|
|
|
Prodigal
 
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Friday, October 24, 2008 12:05 AM
Posts: 623,
Visits: 2,511
|
|
coffmeister (3/17/2007)
Don't you believe that there's a middle ground where female ch's can be strong without deriving this strength from either: a) aping men or b) emasculating men? The impression that I get is that for most of human history, the vast majority of powerful women have been powerful because they attached themselves to a powerful man and then did their best to influence his decisions (when I say 'powerful', I'm talking in terms of political power- i.e., power to influence things which happen outside the home. It seems to me that historically most women have had a lot more influence over domestic decisions than over public political ones). So, it depends what you mean by 'aping men'- if we accept that historically, the norm has been for women to have purely indirect influence over what happens outside the home, then any woman who tries to acquire direct influence (e.g. by running for president) could be described as 'aping men' (because most of her role models for how to behave are going to be male ones). Power is to a large extent a zero-sum game (out of lots of presidential candidates, only one will succeed in getting elected). So, if a woman enters a traditionally male field, like politics, and manages to do well enough to be powerful in her own right, then by definition she's going to reduce the amount of power held by some of the other men around her. This could be defined as 'emasculating men', if you like.
WARNING: the information above may have been subjected to dangerously high levels of ignorance.
OOC (and on Pagga): Carrie
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 11:24 PM
Posts: 2,003,
Visits: 8,528
|
|
Women who don't discriminate against men - who are willing to take pot-shots/score political points off fellow fems - are often perceived as transgressing against The Movement. Even if it isn't viewed as a serious transgression, it's still usually seen as 'bitchy' behaviour and looked down on compared to the same attack directed at a male (you can see women in these positions actually putting an apologetic little disclaimer ahead of anything that might be perceived as intra-female bitchiness).
Marios
|
|
|
|
|
Prodigal
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Friday, October 24, 2008 12:05 AM
Posts: 623,
Visits: 2,511
|
|
Marios (3/18/2007)
Women who don't discriminate against men - who are willing to take pot-shots/score political points off fellow fems - are often perceived as transgressing against The Movement. Even if it isn't viewed as a serious transgression, it's still usually seen as 'bitchy' behaviour and looked down on compared to the same attack directed at a male (you can see women in these positions actually putting an apologetic little disclaimer ahead of anything that might be perceived as intra-female bitchiness).Marios (3/8/2007)
I've never met a feminist who, when scratched, didn't turn out to actually not like women much at all - there seems to be a lot of "I'd like women to remodel themselves as men because I find I don't really fit in around most women and I'm sick of hearing about lipstick". Diatribes about male brutishness tend to turn into a case for why women need to co-opt their brutality. If we could just marry all the feminists off to the chauvinists they could spend their evenings vilifying the feminine chattel and we could all have a little peace. Do you feel these statements are consistent with each other? If so, please elaborate.
WARNING: the information above may have been subjected to dangerously high levels of ignorance.
OOC (and on Pagga): Carrie
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 11:24 PM
Posts: 2,003,
Visits: 8,528
|
|
nesciomancer (3/18/2007)
Do you feel these statements are consistent with each other? If so, please elaborate.
Context is a bit thin in each case (clearer with regards to the posts they are replying to). I'm not quite sure which parts you see as requiring a defence of their consistency. In the first case, I'm thinking of women who explicitly identify themselves as feminists (I think I chucked tomboys into the mixture too - whether or not they identify as feminist, they often follow the same trend) and the distinction between their expressed ideology and more candid visceral response (usual political vanguard effect). In the second case, I'm thinking of women in politics and how they talk about eachother/are talked about (in newspapers and political talk shows). Hmm - I can see one possible source of confusion. I used the word 'fems' as an offhand abbreviation for 'females' (in politics), not 'feminists' (seemed clear enough at the time, now less so).
Your point that women have to steal power from men to engage in politics isn't completely true - you can ride in by attacking the (very few) other women. However, female politicians are both (i) very 'catty' (unsurprisingly, considering the fact that they are each sharing what is quite a big representational cake) and (ii) very uncomfortable being seen to be 'catty'. Female politicians seem to do a little squirm whenever they are criticising other female politicians (male politicians do a bit too - but not nearly so much).
Do many of our female politicians self-identify freely as feminists?
Marios
|
|
|
|
|
Champion
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Friday, November 28, 2008 9:03 PM
Posts: 320,
Visits: 1,375
|
|
Matt Pennington (3/18/2007)
My dad runs owns a flooring business and some of those rolls of vinyl can easily weigh upwards of a hundred kilos. And they have to get off the van and into the premises somehow... I frequently have to move tents that weigh 70 or 80 kilos, occasionally by myself. The privilege of management. Get a boss. Call in sick. Blame him.
Or invest in lifting equipment. A simple block and tackle and/or a wheelbarrow will go a long way.
Sorry if the superior comment got you the wrong way, but you`re both lifting way too much, on the assumption that you can, because you`re men. That`s exactly where spinal injuries come from. Your father`s regular back injuries prove that men are _not_ equipped for that kind of heavy lifting, anymore than women are. It`s not just about getting things off the floor, it`s also about being able to walk the next day. Matt Pennington (3/18/2007)
Differences you seem convinced are either not "real" or are not relevant.Not relevant.
