Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The word Man is inherently confusing/sexist? Oh the huMANity!
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 90 (344505)
08-28-2006 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by crashfrog
08-26-2006 8:21 AM


What's at stake?
Indeed, and that's why the usage is sexist. It's male-normative, clearly implying that a generic person is male, and that a female is nothing more than a special case of being a person. Male is normal, Female is "other." We find the exact same philosophy made explicit in ancient Greece, for instance.
For whatever reason this commonality is found in virtually all civilizations both ancient and extant. Righ or wrong, its a custom and one that is engrained within us. Does it really matter? My wife wouldn't care and it appears that most women don't seem to be too terribly offended by this. It would be one thing if male's were once called Momen and females called Women, then all of a sudden, somebody dropped the "mo" prefix to establish male dominance and that females are some lesser derivatives of males. But that isn't what happened. So, really, what's the problem?
I dunno. Maybe you guys don't have much experience with feminism and feminist criticism, and so the terms and constructs I'm referring to are unfamiliar.
I think the woman's sufferage movement was a legitimate cause and I'm pleased that women are allowed their given human rights. What I don't like is this feminist movement that at the core is ironically about as anti-feminine if not more than the very people they espouse are principle offenders. Modern feminism isn't about parity with its male counterpart, its become about female superiority which is hilarious because the most outspoken ones are about as effeminate as Jesse Ventura.
When I say "male normative", do you understand what that means? Because it should be impossible to look at the usage of "Man" to refer to all humanity and not see the very sexist assumptions about humanity and the role of women that are loaded into that usage.
A "progressive" school in Oakland is trying to abolish the demarcation from males and females by confusing little boys and little girls about their own sexuality, their own identity, their own selves with this gender norming movement. The idea is to make males and females infuse so that no one notices the differences between males and females, similar to their hopes of making a society that is color blind. This is just silly because its going to have the opposite effect and its going to have dire consequences. Under the tutelage of these California pop-psychologists these kids are going to be very confused when they enter society and see that men and women, including their own mommy's and daddy's, act differently because they are physically wired differently. I mean, from top to bottom this whole idea is just stupidity.

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 08-26-2006 8:21 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by crashfrog, posted 08-29-2006 12:23 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 90 (344731)
08-29-2006 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by crashfrog
08-29-2006 12:23 AM


Re: What's at stake?
I'm curious why people have such a hard-on about avoid the word "people". Like, it's a perfectly normal word, perfectly inclusive. Completely lacks any kind of gender loading at all.
I don't have a problem with using people. I only say differently when I use in its stead, "mankind," which is being inclusive to male and female. I think I normally state 'people' if I intend on being inclusive to both sexes. To me this just seems like a non-issue. I mean, males need females, and females need males. There is something bueatiful in that duality, so why are some people out to eradicate our subtle differences by trying to fuse them together into one androgenous lump? Femininity is bueatiful. Masculinity is bueatiful. So why converge them so that they lose all meaning?
"People." Perfectly servicable word that means exactly what you all proclaim "man" to mean, and it doesn't, under any definition or context, mean "males." Is there some reason why you all are so adverse to the use of this word?
I'm not adverse to you or I using the word, 'people.' What I am adverse towards is you telling me that me using the word 'mankind' inclusively is somehow sexist. That's ridiculous to me. I didn't invent the rules and I didn't invent the words. It is what it is and the way I'm using it is in context with proper English.
Ah, right. All feminists are feminazis who don't shave their pits. My guess? You have no idea what is being discussed when people say "feminism."
I see 'Feminism" as being anti-feminine. I see Feminism as trying to espouse a more masculine presence within feminity, which is horribly ironic to me. If I went around espousing "masculinity" I would be referred to as a sexist. Why? If the goal is really about equality, then why do they get to espouse feminism but I can't espouse maleism? Why does a black man get to espouse "black power" without anyone batting an eyelash, but a white guy can't espouse "white power?" If its all about equality, then make it equal across the board, no?
That's what I'm talking about. Its not about equality, its about domination. Its about reversing the roles. That's why I don't like it. Affirmative Action tries to use racism in order to combat racism and feminsts use sexism to combat sexism. Those are obviously oxymorons and are completely counter-proudctive ways of achieving their stated goals.
quote:
A "progressive" school in Oakland is trying to abolish the demarcation from males and females by confusing little boys and little girls about their own sexuality, their own identity, their own selves with this gender norming movement.
Not what I was talking about, but do you have a link or something? Because this sounds like BS.
Gender Neutrality
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : No reason given.
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : tried to put html tags. Oh well.
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : tags

