Off topic argument about gender equality

[Shinqui]

What is it about this issue that makes so many people spit fire?

Well, to be fair, it really comes down to sexual repression, specificaly toward women, which can then be taken even farther to concern itself with female repression or oppression in general.

Seeing as we have many fierce, intellectual women on this website (as we should), I doubt there is any way that this could be discussed without fire.

As it stands though, said women are being far tamer than they have reason to be. Men kill each other over less.

Peace

[Chain]

PS: Oh yeah, and guys, mechanical advantage is your friend too. If she doesn't have one, you should. There is no such thing as a woman who is too satisfied with sex.

I've met many more men than women that want it more than their partner. Hell, if that were the case, I'd be happier than I am now.

I don't believe in monogamy, I just believe children should only exist in marriage. THe social institution is still the presumed ideal. What you do after you get hitched is your business. As a matter of fact its all your business. This is just what I believe. And I know I have a cultural bias.

I agree with that, but it has nothing to do with cultures or morals. Going through a divorce, rather than a break up would have been a lot easier to go through. Without marriage, there are several things, at least in MD, that you can't do anything about.

[Chain]

What is it about this issue that makes so many people spit fire?

I think it's probably one of the following two:

1. One side subconsciously takes it as an attack.
2. The other thinks that everyone who's moral standards aren't the same as theirs ought to be irradicated.

Either way, purposefully rattling fema-nazi cages provides hours of quality entertainment. It's amazing what hard-core followers of an emotional rather than logical ideal will come up with when under fire.





Chain added to this post, 11 minutes and 6 seconds later...

OKay, now I'm curious... So people believe that children should only exist in a marriage... What if a single man or single woman that is stable financially and has love to give to a child adopts or is artificially inseminated (women here, obviously)? Is that wrong?

I know what you meant by your statements. I'm just hoping that you weren't implying that a single person shouldn't be allowed to adopt just because they aren't married.

Cool by me. My thing is, it just would've been easier for me to sort things out with my daughter's mom if we had been married. I see the marriage thing as more of a "wiser approach than nothing," than a "should."

[Lucid]

I think it's probably one of the following two:

1. One side subconsciously takes it as an attack.
2. The other thinks that everyone who's moral standards aren't the same as theirs ought to be irradicated.

Either way, purposefully rattling fema-nazi cages provides hours of quality entertainment. It's amazing what hard-core followers of an emotional rather than logical ideal will come up with when under fire.

Yeah.... because keeping women sexually and socially oppressed is totally logical. And any woman who thinks she should have equal civil and sexual liberties to men are obviously hard core feminazis.

Also, if one side wants the other side eradicated, then it is, actually, an attack.

Incidentally, do you enjoy 'rattling the cages' of all representatives of a group which is treated unequally, or is it just women?

For example, men are treated unequally in the court system with regard to parenting rights, child support, etc. Are the ones who are upset about this unequal treatement the hardcore followers of an emotional rather than a logical ideal? Do you rattle their cages as well?

[Chain]

Yeah.... because keeping women sexually and socially oppressed is totally logical. And any woman who thinks she should have equal civil and sexual liberties to men are obviously hard core feminazis.

Also, if one side wants the other side eradicated, then it is, actually, an attack.

Incidentally, do you enjoy 'rattling the cages' of all representatives of a group which is treated unequally, or is it just women?

For example, men are treated unequally in the court system with regard to parenting rights, child support, etc. Are the ones who are upset about this unequal treatement the hardcore followers of an emotional rather than a logical ideal? Do you rattle their cages as well?

You mis-interpreted again. There's a big difference between "wanting things equal between men and women" and fema-nazi.

I enjoy rattling the cages of emotionally-charged, narrow-minded idiots. I don't care what their charge is. And no, I have not intentionally rattled any cages on this site. Nor do I forsee having to anytime soon.

While I could sit here and spout all kinds of garbage about how women ought to be and why... How about I try this approach: I actually support what the feminist movement was meant to be, equal rights, equal treatment, and equal responsibility. I support being able to live your life as you see fit.

What I don't support, is the narrow-minded view that some have, that women should get all these perks without taking the additional responsibility. Examples: Some women wanted in the military because they are "just as strong as men," yet I don't see any of them fighting to have their expectations set as high as men's are. Most women whine about getting treated as sex objects; but don't complain about getting discounts at the automotive store for the shirt they're wearing, or their meals paid for on dates... The people who's cages I kick on this topic want it all. They want independance and chivalry; they want rights and priveledges, but not the responsibilities.

IMO, as I see it, nowadays, it's pretty equal once you look at the big picture. Sure, it's not when you look at any specific detail, but women aren't on the losing end of everything. Society is kinda getting down to the point where women are going to start fighting each other: Those that don't want to give certain things up, and those that want every little detail to be equal.

Note: That last paragraph is an observation, not a judgement on which way things ought to be.

[Lucid]

You mis-interpreted again. There's a big difference between "wanting things equal between men and women" and fema-nazi.

I enjoy rattling the cages of emotionally-charged, narrow-minded idiots. I don't care what their charge is. And no, I have not intentionally rattled any cages on this site. Nor do I forsee having to anytime soon.

While I could sit here and spout all kinds of garbage about how women ought to be and why... How about I try this approach: I actually support what the feminist movement was meant to be, equal rights, equal treatment, and equal responsibility. I support being able to live your life as you see fit.

What I don't support, is the narrow-minded view that some have, that women should get all these perks without taking the additional responsibility. Examples: Some women wanted in the military because they are "just as strong as men," yet I don't see any of them fighting to have their expectations set as high as men's are. Most women whine about getting treated as sex objects; but don't complain about getting discounts at the automotive store for the shirt they're wearing, or their meals paid for on dates... The people who's cages I kick on this topic want it all. They want independance and chivalry; they want rights and priveledges, but not the responsibilities.

IMO, as I see it, nowadays, it's pretty equal once you look at the big picture. Sure, it's not when you look at any specific detail, but women aren't on the losing end of everything. Society is kinda getting down to the point where women are going to start fighting each other: Those that don't want to give certain things up, and those that want every little detail to be equal.

Note: That last paragraph is an observation, not a judgement on which way things ought to be.


Feminism is probably a topic for a different thread, and in fact, has been covered in several threads already. However, I think it might be useful for you to step back and look at your previous post and see how it may have come off.
Also, I think the reason you see it as mostly equal is because you're not a female. Most of the 'perks' you describe are pretty inconsequential when compared to what women give up for them or what women are denied whether they get discounts at the auto parts store or not. (something that might happen, but which I've never seen).
Not that men don't get the shit end of the stick sometimes, too.
I understand that these misunderstandings (if that's what they are) are frustrating to you, but if you don't want to have them you should perhaps use more forethought when posting. It certainly happens to all of us, but seriously, saying "It's fun to rattle the cages of irrational feminazis" in response to "why do people get so upset about this topic?" is probably going to be taken as anti-feminist every time.

