One was on feminism
One was on homosexuality
If this kind of shit usually upsets you then I suggest you leave now.
Otherwise, welcome, my friends, to how the internet thinks.
Feminism
First on the agenda, the feminism FMLFrom the comments section I learned many things.
The Internet is male dominated
I see opinions everywhere in this thread. I see male opinions, and I see female opinions.I see lots of "what the fuck is feminism" opinions, and very few "go feminists!" opinions.
More than half the women that post are expressing their disdain for how feminists are dealing with stuff. The few that agree with the traditional feminist ideals get shat on because of the negative connotations that is associated with "feminism", most likely thanks to so called feminazis who have idiot ideals and taint the name.
Sadly I don't think this should be the case with feminism (in its traditional definition). In this traditional definition, there should be absolutely no reason anyone would disagree. Feminism used to mean equal rights and equal opportunities. It used to mean an ideal where men and women could live together peacefully and happily. I'll give you a moment to reflect on what kind of image "feminism" conjures for you today.
Take the suffragettes. There are many key advantages the suffragettes have over modern feminists.
1) They all knew what the injustice was (ie they had a unanimous goal) [They wanted the vote]
2) The injustice is clear and not at all debatable as to whether it actually exists or not [It was very clear that men could vote and women could not. Also, women are just as intellectually equipped as men to vote for someone who will pretend to care about the country]
3) They knew what needed to be done to achieve that goal [They knew that the legislation had to be changed.]
4) They actually did something tangible because they wanted it badly enough. [Hunger strikes, riot demonstrations, chained selves to posts]
Of course, everything they did could be seen as "against their cause" - their acts of anarchy "proved" they were too mentally unstable to vote cool-headedly.
But they managed to win the uphill battle, a testament to just how united their movement was.
And they did this without the misinformation we call the INTERNET. Wow.
Anyways sites like 9gag have very masculine undertones (as well as secular to the point of "lol religion. those poor bastards"). Cum hoc ergo propter hoc, we can't tell if the general opinion is actually non-feminist, or if the non-feminist atmosphere breeds fear of expressing feminist ideals.
Arguments surrounding feminism are always black and white
The broad spectrum of physicalities and personalities of both genders are ignored. Sweeping generalisations are made in both directions, hence the mutual accusations of idiocy.Call me sexist but I'm going to say on average men are more suitable to physical, blue collar jobs like carpentry and bricklaying and shit.
I'm going to say on average men have a stronger muscle build than women, and are more suited to moving heavy loads.
Call me anything, sexual dimorphism is a bitch, deal with it.
HOWEVER, "on average" doesn't mean "all". Not ALL men are stronger than women. Of course there has to be an overlap.
Unfortunately, whenever there's an argument about strength...
[Female Poster]
I can't stand feminists![Female feminist reply]
Fine, give me equal pay for equal work...that's great in office jobs, the food industry etc. Start talking the construction fields as a whole.....I don't care what women say, we are physically NOT built the same as men. Our musculature is different, our center of gravity is different etc.
My husband has been a carpenter in many different industries and I'm telling you, women are not capable of the constant heavy lifting, carrying etc.
Now, for all you feminists whose Wheaties I just pissed in....tough titty!
Bullshit!
We're still not at equal pay for equal work, and without feminists, things would be even more unjust.
You may be right that overall men are stronger than women, but that doesn't mean there aren't some individual women who have strength that exceeds a good number of men. You can't discriminate based on gender. You can discriminate based on whether someone can't handle the physical demands of a job, but that certainly doesn't go along gender lines.
You make me sick. You enjoy the benefits of the rights feminists have secured for you, and you turn around and knife them in the back.
Greeeeey area. I still haven't seen a legitimate comparison of women vs men, equal work pay rates. Always, always I've seen averages of ALL women, or averages of women in a certain profession across many years. If anyone has a good reliable link to some stat that validly compares pay for equal work I'd love to see. And to be a valid claim that this happens across all professions, I'd like to see at comparisons for at least 3 professions. More than 10 would be ideal though.
I'd like to point out a lot of people think they aren't getting the money they deserve. And we laughed at them for how unorganised and illogical they sounded when they begged for more money "because they deserve it and the top cats are not paying fair". What was it called again? Oh yeah, that hilarious thing called Occupy Wall St. Hmm that set of demands and justification sounds somewhat close to home here...