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by crashfrog, posted 08-29-2006 12:23 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by crashfrog, posted 08-29-2006 4:30 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 71 by Jaderis, posted 08-31-2006 1:37 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 90 (344823)
08-29-2006 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by crashfrog
08-29-2006 4:30 PM


Re: What's at stake?
So, like I suspected, you don't know anything about feminism. Can you show me a single prominent feminist writer who has asserted that feminism means women being more like men? Any at all?
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.
"Black power" is about making it equal; i.e. rectifying a power disparity by "adding" to black power. Adding to white power, as you promote, makes it even more unequal.
That's the dumbest and most childish way of handling an already disparaging problem by fighting fire with fire. But adding black power it doesn't place white power on a level playing field. It just keeps increasing the animosity. Then, normal people who could care less about race get caught in the mix and are lumped together by virtue of association, by what color they are, i.e racism combating racism. This is why affirmative Action doesn't work.
"You don't feel like you can get a job because of your race. Instead, we'll just give you a job because of your race, not because you're qualified."
What?? What a slap in the face. Why would you want to work for a company that you suspected espoused racist ideologies to begin with? Its just silly to me.
Pretend that one of your children has 3 apples, and the other has 4. The one with 3 might argue that's unfair, and you would be right to agree. So what's the fair solution? Give both children an apple? How does that make any sense? No, you give one apple to the child with less and nothing to the child with more. He might complain that's "unfair" but he's just being a brat; in failing to recognize the action as the correction of a disparity he's just using the language of "fairness" to preserve an unfairness that he finds advantageous - having more apples.
I guess more information is needed to answer the question with honesty. Did the children work for those apples? If the amount of apples is determined by how hard one worked, the other child needs to understand that working hard has its benefits, or at least for (s)he to be happy with his wage. If the parent or teacher promised both children 4 apples and one had more than the other, then I would say that is not fair. But I'm not sure how this fits into our current discussion.
Just like you'd be doing. Men have more power than women, so it isn't fair to argue for "male power." Males have power; women are the ones who need more of it for equality to be achieved.
If you haven't noticed nature has made males stronger of the two sexes typically. I mean, you are arguing against nature. Couldn't men be angry, by a similar premise, that they are not looked upon as effective child rearers and that for a parent to choose a female over a male for childcare could be construed as sexist? Does that really seem like a worthy endeavor?
Now, lets say I'm in a combat situation. Can I get mad at a woman if she does not have the physical ability to do what I can do? Certainly not. Can I get mad a Washington bureaucrats who, for the sake of being 'fair,' gave women a role that nature never intended for them? Yes, I can! If I'm a male and decided to be a childcaregiver, can I really get mad at the parents who selected a female over me? I could, but I'd be fighting a losing battle with nature. Males and females are different. They are. And its that difference which makes for some interesting relationships. I just don't see why society is trying to eradicate that rich diversity.
This is a simplistic calculus, to be sure, but it's just an illustration about why it isn't, in fact, fair for white men to demand more power in the name of "fairness."
There is another flipside to that. I have absolutely nothing to do with slavery, yet I'm part caucasian and part hispanic. On both sides of that family tree, somewhere my ancestors probably engaged in slavery. Isn't it racist to assume that I'm a bigot simply because I was born white/hispanic? Doesn't that completely render the complainants whining ineffectual? Obviously.
Yeah, BS, just like I thought. You're talking about a one-class-period seminar on not beating up gay students in the locker room, not a concerted effort in the curriculum to convince boys they're all girls and girls they're all boys.
That was just one instance. In that same school district they are making unisex bathrooms and refuse to refer to the children as "Boys or girls." But why pretend that there isn't a difference when there is? That's ridiculous. Here, listen to the transcript , its entitled under "Gender Neutrality."
I can't see what possible harm you think this stuff is going to cause, unless you're under the ludicrous misapprehension that boys can't grow up to be men unless they beat the shit out of as many fags as possible.
The harm in that is that its intentional confusing children as to who they are. They are making people gay not helping those who are already gay. They don't want to treat homosexuals differently, yet at every turn, they set up speical privaleges for them. That makes no sense. If a kid beats up any one, for any reason, let them get in trouble for their action. Punish the crime not the thought that caused the crime.