[Henry]

Feminism is probably a topic for a different thread, and in fact, has been covered in several threads already.

Fail mind control.


However, I think it might be useful for you to step back and look at your previous post and see how it may have come off.
Also, I think the reason you see it as mostly equal is because you're not a female. Most of the 'perks' you describe are pretty inconsequential when compared to what women give up for them or what women are denied whether they get discounts at the auto parts store or not. (something that might happen, but which I've never seen).

What do you feel women "give up" for parts at the auto store?

I understand that these misunderstandings (if that's what they are) are frustrating to you, but if you don't want to have them you should perhaps use more forethought when posting. It certainly happens to all of us, but seriously, saying "It's fun to rattle the cages of irrational feminazis" in response to "why do people get so upset about this topic?" is probably going to be taken as anti-feminist every time.

I'm not anti-feminism, but I am anti-bullshit, and what he said has merit; many feminists want all the privledges associated with traditional masculine roles, but want them without many of the corresponding responsibilites.

[Lucid]

Fail mind control.

I'm sorry, I don't understand. Are you trying to say that I'm attempting mind control by suggesting that a discussion about feminism take place in a thread devoted to feminism rather than a thread devoted to the ethics of having numerous sexual partners? Because I'd say that's a logic fail.

What do you feel women "give up" for parts at the auto store?

How about this? I'll trade you: you can have the discount at the auto parts store and I'll take career advancement, higher pay, greater respect and being taken seriously. Deal? Because I'm perfectly happy paying full price for auto parts. And honestly, what happens more often (in my experience) is that when I go for new break pads they try to put the completely unnecessary $10 a package 'break gel' in my bag and just charge me for it, as if it's something necessary for break pads. They do this because they think I don't know any better. So I don't know exactly what 'discount' he's talking about.
My point is that, yes, women do enjoy some perks. However, they're not nearly as meaningful, valuable or satisfying as many of the perks men enjoy.

I'm not anti-feminism, but I am anti-bullshit, and what he said has merit; many feminists want all the privledges associated with traditional masculine roles, but want them without many of the corresponding responsibilites.

I'm not saying that's not true; There are some women like that. Just as there are some men who want women to go back to being 2nd class citizens. They're a loud minority and I certainly wouldn't judge all men on what those men have to say. Just as you shouldn't judge all feminists on what some of the less logical crazies say.

I'm actually a little confused about how you're getting anything to contradict that out of my post.

[Harmony]

How about the girl that got the discount at the auto parts store because she went in there greasy from working on the car herself, or got the discount for shooting the shit with the sales guy about the Super Bowl? There are times when it has nothing to do with what you wear...but your personality and the things you enjoy.

And I have seen some guys that will flirt with a girl to get a discount as well. Everything can be turned around for the other sex.

[Chain]

Feminism is probably a topic for a different thread, and in fact, has been covered in several threads already. However, I think it might be useful for you to step back and look at your previous post and see how it may have come off.
Also, I think the reason you see it as mostly equal is because you're not a female. Most of the 'perks' you describe are pretty inconsequential when compared to what women give up for them or what women are denied whether they get discounts at the auto parts store or not. (something that might happen, but which I've never seen).
Not that men don't get the shit end of the stick sometimes, too.
I understand that these misunderstandings (if that's what they are) are frustrating to you, but if you don't want to have them you should perhaps use more forethought when posting. It certainly happens to all of us, but seriously, saying "It's fun to rattle the cages of irrational feminazis" in response to "why do people get so upset about this topic?" is probably going to be taken as anti-feminist every time.

I need to start remembering y'all get upset when threads go off-topic. I didn't mean for this to go this way, giving an example of how my beliefs were contrary to the assumption was the only way I knew to get my point across.

I can see that. However, I thought you'd have known better after that last thread we went back and forth in.


How about this? I'll trade you: you can have the discount at the auto parts store and I'll take career advancement, higher pay, greater respect and being taken seriously. Deal? Because I'm perfectly happy paying full price for auto parts. And honestly, what happens more often (in my experience) is that when I go for new break pads they try to put the completely unnecessary $10 a package 'break gel' in my bag and just charge me for it, as if it's something necessary for break pads.They do this because they think I don't know any better. So I don't know exactly what 'discount' he's talking about.
My point is that, yes, women do enjoy some perks. However, they're not nearly as meaningful, valuable or satisfying as many of the perks men enjoy.


That's the kind of crap I get.

I used to send an ex-gf to the parts store on purpose. I've also known several guys that worked parts counters and they've said that both scenarios happen all the time.

It's natural to think the grass is always greener on the other side. People take normal "perks" for granted, that's part of being human. Depending on the person depends on what they value, but it's also hard to value something you've never had to fight for or do without.

How about the girl that got the discount at the auto parts store because she went in there greasy from working on the car herself, or got the discount for shooting the shit with the sales guy about the Super Bowl? There are times when it has nothing to do with what you wear...but your personality and the things you enjoy.

And I have seen some guys that will flirt with a girl to get a discount as well. Everything can be turned around for the other sex.

If it was guy doing those things, he wouldn't have gotten it.

When was the last time a guy got out of a speeding ticket by being cute and flirtatious? Flirting with a girl to get something in the business world is almost a sure-fire way to insure that you won't get it.

[Harmony]

If it was guy doing those things, he wouldn't have gotten it.

When was the last time a guy got out of a speeding ticket by being cute and flirtatious? Flirting with a girl to get something in the business world is almost a sure-fire way to insure that you won't get it.

Really? Because I can't count how many times I've seen a guy cut another guy a discount for that exact same thing. I've also seen guys that just totally take advantage of a girl because they think she doesn't know better.

Actually, I do know a guy that got out of a speeding ticket by flirting. And got a date out of the deal.

[Anreader]

Many feminists want all the privledges associated with traditional masculine roles, but want them without many of the corresponding responsibilites.

What responsibilities are these exactly?

[Lucid]

I need to start remembering y'all get upset when threads go off-topic. I didn't mean for this to go this way, giving an example of how my beliefs were contrary to the assumption was the only way I knew to get my point across.

I can see that. However, I thought you'd have known better after that last thread we went back and forth in.

No... I don't know you well enough yet to be able to know your mind. And people often post things that seem to be in conflict with other things they've posted in the past.

That's the kind of crap I get.

I used to send an ex-gf to the parts store on purpose. I've also known several guys that worked parts counters and they've said that both scenarios happen all the time.

It's natural to think the grass is always greener on the other side. People take normal "perks" for granted, that's part of being human. Depending on the person depends on what they value, but it's also hard to value something you've never had to fight for or do without.

Yes, that's what I'm saying to a point. But again, I'd rather be paid more and have grater capacity for advancement in my career than have people open doors for me or let me into clubs easier. But, I certainly won't deny that men are discriminated against in some ways too (please see my example re courts and parenting issues). It sucks for everyone and we should all work to change it.