Matt Pennington (3/18/2007)
I see no reason to get them to do it, unless it's logistically convenient.Ah! we`re getting closer. Matt Pennington (3/18/2007)
Check out the statistics for the number of men who die in childbirth. It's very low, much higher in women. Women are biologically more capable at giving birth than men, so we let them do it instead of us. And lots more of them die attempting it.Funny you should mention that. Apart from the fact that the number of men that die in childbirth is actually alarmingly high for a sex that is _not capable_ of bearing children - and lots more of us would die if we tried it, you`ve just reminded me of the fact that women were designed by nature to carry weight.
There have been studies made of African women carrying things on their head. IIRC it involves a modified gait that is very efficient. I suppose I should try and find a link to some figures. Matt Pennington (3/18/2007)
But when we want 500Kg of metal coins loading into a trailer, we don't get the women in PD to do it, because frankly, talking *physically* they're quite literally a waste of space on a heavy lift. If a box weighs 100Kg and has room for two people to get round it at once, you better believe I'm going to pick a bloke to lift it with me over a woman every day of the week. And not for her benefit, for mine.Well, first of all, given that I do have some experience in moving things around, I`d have put 500kg of metal coins in smaller containers. (Why don`t you use plastic coinage, like normal organizers?) Secondly, getting someone my own size would be my biggest priority. If I`m helping my sister out (or vice versa), we`d rather move things together than get her husband to help. Not because she`s stronger, but because we`re both quite tall. Of course, if my older brother is also involved, he and my brother-in-law can do the lifting while my sister and I prepare lunch. Matt Pennington (3/18/2007)
*grin* Nice line.I thought you`d appreciate it.
________________________________________________________ - IRL: Edwin Hofstra
- - mostly crewing at the moment
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Friday, November 21, 2008 7:33 PM
Posts: 1,456,
Visits: 2,020
|
|
nesciomancer (3/18/2007)
This could be defined as 'emasculating men', if you like.
I can never understand the concept of emasculating men. I mean, apart from actually cutting your testicles off, how does that work exactly?
Never one to shy away from using the internet as a valid research tool to endorse and support my ignorance I looked it up on dictionary.com. For emasculating it says:
"1. to castrate.
2. to deprive of strength or vigor; weaken.
–adjective
3. deprived of or lacking strength or vigor; effeminate."
I just don't get it. As far as I am aware the number of men who have been forcibly castrated by women is small. Small like microscopic small. In just about any context you want. So I'm going to rule out number one as probably not the definition being suggested.
So is it this idea of depriving of strength or vigor. Eh? How could you do that to someone? Short of actually imprisoning them and deliberately causing them to become malnourished. How do you deprive someone of their strength? Ok, so I'm no Samson, but I don't know any Delilah's either. What is it that you actually do to a person (a man?) to deprive them of strength or vigor? How does this mental or physical state of being deprived of your strength or vigor come about?
The only other thing I can see is the idea of making a man effeminate. I'm pretty confused about how you can make someone effeminate. The only thing I can see is that women, by having the utter temerity to be better at things than individual men are, displace those men from traditional male roles forcing the men to occupy roles traditionally seen as female. Female breadwinners and house husbands and that sort of thing. Is that what is meant by emasculating?
If so, why don't we men (and women) just be more honest about it? I don't like women who out-perform me and thereby reduce my social standing. Lets have no more talk of emasculating men, lets be honest about the fact that it boils down to the simple fact that lots of men don't like women being better at stuff than they are, unless it's "women's work". I can see how a man might feel emasculated but I'm at a loss to know what it is a woman might actually do to emasculate a man.
Since this is a thread for women's day (sort of), I'd like to ask that people avoid the word emasculate (since I don't know what it means) and either use the word castrate (if that is what is meant) or explain what they mean by the "emasculate".
History is an important source for LRP. Along with other works of fiction.
|
|
|
|
|
Champion
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Friday, November 28, 2008 9:03 PM
Posts: 320,
Visits: 1,375
|
|
Sarah (3/18/2007)
Unless I am completely misreading, you have just accused Matt P of sexism. Matt P is one of the least sexist people I have ever met.I`m sure he is. Matt Pennington (3/17/2007)
Surely a sexist is someone who discriminates on grounds of gender? [snip: L] Discriminate means treating things differently. If you treat men and women the same then you haven't discriminated. If you don't treat them the same then you have.Matt Pennington (3/18/2007)
If a box weighs 100Kg and has room for two people to get round it at once, you better believe I'm going to pick a bloke to lift it with me over a woman every day of the week.
________________________________________________________- IRL: Edwin Hofstra
- - mostly crewing at the moment
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 11:24 PM
Posts: 2,003,
Visits: 8,528
|
|
Matt Pennington (3/18/2007)
I can never understand the concept of emasculating men. I mean, apart from actually cutting your testicles off, how does that work exactly?
Sorry - but I thought Nesciomancer's post already covered that point (at least, within the context it was being discussed in):
nesciomancer (3/18/2007)
Power is to a large extent a zero-sum game (out of lots of presidential candidates, only one will succeed in getting elected). So, if a woman enters a traditionally male field, like politics, and manages to do well enough to be powerful in her own right, then by definition she's going to reduce the amount of power held by some of the other men around her. This could be defined as 'emasculating men', if you like.
You seem to be suggesting that there's something unusual/childish about not liking being politically displaced (in which case, why all the fuss about unfair discrimination?). Having different terms to define who is being displaced/who is doing the displacing has been a fairly normal linguistic habit for - what - at least 2000 years - what's the grounds for discriminating against their use because women are involved? Are women pre-ethical or something?
Marios
|
|
|
| | |