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by crashfrog, posted 08-29-2006 4:30 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by crashfrog, posted 08-29-2006 8:04 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 72 by Jaderis, posted 08-31-2006 3:23 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 87 by nator, posted 09-11-2006 9:44 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 90 (344888)
08-29-2006 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by crashfrog
08-29-2006 8:04 PM


Re: What's at stake?
Ah, right. It's not that black people are discriminated against; they're just lazy. You know you might have predicated this discussion on race by informing us all that you're a racist, it would have saved a little time.
LOL! Yeah, nice try turning a damn good debate of mine around on me. Anyone that agrees with Affirmative Action must inherently believe that black people are lazy or are incapable of finding employers that aren't racist, not me! I don't treat people according to their race, which is exactly what Affirmative Action does! Don't you see the irony in that?
The answer is, btw, "the child with 3 worked for them; the child with 4 was simply given them for doing no work at all."
Then I would agree that its unfair.
quote:
If you haven't noticed nature has made males stronger of the two sexes typically.
I don't see the relevance. How much heavy lifting do you think is required to be CEO, for instance, or President of the United States?
If you believe in the evolutionary dog-eat-dog world of survival of the fittest, then I can scarcely believe that you don't understand what I'm talking about. If a woman works her way up to CEO status or President, good on her. I'm speaking out against Feminism, not females or feminity. I think I've clearly shown the difference.
quote:
And its that difference which makes for some interesting relationships.
You call them "interesting", the women who escape from them might call them "abusive."
What are you talking about? When did I even remotely allude to violence? Men are stronger than women in certain ways. Its a fact of life. Women are stronger than men in certain. Its a fact of life. So why try and pretend that those strengths and weaknesses don't exist when females can be strong where males are weak, and males can be strong where females are weak? Isn't that duality the very thing that makes feminity and masculinity attractive to the opposite sex to begin with? Obviosuly its hardwired in us by God/nature.
quote:
In that same school district they are making unisex bathrooms and refuse to refer to the children as "Boys or girls."
More BS, I see.
Its not my rules. That's the convoluted genius of the California school system. So, let me ask you: Do you think that emasculating males is a good idea, if so, why? Do you think that pretending that gender has nothing to do with anything is going to have positive or negative marks on society?
quote:
They don't want to treat homosexuals differently, yet at every turn, they set up speical privaleges for them.
What special privileges? Not being beat up? Yeah, I guess that would be a privilege.
Yeah, how about no fighting irrespective of the motive.....? If kids were fighting over basketball teams, would it make sense to have "basketball awareness" seminars? No, it wouldn't. So what is the difference in LGBT community? The difference is they are trying to indoctrinate children to make it acceptable. I think that's deceptive and descpicable to do to kids, as if they need to be thinking about any of this at that age to begin with.
I don't see what possible problem you would have with that, unless you think your views are so amazing that you have an absolute right not to be presented with information that contradicts them. Being not disagreed with, unfortunately, is not a right granted by the First Amendment, or any other.
You don't get it because you don't see it. You see things the way they want you to see it-- seemingly harmless, even beneficial. A few others know exactly what I'm talking about. We are being led down a primrose path slowly but surely. Its kind of like when you see the end of the movie and only then do the actions of the characters in the beginning and middle of the story begin to reveal its own profundity.
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typo

