Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   rape culture/victim culture
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 196 of 209 (197494)
04-07-2005 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by nator
04-04-2005 11:43 AM


The macho bull fighter and the oven.
I was told this story once by my mother that I believe is germane to the subject.
A celebrated reknown bull fighter was having a party at his home. All his guest where there celebrating his recent triumphs in the Bull ring. The guest noticed that the host was missing and went into the kitchen to find the bull fighter with a apron on tending some pastry in the oven. The guest cried out to the living room "Come everyone,, come see Ramone!! Come see Ramone is cooking like a woman." All the guest piled into the kitchen to see the magnificent macho bull fighter with a apron and oven mitts standing over muffins. And in a confident and clear voice Ramone said. " I am cooking like a man, because I am a man and what I do, I do as a man." My mother told me this story because I was teased by some mean kids when they saw me sewing . It stuck with me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by nator, posted 04-04-2005 11:43 AM nator has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 197 of 209 (197505)
04-07-2005 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by macaroniandcheese
04-07-2005 1:42 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-07-2005 1:42 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by arachnophilia, posted 04-07-2005 5:28 PM crashfrog has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 198 of 209 (197522)
04-07-2005 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by nator
04-07-2005 8:47 AM


Oh, so your philosophical opinions about how we use the words "sex" and "gender" are "objective reality" now?
no. not a philosophical opinion.
sex = objective reality
gender = subjective and based on cultural bias.
Also, what "evidence" is crashfrog "throwing away"?
considering we were talking about something completely fictionally, i would consider the intentions of the producers, artist, and director to be substantial evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by nator, posted 04-07-2005 8:47 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by crashfrog, posted 04-07-2005 6:41 PM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 199 of 209 (197523)
04-07-2005 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by crashfrog
04-07-2005 4:19 PM


Re: consolidated response.
If the two of you are too lazy to look up an accepted dictionary definition of a word
hi. look up in the thread a bit. i believe i posted the definition, including the fact that it is explicitly linked to biological sex.
perhaps you should look up the accept dictionary definition. you're using it in a sense that is not correct in any area accept womens' studies classes.
and it's not that i don't understand. i've taken those classes. i think they're wrong, and incredibly biased.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by crashfrog, posted 04-07-2005 4:19 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by crashfrog, posted 04-07-2005 6:40 PM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 200 of 209 (197524)
04-07-2005 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by nator
04-07-2005 2:37 PM


problematizing.
Oh my God, I am so glad I mostly stayed away from the humanities.
hahahahahaha. best post ever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by nator, posted 04-07-2005 2:37 PM nator has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 201 of 209 (197541)
04-07-2005 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by arachnophilia
04-07-2005 5:28 PM


Re: consolidated response.
i believe i posted the definition, including the fact that it is explicitly linked to biological sex.
What I still wonder is how you missed the second definition, which you quoted, which explicitly referred to the qualities culturally associated with sex.
Given that we were talking about a creature whose biological genitals are never seen, if it even has them, and given that you were apparently aware of both definitions of the word "gender", why did you assume that I meant the first definition, which obviously doesn't apply, instead of the second, especially when I explained to you in subsequent posts which definition I meant?
Or do you deny that you posted these words?
quote:
Main Entry: 1gender
Pronunciation: 'jen-d&r
Function: noun
2 a : SEX b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex
How stupid do you think I am, Arach? Did you really think that you could post a definition of a word that would confirm my usage of the word and that I wouldn't notice? Maybe the better question is, how stupid are you to have apparently done exactly that?
you're using it in a sense that is not correct in any area accept womens' studies classes.
...and, apparently, whatever dictionary you just used.
Look, I don't know what to say to you. Apparently you can't be bothered to read dictionary definitions as you copy and paste them into messages. Why should I be bothered to have a conversation with someone as lazy as you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by arachnophilia, posted 04-07-2005 5:28 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-07-2005 10:53 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 206 by arachnophilia, posted 04-07-2005 11:00 PM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 202 of 209 (197542)
04-07-2005 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by arachnophilia
04-07-2005 5:23 PM


considering we were talking about something completely fictionally, i would consider the intentions of the producers, artist, and director to be substantial evidence.
Considering we were talking about how images would be recieved by an audience, those intentions, which would not have been avaliable to the audience, are not substantial evidence of any kind.
But, once again, you've demonstrated that you missed the entire point of what we were talking about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by arachnophilia, posted 04-07-2005 5:23 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by arachnophilia, posted 04-07-2005 11:03 PM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 203 of 209 (197544)
04-07-2005 6:43 PM


Can we close this thread, already? We're terminally off-topic, and while I would just as soon disengage from Arach, he's given every indication that he's going to use my abstention to make me look like an idiot with his disingenuous, dishonest charactures of my position.

