretty old, it also looks pretty flawed. I'm not going to call on you to defend it or her position. I will say that I disagree with your stated position that Industrial man "inherently have different and significant ramifications".

I'm not sure what evidence could be brought to bear on that, but I guess I'd like to see something. I see how you can claim that for yourself. That is you FEEL an inherent weighted difference. But what about those who don't?

Workers' rights and women's rights and then black rights stemmed from the same tree. Recognition of work and dignity. That's all it is in essence. Words and definitions play a huge role because they define the struggle, but some people get too caught up in semntics, which I believe your thread is all about.

I think we are in severe AGREEMENT on this point. Heheheh.


holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Jaderis, posted 08-31-2006 7:58 AM Jaderis has not yet responded

    
joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 84 of 90 (347424)
09-07-2006 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Hyroglyphx
08-30-2006 12:00 PM


Re: What's at stake?
You don't have any evidence whatsoever.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-30-2006 12:00 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 1598 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 85 of 90 (348029)
09-11-2006 2:27 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Hyroglyphx
08-31-2006 4:09 PM


Re: What's at stake?
Sorry it's taken me so long to respond, but my internet went kaput :mad:

Wow, that was extremely derogatory.

I'm sorry. That was a little extreme, but your implication that adding to black power (lower case, so I assumed you meant it in blacks having more power than they did and not "Black Power") only increases the animosity between the races and was, therefore, a bad idea just brought out the fighter in me.

I guess you also think that "Black Power" in the form of "Black Panthers" was a healthy and productive outlet to combat the EQUALLY stupid "KKK" and "White Power" movement. God bless Martin Luther King who got things done without the ridiculous, counter-productive antics of the Nation of Islam. I understand that some people are easily led under the leftist media swoon over what Black Power or Feminism mean, but from my vantage point they are a slap in the face of true pioneers, such as Martin Luther King, and a slap in the face to all women.

Actually I think that the philosophy of Black Power has alot of merit. Just like in many things, some individuals who used the philosophy for their own aims corrupted the original intent. However, not all of the "criminal elements" within the Black Panther Party were even real members of the party. There are declassified documents showing widespread CIA and FBI infiltration of the groups (among many others) and a huge disinformation campaign often turning members on each other (including lifelong friends) and government agents perpetrating or inciting many of the violent incidents attributed to the group as a whole.

But I digress. As for the "outlet to combat the KKK and White Power movement," I think you have the intent wrong. As I previously stated, the philosophy of Black Power originated as a way for black people to claim power themselves through mass organizing, education and self-defense. In many ways it was a response to the degrading treatment of blacks by those groups, but it was not set up as an "outlet to combat" them in the sense that you seem to be using the term.

I would agree that Dr. King was grieved at much of the violence because he knew that violence does not correct violence, but he was respected and loved by just about everyone in the black communities, including those who did not adhere to non-violence and he loved and respected (some of) them as well. Alot of the most major and seemingly seneseless violence occurred after Dr. King's death (beginning with the numerous riots that very night). This is important, to me at least, because of a story I once read.

In Stokely Carmichael's autobiography ready for Revolution he describes the march from Hernando, AL to Montgomery which was organized to complete the "March Against Fear" originally undertaken by James Meredith (the same young man who had integrated Ol' Miss a few years earlier)in 1966, but was cut short when he was shot and nearly killed. Anyways, at the very start of the march, a police officer rushed the front line and blew past Carmichael to knock down Dr. King. Stokely (who had never before strayed from non-violence even when beaten and gassed) moved to go after the cop, but was held back by Dr. King. Later that night, much discussion was had about the responsibility of the non-violence movement and Stokely eventually said "Dr. King you can tell those good white folks out there that if they want non-violence to stay alive, they had better not touch you. Better not lay a hand on you. Because, Dr. King, the moment they touch you is the moment non-violence is finished, done." He goes on to say in the book that Dr. King understood that and accepted it.

This says to me that while he may not have condoned the violence done in response to his death and beyond he would have understood it.