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by crashfrog, posted 08-29-2006 8:04 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by nwr, posted 08-29-2006 10:08 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 52 by crashfrog, posted 08-30-2006 12:07 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 90 (344911)
08-29-2006 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by nwr
08-29-2006 10:08 PM


Re: What's at stake?
You sure manage to sound like a racist. However, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and put it down to ignorance.
Treating a certain race special by giving them priorities in the hiring process IS the classic definition of racism-- and since i'm not a racist, I refuse to treat people based on their race, but rather, their performance. Anyone that sees eye-to-eye with AA just placates people and basically treats them as if they were dumb.
No, that's not what affirmative action does.
AA is a policy that seeks to redress past discrimination through active measures to ensure equal opportunity, as in education and employment. There is nothing inherently wrong with it. I recognize that it is trying to do the right thing. But by trying to do the right thing, they end up doing the very thing they intend to abolish, which is racism and special preferences based soley on race and gender. That's reverse discrimination! That's racism/sexism against racism/sexism. You really can't see why that's a problem?

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by nwr, posted 08-29-2006 10:08 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by nwr, posted 08-29-2006 10:48 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 53 by crashfrog, posted 08-30-2006 12:10 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 90 (344969)
08-30-2006 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by crashfrog
08-30-2006 12:07 AM