Also the last line "You enjoy the benefits of the rights feminists have secured for you, and you turn around and knife them in the back." made me smirk. Please, modern day feminists are not so much benefit-bringing as past ones.
About black and whiteness though. The anti-feminists (who read more like anti-females) complain about how women expect men to pay on dates, pay for their clothes, and basically be a free source of finance. NO! That's fucking idiot and you are dating a gold digger. (Well you're in need.)
Same goes for the accusation that all men are sexist rapists (could explain why simple actions such as holding open doors can be miscontrued to mean assault... or something)
Since when did the relatively small proportion of irrational people represent the whole?
Oh wait, let's reflect on the human tendency to let that happen...
Muslims are all terrorists, and more importantly, all terrorists are Muslims
Black people are going to rob you, while eating chicken and running about 20 times faster than you.
Gay people have AIDS
Ruse kids study all day long and have no idea what colour the sky is
Hence I conclude that if it is convenient to focus on a small part of a population to represent the rest, for arguments sake, we are more than happy to lie by omission.
Analogies are wasted
No amount of analogies will ever make the two parties see eye to eye. You just have to fucking deal with it that men and women are different.For example, I saw the analogy "we ask you to make sandwiches because you're fucking good at it and we suck. You ask us to change the oil in the car because we're good at it and (presumably) you suck". In reading that I instantly rejected it, then thought "wait why, what the fuck is wrong with making sandwiches."
Sure, it's a "feminine" chore. Why, is there something wrong with femininity?
Feminists are allowed to be feminine
In fact, I think it goes against their cause to emulate masculinity.It is not wrong for a feminist to bake or raise kids or shave or have doors opened for them.
And about door opening, I'll have you know I do it out of courtesy and not out of mockery of female door opening skills. There's nothing wrong with a little manners.
The FML itself complains about doing a bake sale for a feminist group.
May I ask why that is so fucking bad for your life? Is baking not allowed if you want to be a self respecting female?
Please note that you are baking FOR WOMEN because your group which SUPPORTS WOMEN wants to make money to HELP WOMEN. Men are nowhere to be seen in this equation, therefore inequality is not present. Herp derp, or is feminism not about inequality?
In trying to detach yourself as much as possible from femininity, what are you REALLY saying?
Feminism is more about anger than anything else
Feminism today is about anger. It is not about confidence. It is not about empowerment. And as far as I can tell, it is not about getting anything done.So far I see that most feminist writings focus on how fucking annoying men are and discuss how we can stop them from raping everyone, or from stealing those jobs that you oh-so-deserve, and in other ways making your life hard, with all your clean running water and electricity and food on the table.
What the fuck happened to making women feel proud of who they are.
Homophobia
Second on the agenda is homosexuality.Don't worry, it won't nearly be as long.
What's wrong with having an opinion?
My simple question: Why is it so wrong to hate/dislike/fear homosexuals?Before you get all angry and shit,
Like I personally don't hate them/have a fear of them because they haven't done anything wrong.
But say I did have a fear of homosexuals, about 20 of you will go "what the fuck is wrong with you, have some acceptance".
Well by that logic, a dude who has tattoos and rides a Harley has never, in my first hand experience, ever done anything remotely wrong. Why the fuck do we still try to avoid them?
Why does nobody ever get mad at a dude for saying you should avoid bikies?
See, in my opinion, people are allowed to hate whoever the fuck they like. Who are you, to be holier-than-thou (ironic cos Catholics love this hating-gays thing) and tell people who it's wrong to hate?
What's wrong with stereotyping
I was discussing this with Max. There are two biological-ish reasons that stereotyping is justified.1) We absolutely love to classify stuff. It's almost obsessive.
2) How do we know what's dangerous if we didn't attribute certain classes to the "danger, run the fuck away" zone?
That being said, I think the -isms are wrong (like racism, sexism). In my mind, stereotyping and -isms mean different things.
Stereotyping, to me, means the act of attributing certain features to a designated group of people. Like saying Asians have small eyes, or Italians all say "mamma mia", or Australians are all like "slip a shrimp on the barbie moite". These are all either true or harmless.