In addition, much of the "rift" between Dr. King and the more "hot-headed" radical youth was hyped by the media and even by people supposedly within the movement (Roy Wilkins of the NAACP, for example, mouthing off to the media about tension in the movement and the possible abandonment of non-violence by Dr. King when armed men were allowed in to provide security for the organized registration of blacks (a 4/5 majority, none of whom could previously vote) in Lowndes County, AL in 1965).

1. "The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist."- (National NOW Times, Jan.1988).

2. "Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage." -Sheila Cronan.

3. "Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession... The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice that shouldn't be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that." -Vivian Gornick, feminist author, University of Illinois, "The Daily Illini," April 25, 1981.

4. "In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them." -Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman.

5. "Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women... We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men... All of history must be re-written in terms of oppression of women. We must go back to ancient female religions like witchcraft." -"The Declaration of Feminism," November, 1971

While I agree that these statements illustrate extreme sentiments within feminism (with which I do not agree), none of these quotes supports your original assertion that "they revel in the notion of spinning together masculintiy with feminity so that there is this stagnate, androgenous, gender neutral society."

So, again, examples please.

So why knowingly work for a company that hates your guts and only gave the job out of governmental pity? What a joke. What a condescending slap in the face.

Because I should be able to work wherever I am qualified to work whether they "hate my guts" or not.

As for "destroying" the company, your tactic is a bit fascist don't you think?

Not really. And I did say "changed or destroyed." If a comapny or a government or what have you is unwilling to change its hateful and discriminatory policies and/or actions against the will of the people, they (the institution or even just the leadership) should be overthrown. One of the ways to try to change the system is by working within it in order to more readily expose these policies and be in a position to help enact these changes or overthrow if necessary.

That's the ONLY context that AA exists in. That is the parameters. Everyone seems to be confusing "Equal Opportunity" employing with AA. They are NOT the same thing. An EO employer is giving you their word that they do not discriminate, but rather, hire according to skill. Affirmative Action is governmenatally sanctioned racism that gives people handouts just for being a specific race. LOL! That's not racist???

I already said that I do not agree with AA, for the most part. I also said in the part you quoted that most Black Power adherents do not, either for the very reasons you seem to. I wouldn't call AA racist, except in the sense that some of those who agree with it seem to imply that women and minorities "need" the extra help because of some inherent weakness. I do think, and I've said this before, that the enaction of AA policies was beneficial in exposing the disparities in employment and in some areas is still helpful today, but for the most part it is unnecessary at best and insulting at worst.

As for EO, what a crock. I live in NYC and I can't tell you how many potential landlords have flat out told me that they do not rent to blacks or hispanics (those are the only two excluded races that have been expressed to me personally) and even a couple who have said they do not rent to "homosexuals" obviously not knowing that I was one. These people even told me that I could not get a roommate of that description. I've also previously worked for some employers in the restaurant industry who have told me that no matter how well a Mexican or a Haitian or a Bangladeshi speaks English or how able they are that they won't put one on the floor. That they belong in the kitchen or the dishroom. "Equal Opportunity" employers, all. I haven't experienced this in my current profession so far, but I'm sure it's out there.

Exactly! You've worded better in this one paragraph than I've managed to in 4 posts. I recognize that both movements started with the best of intentions. I just think that for some its gotten out of control and the victims are becoming the victimizers against a society that is laregly on their side to begin with.

Thank you :)

And while I agree with you to some extent, I think that some people (the new victims of which you speak) are just angry that we haven't taken what has been "given" to us and shut the hell up about it and they are crying foul. Not everyone who has a beef with the direction of the movements, mind you, but definitely some. Some people feel that the movement should "slow down" so as not to ask for too much too soon (including many within the movements), but that goes back to the whole "massa" bit I did in that we should not be asking, period. We should take what is ours (meaning our rights) and not stop to ask if it's OK with everybody else. Of course, this has to be done in a constructive way and many are not doing so and are "out of control" as you say.

This is going to sound like a cheezy spinoff of the movie GI Jane, but when I was 23 years old I went to BUD/S which is the Navy Seal indoctrination course. The reason why its impractical is because BUD/S has anywhere from a 65-75% dropout rate due to DOR's and Performance Drops. Now, the average BUD/S student costs the US taxpayers 200,000 a pop, depending on the completion of the program. Imagine how much money it would cost just to get the one or two females who make it through the program a year. Think how many would quit, how many would be dropped for their performance. Its too high of a number to simply try and be Politically Correct over.