Re: What's at stake?
No. It seems completely obvious to me that, in order to correct an imbalance that way, you have to push a little bit the opposite way.
Isn't it obvious that the see-saw will never be balanced if the only thing you do is add the same amount of weight to each side?
Except that the see-saw analogy bears no relevance to society. If it did we would see some atrocious outcomes. I can assume, based on your analogy, that you advocate racism in order to stop racism? You advocate Palestinian violence to counter Israeli violence? You advocate Iraqi violence to even up American violence? My take on it is you don't use a racist agenda to stop racism. Its an oxymoron. Its counter-intuitive. Its a logical fallacy and it makes no sense.
quote:
If you believe in the evolutionary dog-eat-dog world of survival of the fittest, then I can scarcely believe that you don't understand what I'm talking about.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Eating dogs is not required for being CEO (actually, it's a funny phrase - dogs don't eat dogs in the wild.)
You've never heard of the catch phrase, "dog-eat-dog?"
I would expect that being a good CEO or being President is about being a good manager, getting people to come around to your way of thinking, getting them to perform their best. Being able to communicate effectively, reach people on a personal level, inspire and nurture. Feminine qualities, in other words.
Nothing wrong with that. But allow me to digress here because you keep equating the Feminist Movement with feminity-- something I've expressed isn't homologous.
I don't see how physical strength is necessary for being a CEO or the President. You still haven't told me. I don't see how aggression succeeds in a marketplace that rewards cooperation; I don't see how mindless brutality finesses the world of Beltway politics.
Who said anything about physical strength in the marketplace? I certainly didn't. I said that men and women have different strengths and weaknesses. Are men typically stronger physically than females? Yes. But where a male might excel in is in analytical thinking on practical matters. But that doesn't mean that a man is neccesarily going to be a better CEO. It also doesn't mean that a female CEO is going to automatically inject emotion into her decisions instead of taking a calculated, practical approach. Actually, I'm not really sure why you keep bringing up irrelevant topics. I have no problem with femininity. In fact, I encourage it. What I have a problem with is Feminism, which I believe, is anti-feminine and seeks not the equality of males but the superiority over males.
But I think I do see how the qualities of aggression and competition, which you think are the "male" attributes, come into the equation. While those qualities are the worst possible ones to have in order to lead effectively, they're exactly the qualities a poor leader would need to hang on to the power. In other words, it's not that men are typically better leaders - they're just a lot, lot better at making sure women don't lead anything.
Where physical attributes would be critical is in a tactical situation where lives are on the line. I would much rather take a man into combat with me than I would a woman for a variety of reasons. You can call that sexist, but funny how if I chose a women to rear children over a man no one would care. Isn't that what we're all trying to stop? the double-standards? So why is one double-standard acceptible while the other is not?
Here is a great little essay I found. This basically elucidates how I feel about Feminism:
"There is this subconscious envy feminists feel towards men, which they project onto other women. Feminists deceived themselves as well as healthy women when they asserted, at the outset, that men did not value women's roles as wives and mothers. The feminists themselves undervalued women's strengths and admired male attributes. They truly are MASCULINISTS, not feminists. All of their male-feminization programs are aimed at neutralizing their competition so they, the penis enviers, can take up the male niche.
Today we have a society that looks down on women who know of the importance of raising their own children. The media term their jobholding sisters "working mothers" rather than "mothers who don't raise their children." The jobholders are treated as "normal" women, rather than those pursuing an "alternative lifestyle." Yes, alternative lifestyle. The "children as pets" trend has been the norm for only a few decades. Day-care and latchkey kids are the lab rats in an experiment with an alternative lifestyle.
But the media do not tell us that this experiment has failed miserably, nor that working mothers have turned all of society upside down. Most problems with children today, ranging from emotional to mental to physical health can be explained in one way: Mothers are not raising their children. Fathers are expendable. The vital importance of the woman and family unit is now staring us down, but we as a society are looking away. We won't even entertain the idea because children are no longer a priority, they are window dressing. What do they add to my life? -- that's all we care about."
quote:
Men are stronger than women in certain ways. Its a fact of life. Women are stronger than men in certain. Its a fact of life.
Which ways?
I thought you'd never ask. Perhaps some armchair pychology will open up the analytical mind a bit.
Isn't it kind of funny, though, that whenever sexists like you invoke this construction of unspecified strengths and weaknesses, it turns out that men get all the good strengths:
*Physical strength
*Intelligence
*Leadership presence
or whatever and women get all the "strengths" that are actually qualifications for being good servants? Like, "being good at knowing what other people want" or "being good at raising my kids for me" or "being skillful sex partners." In other words, the strengths of men are good for getting what men want, and the strengths of women are good for getting men what they want, too.
Wow, I sure don't remember tallying up attributes, but you seem to have preconcieved notions about men and women. I object that you feel that motherly instincts are somehow considered ineffectual when its easily the greatest attribute bestowed on mankind; something far greater than what you covet-- intelligence. Yeah, I'm the sexist.
quote:
Isn't that duality the very thing that makes feminity and masculinity attractive to the opposite sex to begin with?
How do homosexuals fit into that, I wonder?
That's a terrific question. I guess it would depend on which one plays the dominant role and which one plays the submissive role. Interesting that that dynamic duality almost needs to be in place for some naturalistic effect.
Anyway, the answer is "no." The duality that makes males attractive to females and vice-versa is the fact that reproduction requires a sperm and an ovum.
To quote Crashfrog:"How do you homosexuals fit into that, I wonder."
Nothing else is really relevant to that because nothing else is reliable. There are relatively few biological differences between men and women that are immutable, and they're all related to reproduction. The stuff you're talking about? It's just cultural. Gender roles that you seem to think are universal, but that nobody actually completely adheres to.
Men and women certainly are very similar, just as all male and females within in a species are compatible with one another. But I think you make light of the chemical and biological differences of men and women. If it were really just culturaly induced, not that I'm suggesting society has no role in it, but why would it be so thorough across all civilizations? Are all civilizations under this illusion of gender roles or are they just adhering to their natural, God-given disposition?
quote:
Its not my rules.
It's not anybody's. It's just something you're making up.
Yeah, okay.
I'm sorry, didn't you understand? I'm telling you that I don't believe you. Is that clearer?
Well, you don't have to believe me. I'm just trying to liberate you from liberal indoctrination.
You think that somehow, kids don't know about sex? What, did you forget what it was like to be at that age? Didn't you understand what kind of relationship your parents had? That they loved each other, or did at one point? That they had a relationship that was much less like your relationship with your brother or sister, and more like the relationship you had with that girl or boy you had a crush on?
At the age that they are presenting this nonsense, which is at Kindergarten, its wholly inappropriate curriculum at that tender age. What 5 year old needs to be taught about sex, gender roles, gay rights, or anything remotely akin to sex? Upper elementary, middle, and high school is a different matter. Kids are obviously walking hormones at that point. As for my understanding of parents role, it had nothing to do with sex. In fact, most kids are generally horrified that their parents engaged in such activities at first.
Anyway, this is all getting off track. The question is why should kids be subjected to gender neutrality?
Like, you really think that's something kids don't understand? Maybe you should leave education to the professionals. It seems pretty obvious you have no idea about children.
I have two children of my own. I think I understand children just fine. And if we left child rearing to the 'experts' in Oakland, we'd have children all across the world in a state of an identity crisis.
To what, exactly? You're afraid they're gonna catch you and make you gay? Honestly, NJ, do you really believe that there's any force on Earth that could make you want to have sex with a man? No? Me neither. Why do you think it's different from anybody else? Do you really think the reason that you're not interested in fucking guys is because God told you not to? Don't you suspect that, if God told you he'd changed his mind and that it was totally ok, you still probably wouldn't want to do it?
Make me gay? No, no fear of that. The problem has less to do with a physical act than it does psychologically. I would say that the LGBT community is in a state of utter ambivalence, not really knowing up from down. But don't misunderstand me to assume that something called 'homophobia.' What a slanderous invasion on reality, that word. Nobody fears homosexuals in a classic sense, except perhaps in a setting where many of them are prone to gang rape. I can only think of prison where such a situation might arise. What they fear is this degeneration of morals. Although some people have taken it to mean a personal attack on the homosexual, it isn't for me. Ita the lifestyle that I object to.
There's always been people like you, NJ, convinced that we're headed down the road to perdition's flames. And you've always been wrong. Always. Humanity moves up and out, not downward. All of the dark spots of human history have been the result of intolerance, not tolerance.
And when you stop being intollerant of my views, perhaps we can start a healthy dialogue.
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typo