However, both you and Henry seem to be assuming that women actually get the rights and responsibilities in question. While there are some laws in place and things are generally much better than they were, say 30 years ago, we're a long way from being treated equally. Laws can only do so much and solve certain kinds of issues. Mostly what the laws seem to do is give people a reason to say that sexism is dead and that women should shut up about equal rights.

When was the last time a guy got out of a speeding ticket by being cute and flirtatious? Flirting with a girl to get something in the business world is almost a sure-fire way to insure that you won't get it.

I've never gotten out of a speeding ticket ever. If I'm going to be oppressed, underpaid and marginalized I at least want to get out of a speeding ticket or two on the merit of having breasts.

That's a joke, btw.

[Chain]

No... I don't know you well enough yet to be able to know your mind. And people often post things that seem to be in conflict with other things they've posted in the past.

Good point. Agreed.

Yes, that's what I'm saying to a point. But again, I'd rather be paid more and have grater capacity for advancement in my career than have people open doors for me or let me into clubs easier. But, I certainly won't deny that men are discriminated against in some ways too (please see my example re courts and parenting issues). It sucks for everyone and we should all work to change it.

I wasn't arguing you, or even most women, I was arguing some women.

And I know about the courts all too well. I have primary custody of my little one; and I'd have loved to punch the Master of the court on more than one occasion.

However, both you and Henry seem to be assuming that women actually get the rights and responsibilities in question. While there are some laws in place and things are generally much better than they were, say 30 years ago, we're a long way from being treated equally. Laws can only do so much and solve certain kinds of issues. Mostly what the laws seem to do is give people a reason to say that sexism is dead and that women should shut up about equal rights.

I don't assume that at all. In a lot of ways and in a lot of places things are still beyond FUBAR no matter what the law says. The law says they can't discriminate against "XYZ" so they call it "experience," either too little or too much. I've seen it happen.

That said, it seems that you're getting hung up on a few specific issues because of your obstacles you've had to deal with rather than looking at the big picture which is what I was referring to.

I've never gotten out of a speeding ticket ever. If I'm going to be oppressed, underpaid and marginalized I at least want to get out of a speeding ticket or two on the merit of having breasts.

That's a joke, btw.

:laugh:

[Lucid]

Good point. Agreed.

I wasn't arguing you, or even most women, I was arguing some women.

And I know about the courts all too well. I have primary custody of my little one; and I'd have loved to punch the Master of the court on more than one occasion.

I don't assume that at all. In a lot of ways and in a lot of places things are still beyond FUBAR no matter what the law says. The law says they can't discriminate against "XYZ" so they call it "experience," either too little or too much. I've seen it happen.

That said, it seems that you're getting hung up on a few specific issues because of your obstacles you've had to deal with rather than looking at the big picture which is what I was referring to.

:laugh:

Oh.. by the last post I was pretty sure we were in agreement, I just wanted to flesh out what I was saying that I thought was being misunderstood but wasn't really. And also I like to hear myself talk. Common INTJ trait... I hope you'll forgive me.

I agree both with your big picture assessment of things but will note that the specific issues are (obviously) part of the big picture and things that matter to me a lot because they're things I deal with a lot. Different specific issues will probably matter to you. That's as it should be.

Anyway, we are now (hilariously) arguing with eachother about a point we agree on. :)

[Sinequanon]

What do you feel women "give up" for parts at the auto store?

Generally, forcing those in the minority (in power, in this case, I know there are numerically more women) to defend why they should get equal rights has not led to much progress. It also doesn't tend to be the default attitude of progressive people, no matter how often they say words like "equality."

[Henry]

Generally, forcing those in the minority (in power, in this case, I know there are numerically more women) to defend why they should get equal rights has not led to much progress. It also doesn't tend to be the default attitude of progressive people, no matter how often they say words like "equality."


Subtle BURN for disagreeing with the bullshit that comes from many feminists. Of course I'm totally deserving of it for not spouting the party line. The feminists are worse than Mormons on groupthink a lot of the time, and you just proved my point.

Who said anything about equal rights? I'm not disputing that women should have the same opportunities or rights. I am saying that they shouldn't be given "minority set aside" positions, I am saying that with sexual freedom comes exposure to criticism, I am saying that you shouldn't bitch about career advancement if you're going to take 4 fat maternity leaves and disproportionately go into low-wage professions like teaching.

But back to secret burns and groupthink...

[Sinequanon]

Subtle BURN for disagreeing with the bullshit that comes from many feminists. Of course I'm totally deserving of it for not spouting the party line. The feminists are worse than Mormons on groupthink a lot of the time, and you just proved my point.

Who said anything about equal rights? I'm not disputing that women should have the same opportunities or rights. I am saying that they shouldn't be given "minority set aside" positions, I am saying that with sexual freedom comes exposure to criticism, I am saying that you shouldn't bitch about career advancement if you're going to take 4 fat maternity leaves and disproportionately go into low-wage professions like teaching.

But back to secret burns and groupthink...
I think my general line of argument with people on this board has been "It's more complicated than that." Some people tend to recite rhetoric from rote, or remember keywords and buzzwords that make their point.

To wit: I really doubt any of the things you've mentioned are elements anyone would call "original thought." Yet, the ideology you've bought into allows you to call it forth while believing it's completely the product of individual, careful consideration, and confining the opinions of others to the realm of "groupthink."

More to the point: I'm not a feminist, for many reasons. I have trouble associating with an ideology I feel at its core promotes the hatred of men, just as I have problems with the dominant patriarchy. If you're really about equality (which you don't seem to be, by your own admission), then ultimately you'd have to reject both in some way to come to some accord between them. I don't fault feminists, though, because taking a hardline against tens of thousands of years of historic discrimination is understandable (just at the level of affecting people who actually aren't harming you is where we start disagreeing, but this is a more subtle point than the ideology is capable of addressing, which is why it needs to be rejected).

Why you immediately jumped to "minority set asides," "4 fat maternity leaves" and women's propensity for joining "low paying jobs like teaching" is beyond me. I understand why, statistically, women are paid less than men. I don't think that accounts for the entire disproportion, however. There is a large pool of anecdotal evidence that women are typically paid less for the same work, as well. Do you see what I'm saying here? Because it's subtle and I know (from arguing with you prior - by the way, what happened to you in the illegal immigrant debate? You just disappeared. How queer) that subtlety needs to be hammered home: I reject the feminist notion of 75c on the dollar (due to factors such as, as you said, inequality in the jobs men and women choose, and maternity leave affecting career advancement, along with other factors), but I believe that doesn't account for the full inequality.