So we should just automatically exclude them because many will dropout (according to you most men drop out, too) and that it will cost the taxpayers too much money??? Holy crap, I can't believe I just read that!

This is just to get into the program. The problems grow exponentially with everytime I think of another variable. Its nothing against women, but they are just built differently.

Men are built differently from one another as well.

And in a high-speed combat situation where you need strength, endurance, speed, etc, the chances of having a woman perform the same role that nature has naturally made a man, are very slim.

But not none. Why not give those women who can meet the demands of the job the opportunity to meet them? What's so hard about that?

Its like getting mad at a women because she can't produce sperm or getting mad at a man because he can't birth a child. Its nobody's fault, we are just built differently-- physically and mentally

Asking a man to birth a child is so vastly different from a woman performing a demanding combat role and you know it. One can be trained for given the right starting characteristics, which some women possess. The other is just science fiction (so far :) )

It was a statement about preferences. I would prefer taking a man in combat on average, just like someone would prefer having a female be the daycare provider over most men. Can I really get mad over that? Not really.

Maybe you can't, but I sure can. You can prefer to take a man into combat all you want, but your personal preference (or even the preferences of men in general) should not automatically exclude a woman. I also would like to know statistics on the preference of female childcare providers. I agree that most are women, but I think it has more to do with machismo than outside preference in many cases (kinda like the ridicule many heap on male nurses, secretaries, etc) and probably lack of desire in other cases.

Does it mean that I'll be a worse caregiver because I'm a man? No, not neccessarily but the perception is borne out of reality. Will a women automatically be less succesful than I on a battlefield? Certainly not. But we can't get angry over people perceptions because they are often grounded in reality, not some supercilious act of bigotry

No it's not borne out of reality, but out of the historical roles assigned to gender. The anger is directed more at that than people's perceptions. Perceptions can be changed. Say women are allowed in major combat roles tomorrow. Can you imagine that 100 years from now that people will perceive infantry as a "man's job?" Except for a few holdouts, probably not. If more men entered (notice I didn't say "allowed" this time?) traditionally female jobs, do you think that Robert DeNiro's disdain for Ben Stiller's profession in Meet the Parents will be as understood 100 years from now? Just think, most schoolteachers were female at the beginning of the last century. Now, the word schoolteacher does not automatically conjure up a young unmarried woman or old schoolmarm. Many men are teachers. A doctor is no longer assumed to be a man, nor is a senator or a judge or an astronaut or even an athlete. Think about that in terms of "perceptions borne from reality." Yes, the reality of the times, but not the reality of what could be.

It doesn't "make" people gay, it opens doors that don't need to be open. There is no way to quantify this, but suppose we were able to know that there are more homosexuals today than ever before. Would it be nature or society that is contributing to the increased levels?

As we don't know and can only speculate, I would say numbers, yes. Percentage, no. Unless you want to count the fact that more people are openly gay than before due to less hostile environments (In this country at least, most of the hostility developed in the last century). However, I would say that before alot of society's knowledge or understanding (this was and still is a totally foreign concept to many), many homosexuals lived their lives without being recognized for what they were and there is no way to know who was gay or not.

The doors that are opened allow young people to recognize themselves and allow others to treat homosexuals with respect, rather than hate.

Kids don't know themselves, least of all, their own sexuality. I think its innapproriate to discuss sex in a school of young, impressionable minds.

Sex is not, however, discussed with 5 year olds. Homosexual or otherwise. I knew I was different in elementary school and even had little kid infatuations over girlfriends of mine, but sex, of course, never entered my mind until I was a teenager, just like everyone else. It was then that I as able to define what I was. Sex with another girl was never presented to me as an option, but I knew that is what I desired. I never saw a movie with lesbians, never read a book about them, never met one (that I knew of), but I knew that I was one even before I ever heard the word lesbian.

Kids do not hear about gay people and say "Well, gosh, that sounds great. I wanna be one!" It just doesn't happen that way. These programs promote respect for and an understanding for people who are different from them (or who are them in some cases). That is what most people who are against them seem to be afraid of. The claim of "making people gay" is just a fear tactic used to manipulate more people to be against them.