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by crashfrog, posted 08-30-2006 12:07 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by FliesOnly, posted 08-30-2006 8:37 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 59 by Silent H, posted 08-30-2006 9:52 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 73 by Jaderis, posted 08-31-2006 4:19 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 90 (345025)
08-30-2006 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Silent H
08-30-2006 9:52 AM


Re: What's at stake?
Although I seem to disagree with most of what you say, you do write well and I like your avatar. I thought I should point that out first since I have never replied to you before.
Well, on this forum if someone agrees with even one or two aspects, I'll take it. I suspect I'm a bit of a rare breed. Thank you about the avatar and thank you for the compliment on the writing, though I would disagree with you. My thoughts on any given subject are sometimes jumbled and I tend to drift into tangents. I happen to think that your style of writing is very eloquent, clear, and concise. If I'm not mistaken a few people have complimented you on that.
quote:
The feminists themselves undervalued women's strengths and admired male attributes. They truly are MASCULINISTS, not feminists.
I think this is a very real and interesting point regarding some quarters of the feminist movement. Especially those which emphasize semantics, it seems based on a jealousy only possible if one embraces "sexist" stereotypes and desires to take the role of the other, rather than reverse any power imbalance by embracing onesself.
Yes, I seem to agree with that. Crashfrog seems to think that fighting fire with fire is the best method to resolve a conflict. It doesn't work on the playground, it doesn't work in corporate America, it doesn't work with gang violence, so why would it work in a completely invented gender war?
quote:
The media term their jobholding sisters "working mothers" rather than "mothers who don't raise their children." The jobholders are treated as "normal" women, rather than those pursuing an "alternative lifestyle."
I don't think I've seen this going on, and to be truthful it isn't fair to label all mothers who work as inherently not raising their children. Even in your most "domestic" situation a mother's chores throughout the day are NOT focused on raising the children, but rather taking care of household work. There is no reason a woman could hand that off to someone else and still have time to take care of kids... especially once they are going to school.
But there is a truth to the idea that women who don't pursue careers are somehow lesser or not following the norm of what they should be doing. Birth, school, career, maybe kids, death. And I think that is sort of sad to subject women who choose not to follow a career, to some form of abuse for their choice.
I agree with both of your sentiments. Even tacitly referring to working mothers as avoiding their responsibilities is the same as saying that any woman not in the workforce is worthless. But there is this underlying pressure for women, judged by their female peers, that if Susie Q isn't out in the workforce instead of the soccer field with her son or daughter, that she must be worthless. That's absurd to me.
quote:
Yes, alternative lifestyle. The "children as pets" trend has been the norm for only a few decades.
Yeah, that doesn't seem to be very wise. But how is that not equally a man's fault?
Unfortunately, that happens way too often in society. I happen to be very active in my children's lives and don't understand how some parents actually seem to have an aversion towards their own kids, but a concerted effort goes along way in their lives.
How has it failed miserably? Based on what vantage point? I was definitely a "latchkey kid" as were many of my peers and none have massive psychological problems. I realize this is totally anecdotal but in truth the people I have met with the biggest psych problems (needing meds and all) have come from traditional families.
I think if we were to juxtapose latchkey kids to kids that come home to parents who immediately care for them, you'd see a vast difference in their attitudes-- of course there are always extenuating circumstances. Some families do not have the luxury of having a single-income home. After struggling to provide that opportunity for my own family, my wife re-entered the workforce just a week ago. It was a bit of a shame because now she can't go to school and she was getting close to completion. But that's the brakes sometimes. I want to make certain that everyone understands my position. I don't have an aversion towards women in the workplace; far from it. What I have an aversion to is the Feminist movement which basically covets masculinity and repackages it under the guise of femininity. I have an aversion towards certain hard-charging, stiletto wearing, 'woman of the 90's' mentality-weilding women who basically call traditional women crap.

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Silent H, posted 08-30-2006 9:52 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Silent H, posted 08-30-2006 2:12 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 90 (345027)
08-30-2006 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Silent H
08-30-2006 4:54 AM


Re: a solution?
quote:
cram it up your ass.... go fuck yourself... Fuck off, Holmes.
Whoa! I totally missed this post and just read it now. That's a bit hardcore.
I didn't deserve that, and its not supposed to be tolerated at EvC anyway. Please keep it civil.
No, you didn't deserve that. I would expect people to yell such colorful epithets to me, but not to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Silent H, posted 08-30-2006 4:54 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 90 (345030)
08-30-2006 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by FliesOnly
08-30-2006 8:37 AM