Racism is the unwarranted hate towards a person based on nationality or ethnicity. This unwarranted hate can be manifested through verbal/physical abuse, (unfounded) exclusion from groups or positions, and many more tangible acts beyond "just words".
At Cadets it's absolutely amazing for them white kids to see an Asian. So they go through all the tried and tested ching chong crap and small eyes crap and asking stuff like "do you have black bars at the top and bottom of your vision?" Personally, I didn't have a problem with that. They didn't hate me, they were just trying to be funny. Often it actually was funny. That is stereotyping.
On a visit to some bogan Victorian town on annual, we did come across a dude who was swearing at us across the street because we were "fucking Asians". Although this was relatively harmless, in that we were not bleeding, we were "safe". But it was uncomfortable being the subject of such hate just for existing. That is racism.
If you want an extreme of why stereotyping is useful:
Why would you ever be scared of a dude with his penis out and holding a rope in his hand? Just because SOME PEOPLE who act like this are imminent rapists, doesn't mean ALL OF THEM ARE. Give them a chance!
That was a very long essay. Will probably edit it after people point out mistakes in expression and stuff.
Congrats for reaching this point!
12 comments:
whilst bikies are known for being rough, gay people aren't known for being dangerous, murderous or violent.
it's wrong to hate gays because it's bad to judge a book by its cover. actually, it's bad to judge a book by it's inside, because being gay is on the inside and not really the outside. im not very coherent, so i hope you understand what im saying.
Dammit for some reason my reply from yesterday didn't go through. Retyping yay.
Firstly I'd like to point out that I've never seen a bikie act in any way, in my first hand experience, that can be labelled as rough. They've always followed road rules, and act just like everyone else in the shops and stuff. As far as not depending on stereotypes cast by the media goes.
I agree that gays are not reputed to be violent. They (the men, for argument's sake) are, however, reputed to (forgive me for crudeness) insert their penises into other men's assholes. Now I think you can understand why a cis male would not appreciate a penis in his rectum.
Now let me pre-empt you and say "But gays don't screw ALL men in the butt. They just do it among themselves if they feel like it."
And I agree. However, let us go back to the bikies for a second. Bikies aren't violent towards EVERYONE. They only do it with rival gangs if they feel like it.
[Tangent:]While I won't go ahead and generalise and say NO civilians are unduly harmed, a first-page Google of "bikie attacks civilians" returns one report of an actual attack, "bikie kills civilian" returns none. But "soldier kills civilians" points to the famous rogue US guy in Afghan, as does "soldier attacks civilians". Note that the government would try to hush up soldier's misbehaviour as much as possible, while exposing bikies as much as possible.
Still, we aren't afraid of soldiers though. Because "not all of them are bad".
[Back on track:]Now the equation is Gang+Gang=Dead people. Nowhere are you to be seen. Just like how it's Gay+Gay=Anal exploration, nowhere am I to be seen.
Perhaps the concept of them dealing drugs and stuff makes you uncomfortable - is it so unfair that conservative people are uncomfortable with the concept of gay sex?
So when you are walking down the street and you see 3 bikies walking down the street in your direction, is your unease really justified, are you just judging a book by its cover?
Because surely you don't believe that EVERY person with tattoos who rides a Harley is in a bikie gang? Surely you don't believe that EVERY member of EVERY bikie gang is violent and murderous (or whatever qualities you had attributed to bikies).
Or is that the nasty word, the apparently incorrect stereotyping?
Sorry for tripling the word count in my reply compared to your original :L
>Now I think you can understand why a cis male would not appreciate a penis in his rectum.
Actually, many heterosexual cisgendered males enjoy anal penetration because it massages the prostate, leading to more intense orgasms than stimulation of the penis itself. However they are often afraid to admit this because they don't wish to embrace this part of their sexuality. Perhaps they would not enjoy the male attached to the penis, if that's what you're saying.
Goddammit before I lost the comment I typed "reasonably conservative cis male".
Looks like I forgot this time. Pretend I wrote that in (Y)
It's not wrong to dislike/fear/hate homosexuals. Rather, it's wrong to say that homosexuality is wrong.