No slurs should be tollerated in school, including the derogatory and mean-spirited epithets "fags," and "dykes." However, if were going to devote precious school time to niceties, then homosexuals will have to take their own advice to heart, don't you think?

You seem to have skimmed over the part in one of my previous posts where I said that the usage of the terms "fag" and "dyke" and "queer" are perfectly acceptable to most fagdykequeers when used in a non-malicious manner.

And, yes, no slurs should be tolerated in schools, but all too often the antigay slurs and even the beatings are overlooked by the staff. It's somewhat better now than it was 10-20+ years ago, but it still happens

That last bit in your post about crackers and niggers is mostly answered by my bit about fagdykequeers, so I won't reiterate.

Man, this is a really long post. I can't tackle all of it right now. This will have to do currently. Good post Jaderis. We don't see eye to eye in all aspects but I see that you have good points and I appreciate the dialogue.

Thank you. No we don't see eye to eye alot of the time, but I also appreciate a good debate and your posts often give me an opportunity to think of how to defend my beliefs and I most definitely appreciate that. :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-31-2006 4:09 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Silent H, posted 09-11-2006 8:29 AM Jaderis has responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3992 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 86 of 90 (348081)
09-11-2006 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Jaderis
09-11-2006 2:27 AM


Re: What's at stake?
I knew I was different in elementary school and even had little kid infatuations over girlfriends of mine, but sex, of course, never entered my mind until I was a teenager, just like everyone else.

I'm sorry but most kids engage in sexual play and fantasy from very young ages. That a kid may not be given knowledge or language skills to express or identify it as well as teens and adults is not to say that they do not have them. That's what infatuations and things like "playing doctor" were about.

It is only in trying to sterilize our language about children, to create a myth of "purity", that it is said not to be sexual.

I do not understand when people think it is appropriate for children to be taught about respecting other sexualities, then deny more conservative people suggesting children should not, when both are agreeing children aren't sexual and should not be exposed to sexual concepts when young.

It seems to me the conservatives are more consistent in their argument, even if I disagree with their position.


holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Jaderis, posted 09-11-2006 2:27 AM Jaderis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Jaderis, posted 09-11-2006 4:27 PM Silent H has responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 342 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 87 of 90 (348088)
09-11-2006 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Hyroglyphx
08-29-2006 5:49 PM


Re: What's at stake?
quote:
Of course not. Its not like they revel in the notion of masculinity, theyrevel in the notion of spinning together masculintiy with feminity so that there is this stagnate, androgenous, gender neutral society.

Exactly WHO revels in this notion?

Provide names, please.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-29-2006 5:49 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 1598 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 88 of 90 (348154)
09-11-2006 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Silent H
09-11-2006 8:29 AM


Re: What's at stake?
I'm sorry but most kids engage in sexual play and fantasy from very young ages. That a kid may not be given knowledge or language skills to express or identify it as well as teens and adults is not to say that they do not have them. That's what infatuations and things like "playing doctor" were about.

I never said I was unaware of sex or that kids in general are not or should not be. In fact, I'll go one step further and say that some kids are hyperaware and/or have a very strong sexual nature from a very early age.

What I meant by my statement was that sexual desire or sex as something applicable to me never entered into the picture until I was a teenager. My infatuations were more like "I wanna be around this girl alot, but in a different way than my other girlfriends" and had nothing sexual about them until I entered adolescence. Of course, I played "doctor" and other types of fantasy play, but, IIRC, they were more outlets for curiosity and not sexual (as in desire) in nature.

I don't know how much other kids were taught by their parents, but I was a very curious child and my parents were quite forthcoming in their answers to my many questions. I understood conceptually what sex was, with greater understanding as I progressed towards adolescence, but it wasn't applicable to me until I was older and the hormones started kicking in.