Maybe a good question to start asking would be why we undervalue jobs like teaching (which you threw out with no small amount of disdain) and social work in our markets? I know the free market controls the price of a lot of jobs, but teaching is done primarily in the public sector. So we set the price on it. Why are we short-changing our educators? When we short change our educators, we short change our children, as well. Is it maybe because part of the stigma attached to has to do with it's being a "feminized" profession, not worthy of being funded adequately? I think so. It's not nearly all of the problem, but it's definitely some of it. Maybe if we pumped funding into it, and made it attractive, we'd get some men in the profession too, and our education system wouldn't be in the toilet, rite?? (See, I told you I'm not a feminist. I'm actually a raging chauvenist. I'm all for the rights of chauves. ;))

Even more to the point: I'm saying both sides are wrong. I'm right. Stop (futilely) arguing with me and listen to me and we'll get somewhere in this world. :)

*drags thread back on topic*

Teachers should have sex with as many partners as they want. :thumbsup:

[Henry]

I think my general line of argument with people on this board has been "It's more complicated than that." Some people tend to recite rhetoric from rote, or remember keywords and buzzwords that make their point.

"Generally, forcing those in the minority (in power, in this case, I know there are numerically more women) to defend why they should get equal rights has not led to much progress. It also doesn't tend to be the default attitude of progressive people, no matter how often they say words like "equality."

Caution: use of the terms "minority" "power" "should get equal rights" "progress" "default attitude" "profressive people" "equality" mixed with a false argument followed immediately by an invective against people who use buzzwords may make you appear hypocritical.

But I'm probably sexist for saying that, right?

[firebee]

I'm not anti-feminism, but I am anti-bullshit, and what he said has merit; many feminists want all the privledges associated with traditional masculine roles, but want them without many of the corresponding responsibilites.
Perhaps I am not understanding this statement correctly. I have heard arguments of this nature before, when I was younger. They were generally made by parents or adults in authority to the minor children they were in charge of. What does this have to do with adult women?





firebee added to this post, 1 minutes and 44 seconds later...

And regards teaching -- to be brief, people learn best when they are young. The education of young people should not be a low-pay, low-prestige position with a shaky claim on professionalism. The reason it is is partly because we could get away with it when there was no other career option for intelligent women.

[Sinequanon]

And regards teaching -- to be brief, people learn best when they are young. The education of young people should not be a low-pay, low-prestige position with a shaky claim on professionalism. The reason it is is partly because we could get away with it when there was no other career option for intelligent women.
I agree. I also have a friend who is heavily (monetarily) invested in dropout recovery, a position which doesn't pay much but absolutely requires a lot of post-college education at great expense. Yet the job she does could literally save lives, and definitely positively impact the course of society.

It must be nice to be able to talk about teachers with such disdain. I know I would have to have some pretty rosy-smelling shit to get away with that.

[Henry]

Perhaps I am not understanding this statement correctly. I have heard arguments of this nature before, when I was younger. They were generally made by parents or adults in authority to the minor children they were in charge of. What does this have to do with adult women?

...

That's another nice slur there, and another completely false argument.

My point was, if you want a great career, be prepared to sacrifice for it. Don't bitch about being left behind in pay and advancement when you're taking a 6 month maternity leave every other year. Don't whine about unequal incomes when you disproportionately go into careers that give you 3-4 months off per year.





Henry added to this post, 1 minutes and 8 seconds later...

I agree. I also have a friend who is heavily (monetarily) invested in dropout recovery, a position which doesn't pay much but absolutely requires a lot of post-college education at great expense. Yet the job she does could literally save lives, and definitely positively impact the course of society.

It must be nice to be able to talk about teachers with such disdain. I know I would have to have some pretty rosy-smelling shit to get away with that.

And another personal attack because I hold opinions you do not like.

Caution: use of the terms "minority" "power" "should get equal rights" "progress" "default attitude" "profressive people" "equality" mixed with a false argument followed immediately by an invective against people who use buzzwords may make you appear hypocritical.

But I'm probably sexist for saying that, right?


And regards teaching -- to be brief, people learn best when they are young. The education of young people should not be a low-pay, low-prestige position with a shaky claim on professionalism. The reason it is is partly because we could get away with it when there was no other career option for intelligent women

If you say so. I'm all about upping pay for people who work 8-9 months out of the year.

[Sinequanon]

And another personal attack because I hold opinions you do not like.
You literally called me a douchebag. I said you spoke with disdain of teachers. Quit it with the overly emotional reactions and hyperbole. Discuss the issues. I'm keeping this short so you'll read it.

Edit:
Caution: use of the terms "minority" "power" "should get equal rights" "progress" "default attitude" "profressive people" "equality" mixed with a false argument followed immediately by an invective against people who use buzzwords may make you appear hypocritical.
a.) We're talking about minorities (women)
b.) Feminism is about power. (Specifically addressing the inequality women and male feminists see)
c.) Do you disagree that women should get equal rights?
d.) I never said "profressive."
e.) How can an argument that you didn't read be false? Either you read it and couldn't refute it, so you decided to flame me and pretend you didn't read it, or you didn't read it. At least stay logically consistent if you're going to lie and weasel out of a debate.

[firebee]

...

That's another nice slur there, and another completely false argument.

My point was, if you want a great career, be prepared to sacrifice for it. Don't bitch about being left behind in pay and advancement when you're taking a 6 month maternity leave every other year. Don't whine about unequal incomes when you disproportionately go into careers that give you 3-4 months off per year.


I do not see here an explanation of how adult women do not deserve certain privileges because they are unwilling to take on the corresponding responsibilities. I also do not see any explanation of why a childless electrical engineer should care about maternity leave or about the schedules of teachers. Please do inform me.


But I'm probably sexist for saying that, right?

No, you'd likely be sexist anyway, even independent of your annoying attitude. Are you ready to support your statements yet?

[Henry]

Correct. And the reason you can't possibly know whether my buzzwords substituted for an argument was that you, by your own admission, didn't read the post to which you responded.

Correct. I initially responded to post A. Post A was filled with empty buzzwords. You indicated in Post C that my post, Post B, was filled with buzzwords and empty arguments and was simplistic. Which was hypocrisy. Which doesn't exactly aid your credibility or readability. You now add (questionable) qualification to the buzzwords, but its still hypocrisy because you were still making unqualified arguments while criticizing others for allegedly doing the same.

a.) We're talking about minorities (women)
b.) Feminism is about power. (Specifically addressing the inequality women and male feminists see)
c.) Do you disagree that women should get equal rights?
d.) I never said "profressive."
e.) How can an argument that you didn't read be false? Either you read it and couldn't refute it, so you decided to flame me and pretend you didn't read it, or you didn't read it. At least stay logically consistent if you're going to lie and weasel out of a debate

A false argument is when someone claims that the opposing party made an argument they didn't make. Which is precisely what you did in posts A and posts C. L2grasp basic concepts.


I do not see here an explanation of how adult women do not deserve certain privileges because they are unwilling to take on the corresponding responsibilities. I also do not see any explanation of why a childless electrical engineer should care about maternity leave or about the schedules of teachers. Please do inform me.

Another false argument. Never argued anywhere that unequal pay for the same work is appropriate.