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by arachnophilia, posted 04-07-2005 11:05 PM crashfrog has not replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 204 of 209 (197583)
04-07-2005 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by nator
04-07-2005 2:37 PM


i'm so glad i never really took a feminism class.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by nator, posted 04-07-2005 2:37 PM nator has not replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 205 of 209 (197584)
04-07-2005 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by crashfrog
04-07-2005 6:40 PM


Re: consolidated response.
look. you said earlier that when you said gender, you meant that other people held this opinion and you did not and this is inherent in the definition of the word gender. and now, once again, you are backtracking and disagreeing with yourself by changing your argument. i agree that this thread should be closed so we can hereafter ignore your idiocy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by crashfrog, posted 04-07-2005 6:40 PM crashfrog has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 206 of 209 (197585)
04-07-2005 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by crashfrog
04-07-2005 6:40 PM


Re: consolidated response.
What I still wonder is how you missed the second definition, which you quoted, which explicitly referred to the qualities culturally associated with sex.
quote:
including the fact that it is explicitly linked to biological sex.
yes. hey look, we're saying the same thing. the only thing is one of does not understand that it starts with biology, an objective reality, and is then applied at a social level; how that particular sex is treated. IT DOES NOT GO IN REVERSE.
aside from that, it's culturally relative, as much as i hate to use that concept. what OUR culture associates with men may not be what another culture does.
it's about analyzing the biases inherent in a particular society. this is how women behave. this is how men behave, from an outside perspective. so you can talk about certain gender biases. you, on the other hand, are STARTING with that gender bias, and using it to interpret something else.
since the definition hinges on the sex on the thing in general, applying a gender to something sexless is pure idiocy. tell me, what behavioural, cultural, or psychological traits are associated with androgyny in alien culture? hmm?
like i said, it's an invalid technique.
How stupid do you think I am, Arach?
i don't believe i can answer that honestly without an admin stepping in.
Did you really think that you could post a definition of a word that would confirm my usage of the word and that I wouldn't notice? Maybe the better question is, how stupid are you to have apparently done exactly that?
i dunno, since you are incapable of following logical order in sentance...
Why should I be bothered to have a conversation with someone as lazy as you?
why should be bothered to have a conversation with someone who is continually condescending and mean inspite of their own obvious ignorance?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by crashfrog, posted 04-07-2005 6:40 PM crashfrog has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 207 of 209 (197586)
04-07-2005 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by crashfrog
04-07-2005 6:41 PM


Considering we were talking about how images would be recieved by an audience, those intentions, which would not have been avaliable to the audience, are not substantial evidence of any kind.
have you seen alien? did you see it when it came out in 1979? how do you know how audiences received it, never having watched it yourself.
i will admit that SOME saw the adult alien as male. but i've only heard this interpretation from specific subset of people. never fans, never idle viewer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by crashfrog, posted 04-07-2005 6:41 PM crashfrog has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 208 of 209 (197588)
04-07-2005 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by crashfrog
04-07-2005 6:43 PM


Can we close this thread, already?
hah.
and while I would just as soon disengage from Arach, he's given every indication that he's going to use my abstention to make me look like an idiot with his disingenuous, dishonest charactures of my position
did you, or did you not argue that a female pompilidae is "culturally male" because it "impregnates" another species?
if i'm making you look like an idiot, it's because your position is one of idiocy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by crashfrog, posted 04-07-2005 6:43 PM crashfrog has not replied

AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 209 of 209 (197590)
04-07-2005 11:11 PM


Oh good grief
Some people need a long nap.
Say goodnight Gracie.

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024