So it's alright if you dislike homosexuals. Same way one dislikes spiders, clowns etc. (lot's of fears are unjustified like why would you be scared of a clown)
you can fear but you can't say it's wrong to be homosexual i guess. same way you can't say you cannot be a clown because I'm scared of you!
So yeah, dislike homosexuals if you like but accept that their condition(can't think of a better word) isn't wrong.
Anon,
Yeah that's nice I agree with that.
Question though - is it wrong to THINK it's wrong to be homosexual?
Or do you maintain a "don't ask don't tell" view? (rather apt expression for this discussion :L)
You have an emphasis on the word “think” here so I will first answer the question paying great attention to that word.
It is not wrong to THINK it’s wrong to be homosexual. It is not wrong because you can’t control what you think sometimes. One might think of having sex with one’s sibling, or killing one’s family. It’s not wrong to THINK whether something is wrong or right. The existence of a simple thought (whether correct or not) in the head is not wrong.
What’s really wrong is when a person who thinks homosexuality is wrong starts to interfere with homosexual people’s lives and disturb them, vandalise their property etc.
OK now I’ m shifting away from the emphasis on “think” and the idea that is it not wrong for certain thoughts to exist in one’s head like “it’s wrong to be homosexual!!” So disregard my first paragraph as you read this. Now, I am also going to change “is it wrong to THINK it’s wrong to be homosexual” in your question to “is it wrong to THINK that homosexuality is wrong” because I don’t think anyone SHOULD THINK it’s wrong to be homosexual(im not saying it’s wrong or anything to think that though) because homosexuals are just people with different traits/likes/dislikes and in this case they happen to like people of the same sex. Is it wrong to be born a person let’s say who just likes playing with booger? No. like it is not wrong to be born someone who just happens to hate meat etcetc . It is not wrong to be born a person who just happens to like this or dislike that, no one’s birth is wrong.
(sorry for the bad examples)
It is also not wrong to think homosexuality is wrong because there are always reasons that make people think that homosexuality is wrong(like oh it’s unnatural reproduction-wise) and just like homosexuality isn’t choice, sometimes thinking homosexuality is unnatural isn’t a choice either. There are always going to be people who think homosexuality is wrong and others who don’t and you can’t change their minds about it because there is something fundamental that two people can’t agree on. And this fundamental something(the root of their argument) is in a way engrained through external influenced which they cannot control such as social conditioning, tradition and culture. And these external factors cannot be helped. And because people are arguing from their own perspectives and from their own experiences and their own “fundamental something” it is never wrong to think that homosexuality is wrong. Because everyone has their own subjective thought about it.
And I don't know what a "don't ask don't tell" view is.
This seems relevant.
Yes, well done Anon.
Have a brownie point.
Dear jwhero:
I'm glad that you're calmly and critically assessing your own position on feminism, and not, you know, glibly dismissing the experiences of actual women.
I'm glad you've actually extensively engaged and interacted with the wide spectrum of feminists firsthand instead of dismissing them all as a monolithic band of "feminazis who have idiot ideals." I'm also glad that you're not assuming that gender equality is tantamount to equal income for both sexes instead of, well, rooting out the underlying androcentric attitudes that have plagued, oh, just about every aspect of human society for the past few thousand years.
Furthermore, I'm quite glad that that you're aware of the sex/gender distinction, and that that you reject the crude binaries instrumental in perpetuating patriarchy. And I'm even more glad you're not universalizing your own life experiences, and that you completely understand what it's like to be any part of any marginalized grouping, and thus constantly ignored, stigmatized and well, plainly oppressed by the existing social order.
Finally, I'm extraordinarily glad that all the comments about feminism in this thread have so far been by men, and there have been no actual feminists here to correct either of us, because, as you would know from your exhaustive grasp of gender studies, that the little thing called "male privilege" doesn't really exist, being a tool of the feminist conspiracy to turn every woman into a communist lesbian.
Most insincerely,
Male anon of comment 8
Derno why
a) You think I care about your gender, among other pieces of your identity, if you choose to go anon
b) It makes a difference what gender you are
Because I think it'd be quite dishonest to mask my sex and therefore hide my privilege in any discussion relating to feminism.
Post a Comment