My statement regarding rights and responsibilities is that if you want a great career, be prepared to work for it, go into careers where you can get what you want, and don't externalize your problems. Just saying "this isn't an argument" isn't a response.

No, you'd likely be sexist anyway, even independent of your annoying attitude. Are you ready to support your statements yet?

And another personal comment! Is an admin going to step in at some point?

[Lucid]

Whoa there!

Damn, I go to bed and look what happens.

Henry: I don't think anyone is or was saying that it's unfair for women who take maternity leaves (or men wo take paternity leaves) or who voluntarily go into lower paying positions are being discriminated against.

You're railing against the typical hardline feminist stuff which nobody here is arguing for. You're arguing against 'special rights' which nobody was arguing for to begin with. Nobody is saying that women (or anybody) should be able to have a great career without making some sacrifices and doing a lot of hard work.

If you're going to try to tell me that sexism is dead and women and men get equal treatement, that's something we can sure argue about.
Otherwise, it seems like you're actually in agreement with what everyone so far has been saying - you're just assuming that we're saying things we're not.

It's really too bad that as soon as someone says, "Hey, women should have equal rights, priveleges and opportunities as men!" a lot of people jump to these bizarre "You don't get special treatement!!" arguments. Nobody said anything about special treatement. It's frustrating that it's impossible to have a discussion about gender equality without being accused of a) hating men b) wanting special treatement and c) being lazy.

Please respond to the arguments people here are actually making, not to the arguments being made by some other people elsewhere. Those people don't seem to be reading this thread and they can't hear you.

Anyway, you guys are actually very angrily agreeing with eachother.



EDIT: Wow... proof that correct grammar and consistant sentence structure abilities are not yet functional at 6 am.

[firebee]

And I would say that thing are muchly improved from, say, my mother's day. People are generally much more restrained about making flagrantly sexist statements, and are generally reasonably open-minded regarding the abilities an individual woman might have and the choices she might make.

That said, prejudice is a tricky problem -- by definition, it tends to happen to the same people and to not happen to people who are not part of that group. So if you're a nice guy who occasionally gets a bit fearful when you're around a dark-skinned person, and you're in a town filled with your peers, the one Mexican guy is going to hear a chorus of power locks everytime he goes for a walk and you're never going to see it happen. Consequently, you're likely to feel a bit put upon -- and not unreasonably -- when you get nailed to a wall over what is, relative to you as an individual, a pretty minor foible.

[Harmony]

My point was, if you want a great career, be prepared to sacrifice for it. Don't bitch about being left behind in pay and advancement when you're taking a 6 month maternity leave every other year. Don't whine about unequal incomes when you disproportionately go into careers that give you 3-4 months off per year.

This is such a fascinating statement to me... I've only ever seen one girl that was pregnant take this long of a maternity leave. A close friend of mine took two weeks maternity leave. That's it. And she's had one in the past four years. Why was it necessary to exaggerate that statement so much?

[Lucid]

This is such a fascinating statement to me... I've only ever seen one girl that was pregnant take this long of a maternity leave. A close friend of mine took two weeks maternity leave. That's it. And she's had one in the past four years. Why was it necessary to exaggerate that statement so much?

Agreed. And what's this 'per year' crap? I don't know how it is in Salt Lake City, but the average family has two children - which means 2 periods of maternity leave in a lifetime. And what about paternity leave? Men take time off when they have a kid too.

[Sinequanon]

Agreed. And what's this 'per year' crap? I don't know how it is in Salt Lake City, but the average family has two children - which means 2 periods of maternity leave in a lifetime. And what about paternity leave? Men take time off when they have a kid too.
My theory is that he is regurgitating what he hears on the radio and on blogs. It's a second-hand argument, rehashed from other bad arguments and it shows.

The rampant hyperbole (6 months for maternity leave, teachers getting 3-4 months off per year so screw 'em) has little to do with a reflective, nuanced and considered position and should be treated as such. The fact that he openly admits he doesn't read arguments that run counter to his pre-defined worldview makes him a fairly lost cause.

[amberlinen]

...
My point was, if you want a great career, be prepared to sacrifice for it. Don't bitch about being left behind in pay and advancement when you're taking a 6 month maternity leave every other year. Don't whine about unequal incomes when you disproportionately go into careers that give you 3-4 months off per year.


1. Why do you instinctively mention "maternal leave" and no "paternal leave"? Today's women still aren't able to make babies without a baby's father.

It's unequal exactly because there's traditionally only maternal leave and no paternal leave (the traditions can be changed by laws like what they do in Switzerland). Government and organizations assume women should take care of the babies and men should have a career.


2. Women get unequal treatments no matter they take their supposed "maternal leave" or not, because people like you assume they will get special treatment.

Of course there are some women who take advantage of those things, but men can slack off too. it is unequal because men who slack off never get the prejudice due to their gender.

And prejudice can play an even bigger role than actual job performance in determining the final evaluation, if the boss is not aware of the prejudice.

[Lucid]

My theory is that he is regurgitating what he hears on the radio and on blogs. It's a second-hand argument, rehashed from other bad arguments and it shows.

The rampant hyperbole (6 months for maternity leave, teachers getting 3-4 months off per year so screw 'em) has little to do with a reflective, nuanced and considered position and should be treated as such. The fact that he openly admits he doesn't read arguments that run counter to his pre-defined worldview makes him a fairly lost cause.

Most of the time sexism is unconscious and unknown by the people doing it. It's the result of people not examining their reasons for doing or thinking things with regard to gender. I don't really think that Henry's sexist though. I don't think he believes that women are inferior to men, or that they shouldn't have equal rights, responsibilities and privileges. I just think he's been misinformed about how the majority of the people fighting for those things define them, and about what inequalities there are still. This can be such a divisive and emotional topic (for everyone involved) that I think some posters (incorrectly I think) took things like "equal rights" and "unequal treatement" to mean that some of the feminists (for lack of a better term) who are posting were talking about being treated better than men and having "special rights" and "special treatement." In turn, others saw Henry's posts in response to the perceived "special rights" agenda as advancing a view that women should be treated as second class citizens and denied equal rights, priveleges and responsibilities.

Sorry to talk about in the 3rd person Henry, feel free to respond to or refute anything I said above - not that you need my permission.

Anyway, as I said, it seems like we're all actually agreeing in a very angry, misunderstanding of eachoters' point kind of way. :)

I think it would be far more interesting to talk about what kinds of inequalities exist (amberlinen does a good job of bringing some of these up), why the exist and what can or should be done to change them. There's plenty of inequality for both men and women and often treating one gender as a second-class citizen with regard to a certain subject (child raising or career are two examples) hurts the other gender just as much.

It's unequal exactly because there's traditionally only maternal leave and no paternal leave (the traditions can be changed by laws like what they do in Switzerland). Government and organizations assume women should take care of the babies and men should have a career.



Excellent point. More men should be able to take paternity leave. Kids need fathers too and men should have just as much ability to be parents as women should have the ability to have careers.