My parents did a great job in that respect, but I know that not all parents do the same for their kids (granted, not every kid pummels their parents with the kinds of questions I did :) ). I don't think the elementary schools should necessarily pick up the slack in regards to detailed sexuality education (except maybe starting in 4-5th grade especially with the trend of earlier onset puberty we are seeing), but the "When two people love each other they..." kind and "Heather has Two Mommies" kind in the health and social science classes seem like an appropriate way to introduce these concepts to them. (For anyone who wants to jump down my throat regarding "Two Mommies," think about this. I never read fairy tales as a child and automatically jumped to "Sleeping Beauty and Prince Charming are gonna have sex now," did you? I don't think that 5 year olds are going to assume sex in any of these types of stories, either.)

I am not against all sexuality education for younger kids, but, like many, I feel that the education should be age appropriate and voluntary (meaning for the parents).

It seems to me the conservatives are more consistent in their argument, even if I disagree with their position.

Where was I inconsistent? I never said that children are not sexual or unaware of sex, so how is my argument inconsistent? How is the "liberal" argument inconsistent? Even if I had said anything of the sort, how am I a spokeswoman for the liberal camp?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Silent H, posted 09-11-2006 8:29 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Silent H, posted 09-12-2006 3:33 AM Jaderis has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3992 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 89 of 90 (348301)
09-12-2006 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Jaderis
09-11-2006 4:27 PM


Re: What's at stake?
Last things first...

How is the "liberal" argument inconsistent? Even if I had said anything of the sort, how am I a spokeswoman for the liberal camp?

I'm not saying you are a spokesperson for the liberal camp. However you are clearly arguing for educational policy (and I might say ideology) that is "left" or "liberal" compared to say Jug's position.

Liberal arguments on this subject tend to be for educating children, and that means promoting the education of OTHER people's children, that mandates tolerance for certain sexualities. Yet at the same time embrace allowing the same bigotry or exclusion for other sexual possibilities. And in this case you seem to argue that details of sexual conduct should not be taught because of age appropriateness.

Conservatives argue that parents should be the arbiters of what is appropriate for their children, and that they don't believe what you find tolerable should be taught as tolerable to their children. That is actually pretty consistent in comparison to the above. They treat all alternative sexualities as worthy of exclusion, and leave it up to the parent to give such instruction.

What I meant by my statement was that sexual desire or sex as something applicable to me never entered into the picture until I was a teenager.

I'm sorry, but after describing your own history you added "just like everyone else". If this had been purely personal anecdote I wouldn't have said anything at all.

Sexual desire definitely would have been applicable to me and many other children I knew throughout childhood. We did not have a language or skills or experience to understand the full meaning at the time, but that was true of a lot of things besides sex.

they were more outlets for curiosity and not sexual (as in desire) in nature.

This is exactly what I am talking about... and fits in well with the thread's topic. Outlet for "curiosity"? Its exploring sexuality, it's sexual curiosity. Its the same drive that makes me want to play "doctor" with grown up girls today.

Only its not polite to talk about our childhoods like that. Kids must be viewed as some sort of sexless, "innocent" drones that turn into sex machines when the hormones hit. Thus the same play in teens and adults is sex, when kids its "curiosity" and "exploration". When it has to do with sex, its sex.

Hormones only drive people to explore faster.

I never read fairy tales as a child and automatically jumped to "Sleeping Beauty and Prince Charming are gonna have sex now," did you? I don't think that 5 year olds are going to assume sex in any of these types of stories, either.

Given that children aren't told about sex why would they? But on some level many kids get that SOMETHING important and exciting is underlying what is going on. When I heard the above story (or others like it) I understood there would be kissing and holding each other, and imagined very tight holding and something... something exciting... something else that I wasn't sure. Something I might want and I would become aroused.

I didn't know what it was at the time because I did not have the education nor the language. But I can sure as heck look back from where I am now to recognize what was going on in my body and what I wanted.

Maybe this isn't the same for you, but I've met plenty of people for which it was true.


holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Jaderis, posted 09-11-2006 4:27 PM Jaderis has not yet responded

    
xXGEARXx
Member (Idle past 3293 days)
Posts: 41
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 90 of 90 (348310)
09-12-2006 4:59 AM


ugh...
Tired of all this different races crap. Human race, that's all folks. Different cultures, not different races. Gnome proves it. Move on or be prepared for a sound beating..lol..
  
Prev12345
6
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019