Re: What's at stake?
quote:
But where a male might excel in is in analytical thinking on practical matters.
This is just the sort of crap that Crashfrog is talking about. Do you know any college educated women at all?
LOL! Yes, my mother, my wife, my sister, etc, etc.. Look, its a FACT that MOST men are more mathematically inclined towards analytical thinking than women. Its also a FACT that women are stronger verbally than men. Their grasp of language comprehension is typically far greater than that of their male counterparts. Is this the absolute rule? Certainly not. Are some women better at analytical reasoning than me? Yes. Can speak more eloquently than some females. Yes. But statistically, I'm not incorrect on this. And this is precisely what I meant by women and men sharing different strengths and weaknesses. So, the whole 'sexist' plea is ridiculous.
Why do you make the assumption that a man will excel in "analytical thinking on practical matters" but when faced with the same situation a women would probably start to cry? You must have spent you entire life around weak people.
You have completely distorted my post. Who said that a woman faced with a difficult situation would start crying? Who said that?! It sure wasn't me. What I said was that a woman might be more inclined to inject 'emotion' into her reasoning whereas a man might be more inclined to distance himself emotionally from the situation. So, again, read what I actually write and stop reading way more into my posts than what is warranted.
quote:
I have no problem with femininity. In fact, I encourage it.
So I guess you make your wife wear a French-maid outfit while she does all the cooken and cleanin fer ya.
My wife has only wore a French-Maid outfit once and it was during sex. It was also her idea. I suppose I wasn't supposed to be attracted to her either, eh? As for cooking and cleaning, she usually cooks and I usually cleans. Anymore personal questions for me that bear no relevance to the subject?
Where do you get this shit? Ok, so your version of the feminist movement means that women secretly want to be men. Most of us here on realityville see it more as a desire for women to be treated equally. You know, like paying a women the same as her male counterparts.
I'm saying that its subconciously evident that feminists are far from exhibiting feminine qualities and sure seem to covet or desire masculine traits. Paying women the same wage as a man has nothing to do with feminism, they only use that as a wedge strategy. There is no such thing as total equality in any society. If there was, it would acceptable for a woman to open the cardoor for me, it would be acceptable for a man to hit a woman the same way he might hit another man, etc, etc. The women's sufferage movement made wonderful advances for women. And now they do get paid the same wages as their male counterpart, especially in a government job. Feminism is about tipping the scales of justice, not equaling the weight distribution.
I can guarantee you this, nemesis-juggernnaut, if I had to go into a battle and I had to chose between taking either you or my wife...you would be left sitting on the sidelines. Odds are she can shoot better than you, can handle a knife far better than you, and if you piss her off...holy shit...watch out! She can make quick decisions (she does it all the time) and I would trust her with my life. With you, however, based on what I read of yours, if you found out I was all for equal rights, have no problems with Affirmative Action, and think that gays should be allowed to marry, I'm afraid that if push came to shove...I'd be a dead man.
That was a great testimony. Sounds like your wife has anger problems.
quote:
Here is a great little essay I found. This basically elucidates how I feel about Feminism:...blah...blah...blah
Wow! What an unbelievable pile of shit. I'm stunned that you had the guts to show it to us. I mean seriously...holy crap!
It was a good essay-- be stunned all you want with a look off incredulity on your face. I'm sorry that it doesn't allow for you to live in abject misery for all your masculine proclivities.

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by FliesOnly, posted 08-30-2006 8:37 AM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by FliesOnly, posted 08-30-2006 3:40 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 75 by Jaderis, posted 08-31-2006 5:00 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 84 by joshua221, posted 09-07-2006 11:13 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 90 (345140)
08-30-2006 6:11 PM


Undue criticism
Somehow my comment on gender neutrality was thoroughly derailed into something I never intended. My main point, and I'd like that no one loses sight of it, that men and women are different-- not radically, but different nonetheless. Instead of competing with one another, why not recognize that we both have certain strengths and weaknesses that God/nature bestowed upon us. 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. I thought that was common knowledge. I guess not. An important distinction should be noted, however, and I think it was brought up by Holmes or Mr. Jack. These statsitics do not go by an individual basis, but rather is a conglomerate of individuals, i.e. a population. 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. Afterall, isn't in the differences that we find attractive in the opposite sex to begin with? Think about it. I like femininity because I'm masculine. My wife likes masculinity because she is feminine-- ying/yang, push/pull, in/out, open/shut, day/night, /light/darkness, life is all about duality not some androgenous and monotonously drab existence.

“"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

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by crashfrog, posted 08-31-2006 10:44 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 80 by nwr, posted 08-31-2006 11:09 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


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.
Wow, that was extremely derogatory.
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)
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 replied

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

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


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 replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024