[firebee]

Of course there are some women who take advantage of those things, but men can slack off too. it is unequal because men who slack off never get the prejudice due to their gender.


I don't know that this is entirely correct. I've observed comments from men who are the primary caregiver or otherwise don't have traditional employment, that they do encounter an assumption that they are deadbeats, layabouts, etc. And I'm inclined to believe them correct because I've seen that assumption myself. There's a very strong expectation that men will be the primary breadwinner, and not an overabundance of outs that are seen as honorable.


And prejudice can play an even bigger role than actual job performance in determining the final evaluation, if the boss is not aware of the prejudice.

This is something that very much concerns me. If the boss is selecting people to promote, and he has an implicit and unexamined assumption that a given person, for instance, won't be able to drive the company trucks or lacks sufficient training to be able to work in the field safely, then it seems likely that person is going to have a subtly negative influence on their career prospects in that company.

[Harmony]

This is something that very much concerns me. If the boss is selecting people to promote, and he has an implicit and unexamined assumption that a given person, for instance, won't be able to drive the company trucks or lacks sufficient training to be able to work in the field safely, then it seems likely that person is going to have a subtly negative influence on their career prospects in that company.

This bothers me too. I'm very lucky that people on the hiring committee knew my skills. There were a few that questioned whether or not I knew what was required or not. Those that knew my abilities piped up and said I could actually do more than what the job required if it was needed. Had it not been for others stepping in, I likely would have been passed over on the assumption that I didn't have the appropriate skills. As it stands, since being hired my boss has had a lot of compliments on how quickly I have helped people and how much I knew.

[Vagrant]

How about this? I'll trade you: you can have the discount at the auto parts store and I'll take career advancement, higher pay, greater respect and being taken seriously.Not saying that women don't suffer this, and I know I'm still young, but I have yet to experience any promotion or increased pay whatsoever for being a guy. Maybe because I've only had part time jobs, or I'm still young, but I haven't had any of those benefits. ;)

And I don't think I get increased respect except in areas of my expertise -- where it's really my INTJ-ness that grabs respect.

[Lucid]

Not saying that women don't suffer this, and I know I'm still young, but I have yet to experience any promotion or increased pay whatsoever for being a guy. Maybe because I've only had part time jobs, or I'm still young, but I haven't had any of those benefits. ;)

And I don't think I get increased respect except in areas of my expertise -- where it's really my INTJ-ness that grabs respect.

Because you're admittedly talking about part time jobs I don't think you're even saying anything relevant to the conversation. I doubt anyone would argue that a woman can be just as good of a gas station attendant or sales clerk as a man. However, that view changes some (depending on who you're talking to) if you're talking about being a stock broker, CEO, neurosurgeon, etc.

Likewise, you're receiving respect according to your level of competance, abilities and experience. You probably wouldn't see anything unusual or noteworthy about that. However, you can be damn sure you'd notice a lack of respect or a lack of being taken seriously (which I think is a better way of putting it) in spite of your abilities, competance and experience.

Also, because you wouldn't experience something like what the women in this thread are talking about directly, I doubt you'd be likely to notice it as much.

[Synamon]

Also, because you wouldn't experience something like what the women in this thread are talking about directly, I doubt you'd be likely to notice it as much.
Excellent point. I think that's something many men don't realize, they don't see, feel, or experience sexism so they think it is all in the past. Certainly the blatant, obvious, and rampant sexism has faded, but the more subtle discrimination still does exist. I could post some of my experiences but instead I will quote this post by tp6626 from December. It was a good illustration that equality is not here yet.


I work in Engineering, and graduated last summer. In my department, there was probably 2-3% that were female (it was nicknamed "The Sausage Factory"!). There was chauvanism towards the females, and I could detect a mild feeling that the males generally viewed the females as being given a break / preferential treatment because they were female.

In my view, there were good and bad female students (no different from males, then), and the 'bad ones' may indeed have gotten away with sub-standard work for longer than a male would have, simply because she was female. But on the flip side, the talented, high-performing females I knew were held back to some extent by the attitudes against them from their peers (meaning they had to work doubly hard for the same amount of respect).

It's not right, but it's something that is engrained in societies consciousness; that an Engineer is a man, and a Nurse is a woman (as Schwartzie said). Anyone out of line with that will inevitably encounter resistance / inertia that requires more effort to overcome.

At work in my industry, the state of things is even worse. It is run by a boys-club in their 60's-70's. My MD is of the opinion that Technical means male, and Administrative means female (incidentally, they also confuse length of service with competence, and age with ability / respect). I tried to recommend a female placement student last year, and it was brushed aside with no explanation. She was likely the best candidate, and my view is that he missed an opportunity to add value to the company because of his (wrong) preconceptions. A clued up competitor (if it was me) would have a competative advantage by not having the same preconceptions.

This isn't just my industry though. Almost all customers who get stroppy with our female staff over the phone, act differently when put on to me. A girl can tell them something, and they won't believe or accept it until a male has told them the same thing.

Not a good state of affairs!

And tackling any of this directly would be to treat the symptoms rather than the cause. I think the problem stems from the way children are educated, but am not totally sure. I'm working on it though! Don't want to waste effort treating symptoms - so I'm taking my time about it. I always go by the saying: "To succeed at anything, you should always do the right thing, at the right time, for the right reasons".

This isn't something I expect to see change any time soon though. Maybe 15-30 years from now I'll notice a difference, but I don't think it will be easy.

[Lucid]

Excellent point. I think that's something many men don't realize, they don't see, feel, or experience sexism so they think it is all in the past. Certainly the blatant, obvious, and rampant sexism has faded, but the more subtle discrimination still does exist. I could post some of my experiences but instead I will quote this post by tp6626 from December. It was a good illustration that equality is not here yet.

I totally agree and have experienced some of the things tp6626 talks about directly. So have my male friends who are engineering students, welders, mechanics and other male-dominated professions. That's not to say it's always the case, but it's still pretty prevalent. In almost all of my jobs dealing with the public I've often had the experience that people wouldn't listen to what I had to say, and still didn't listen to a female supervisor or co-worker. But if a man said it they'd generally give more credence to it. Again, that's just some people, but it was definately noticeable.

I'm not sure why people wouldn't take the word of the people experiencing the unequality. I certainly wouldn't try to tell an ethnic minority that racism is dead just because I don't experience it.

[llBradll]

I think a better thing to say that males and females are equal is to say that they are equivalent as people. Men and women sometimes have strengths and weaknesses and sometimes there are noticable trends. The problem lies within the people that place to much importance on trends to define their descisions or actions. Sexism is arguably valid but it can be abused.

[Sinequanon]

I'm not sure why people wouldn't take the word of the people experiencing the unequality. I certainly wouldn't try to tell an ethnic minority that racism is dead just because I don't experience it.
That's kinda what I meant in the initial thing that sort of started this "thread." The history of the expansion of civil rights has not been advanced by people who generally shift the burden of proof to the people claiming oppression. It shouldn't be up to them to prove why equal rights are a good thing, and I am very wary of people who hold that position but claim to be in favor of equality or not in favor of sexism.

[Lucid]

That's kinda what I meant in the initial thing that sort of started this "thread." The history of the expansion of civil rights has not been advanced by people who generally shift the burden of proof to the people claiming oppression. It shouldn't be up to them to prove why equal rights are a good thing, and I am very wary of people who hold that position but claim to be in favor of equality or not in favor of sexism.

Well I think most people do consider themselves to be in favor of equality and against sexism. I think the disagreements come out when it comes to defining what is meant by "equality" and what sort of behaviors are "sexist" behaviors.

For example, I saw an episode of Bill Maher during the election that had Ralph Nader on. Maher called Sarah Palin a bimbo and Nader sccused him of sexism. Now I don't think calling an individual female stupid is sexist, whichis what Maher was doing. Saying essentially, "this person, who happens to be female, is too stupid to hold a high political office" is not sexist. However, saying something like "Women can't make logical decisions and are ruled by their emotions and therefore should not be trusted with positions of great authority, such as the second highest office in the executive branch" is sexist in my opinion.

But people who express views like Ralph Nader (who's a nut job) did on that show make it difficult to have a productive discussion about the issue.

[Sinequanon]

Well I think most people do consider themselves to be in favor of equality and against sexism. I think the disagreements come out when it comes to defining what is meant by "equality" and what sort of behaviors are "sexist" behaviors.

For example, I saw an episode of Bill Maher during the election that had Ralph Nader on. Maher called Sarah Palin a bimbo and Nader sccused him of sexism. Now I don't think calling an individual female stupid is sexist, whichis what Maher was doing. Saying essentially, "this person, who happens to be female, is too stupid to hold a high political office" is not sexist. However, saying something like "Women can't make logical decisions and are ruled by their emotions and therefore should not be trusted with positions of great authority, such as the second highest office in the executive branch" is sexist in my opinion.

But people who express views like Ralph Nader (who's a nut job) did on that show make it difficult to have a productive discussion about the issue.
I agree, but if we all agree that equality, whatever it is, is the ideal then we can work from there to define where there is inequality. If I am arguing with someone who thinks equality itself is a buzzword and not an ideal (meaning, I think, that it has no real objective worth as a standard), then I don't really know where to go with that.

As I said in the longest post of mine, I'm not a feminist, because after suffering through a lot of feminist theory and being made to feel like utter crap for having a penis, I came to the realization that feminism isn't about equality. You can't fight injustice with more injustice, and to whatever degree women are made to feel inferior in society, it can't be undone by making men feel inferior in certain sectors of academia. Equality ultimately isn't looking to condemn either gender for being who they are, but to look at what sorts of inequalities there are and address them in the most fair way possible.

I think a lot of the sort of violent revulsion that we see to the concept of equality has to do with the sorts of struggles we see any time a previously privileged group is asked to give up a portion of their power. So it's not new at all, it's just a bit tiresome. Why people continue to perpetuate the same poor arguments against progress in this day and age is beyond me.

[Sesquipedalian]

Women and men are not equal, cannot be equal, and never will be equal. We are fundamentally different and there's nothing wrong with that. That doesn't mean a man or woman has to stick to some predefined societal or domestic role, but the whole "gender equality" terminology has irritated me for a while. There's no "personality equality" and there never will be. Same goes for sex.

[Samoan Corleone]

Ok, here's something, In movies like 40 Days and 40 Nights, and The Wedding Crashers, rape is funny. Change the gender in a movie like The General's Daughter, no more lol.

[Sinequanon]

Women and men are not equal, cannot be equal, and never will be equal. We are fundamentally different and there's nothing wrong with that. That doesn't mean a man or woman has to stick to some predefined societal or domestic role, but the whole "gender equality" terminology has irritated me for a while. There's no "personality equality" and there never will be. Same goes for sex.
Really? Read the posts in this forum, and separate the INTJs out by male and female. Without someone announcing their gender, it's extremely difficult to tell who's what around here. Clearly there's some equality of thought, if only by typological standards.

Maybe the better question to ask is: Where is the inequality that you're seeing? Because women can't lift the same amount of weight or pee standing up? I'm missing the obvious deficiency here. Help me out.

[amberlinen]

Women and men are not equal, cannot be equal, and never will be equal. We are fundamentally different and there's nothing wrong with that. .

Any 2 men are never equal, and any 2 women are never equal.

The "gender equality" refers to group equality. How do you feel if INTJs as a group get less opportunity, less respect, and less pay just because the stereotype of INTJ is traditionally inferior?

[firebee]

Women and men are not equal, cannot be equal, and never will be equal. We are fundamentally different and there's nothing wrong with that. That doesn't mean a man or woman has to stick to some predefined societal or domestic role, but the whole "gender equality" terminology has irritated me for a while. There's no "personality equality" and there never will be. Same goes for sex.

That women and men are not equivalent is a true statement. Besides the obvious differences, the two populations have different distributions on many metrics. However, humans are basically made of the same stuff, and the overlap of the two populations is sufficiently substantial that it's generally more convenient to judge individuals based on their own characteristics. So "Women and men are not equal" may be a true statement, but it's not an extensively useful rule. Furthermore, "equal" does not necessarily mean "identical". One potential interpretation of the idea behind "gender equality" is "that people be treated according to their own merits, independent of the question of gender". No human being is identical to any other, but we nonetheless see them as having equal standing under the law.

Is there any practical implication of your statement? If so, what is it?

[Anreader]

Ok, here's something, In movies like 40 Days and 40 Nights, and The Wedding Crashers, rape is funny. Change the gender in a movie like The General's Daughter, no more lol.

In North Country with Charlize Theron, during a flashback scene they show a rape of a highschool girl by her teacher. As I watched I had this weird feeling and after a minute I realized it was because it was an erotic scene. It was filmed in a way that it seemed... interesting. You even feel sympathy for the perpetrator. This is a travesty. The movies should need some kind of warning if there is a rape scene, or they should record the names of the viewers, like they do with people who buy the ingredients for meth. You should never be taken unaware by a rape scene. And it should never be seen as funny no matter who the victim, or what the circumstances.

[Lucid]

In North Country with Charlize Theron, during a flashback scene they show a rape of a highschool girl by her teacher. As I watched I had this weird feeling and after a minute I realized it was because it was an erotic scene. It was filmed in a way that it seemed... interesting. You even feel sympathy for the perpetrator. This is a travesty. The movies should need some kind of warning if there is a rape scene, or they should record the names of the viewers, like they do with people who buy the ingredients for meth. You should never be taken unaware by a rape scene. And it should never be seen as funny no matter who the victim, or what the circumstances.

I think that's going a little far. If you don't want to see it you should turn it off. I'm not sure that being prepared for a rape scene would make any difference.

Regarding male vs. female rape, I think there's a certain context in which both can be viewed as funny. It's sort of the same context as dead baby jokes. Definately not for everyone and certainly not funny when discussing real actual rape of any kind.

Also, I'll point out (to whomever brought it up) that scenes in which men are being raped by other men are never seen as funny. Watch Deliverance. And the rape scene in Rules of Attraction (female being raped) was kind of humorous. Granted, it was black humor, but humor nonetheless.

[Anreader]

I still maintain that when you pay for a movie ticket, you should know if there is a rape scene. Or graphic drug use for that matter.

[Lucid]

I still maintain that when you pay for a movie ticket, you should know if there is a rape scene. Or graphic drug use for that matter.

I can see how it would be your personal preference, but I think if you were to look the movie up on the internet you could find out prior to paying to see it.

Also, I don't know where you are, but here in the US there are rating systems that usually include whether it includes something like that.

[firebee]

I still maintain that when you pay for a movie ticket, you should know if there is a rape scene. Or graphic drug use for that matter.

Shameless commerce provides: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

They seem to have gone commercial since last I saw, but their reviews are highly comprehensive. If you've got strong objections to some issue that isn't clear from the notations on the rating or from the previews, this site is your friend.

And to add -- I wonder if there's any profit to be had in some sort of detailed issue-avoidance review service. I've got a bit of a thing about eyeballs, for instance...

[amberlinen]

Many rapists have the impression that the victims will feel sexually satisfied because of their great skills. Porns and movies of this sort certainly don't help to correct this common fallacy.

In art house movies erotic depiction of sexual violence is not that necessary to achieve artistic goals, because as a generally observed rule, the more detailed and porno a film/novel gets, the more audience will focus on the technical achievements ("how can they do this?") and thus reducing the artistic power. In commercial movies where the main purpose is to entertain, the only people who get entertained by this will logically be the ones who fantasize about raping or being raped. Of course majority of those people don't want to be criminals or victims and satisfy their needs in a harmless way like role play between couples, but it's still pretty disturbing (like when we think about pedophiles).

[Nomadofthehills]

I still maintain that when you pay for a movie ticket, you should know if there is a rape scene. Or graphic drug use for that matter.

And what about violence? And cursing?

That is what ratings are for.

[nacht]

Many rapists have the impression that the victims will feel sexually satisfied because of their great skills. Porns and movies of this sort certainly don't help to correct this common fallacy.


You clearly have never met someone with a rape fantasy. They are extremely common, and while you may think of them as disturbing, so long as they are played out in SSC manner between consenting adults I'm failing to see your problem with it.

Simply put: Porn flicks and movies aren't meant to appeal to rapists.

[firebee]

Many rapists have the impression that the victims will feel sexually satisfied because of their great skills. Porns and movies of this sort certainly don't help to correct this common fallacy.

...

Of course majority of those people don't want to be criminals or victims and satisfy their needs in a harmless way like role play between couples, but it's still pretty disturbing (like when we think about pedophiles).

Choosing to take rape fantasies as disturbing is apt to lead to disturbance, given that they're absurdly common. If you haven't got one, you can probably throw a stone and hit someone who does. And drawing parallels between rape fantasy and pedophilia is apt to cause offense for the same reason, although that is a bit unfair to the pedophiles.

As to the matter of a person thinking his rape skillz are l33t, he can think so with no harm to others so long as he understands that he's not entitled to test the theory with people who haven't agreed first. The key bit is the willingness to respect the decision of another person to pass up his brand of earthshattering ecstasy.

[amberlinen]

I wouldn't throw stones when I meet people with this kind of fantasy (typically on the Internet) and they know what they should and shouldn't do. It gets disturbing when raping and pedophilia fantasies are brought up in public forums among people who actually don't have that leaning but think it's entertaining to watch --- those topics are not infrequent in some forums I'm staying (they're not "that kind" of forums).

[nacht]

I wouldn't throw stones when I meet people with this kind of fantasy (typically on the Internet) and they know what they should and shouldn't do. It gets disturbing when raping and pedophilia fantasies are brought up in public forums among people who actually don't have that leaning but think it's entertaining to watch --- those topics are not infrequent in some forums I'm staying (they're not "that kind" of forums).

Don't they, by definition, have such a fantasy--at least on a latent level--if they are interested in watching it and are turned on by it?

[amberlinen]

Don't they, by definition, have such a fantasy--at least on a latent level--if they are interested in watching it and are turned on by it?

They say they don't have those fantasies.

I suspect that some of them are in denial, but a lot of them could be teenagers who haven't formed clear turn ons yet and think it's cool to watch the hardcore stuff.

[firebee]

They say they don't have those fantasies.

I suspect that some of them are in denial, but a lot of them could be teenagers who haven't formed clear turn ons yet and think it's cool to watch the hardcore stuff.

I don't want to presume, but I sense an underlying assumption here that people who have fantasies like this are... defective? Or otherwise that there's some problem with someone watching pr0n that ends up not being to their taste, if they aren't actually 'that sort' of people?

And how is it that people discover clear turn-ons, if not by exploration? Does the turn-on fairy come in the night and sprinkle them with glitter? (sorry, can't resist the humorous image)

Relative to the question of gender equality, I think we have huge problems with the presumptions about male and female roles in relationships and sexual conduct, and this is one of those cases where it clearly harms both parties.

[Anreader]

No I think porn is different. They are named according to the fetish of the purchaser. You know what you're getting. When you go see a nationally released commercial film, you should be aware of what's in it. When you go see a movie about war, you expect violence, but when you go see a movie about highschoolers or whatever its a little offputting to see sexual assaults.

I don't think there is anything wrong with people who have rape fantasies. I just think that people who don't don't really want to see that. Just like people without a foot fetish don't want to see perfect size 11 feet. (Saw it on Dr. Phil once. )

[amberlinen]

And how is it that people discover clear turn-ons, if not by exploration? .

Exactly. That's why entertaining depiction of sexual violence in media can have an impact on actual crime prevalence, because it reflects the degree of social acceptance of such behaviors. Individuals' fantasy inclinations are rather fluid than solid, and can be largely influenced by social environment. There are rape-prone cultures and rape-free cultures, and the important determining factors include gender equality and people's attitudes toward violence.


As for my attitude towards those fantasies, "defective" is such a strong and judgmental word. I'll just say I don't want to be friends with people who constantly dream about raping others, plan to get married with their future daughter, or mastermind enslaving the world. Not that there's anything wrong with those people, just those thoughts themselves are, please excuse my inconsiderate wording, pretty sick.

To rationalize my disgust I'll point out that:

1. It's more probable for people who constantly think about something to act them out. If people who talk about killing themselves all day are considered at higher risk of commiting suicide, it's only natual to think people who constantly fantasize and talk about violence to others are more probable to commit violent crimes against other people.

2. I don't put rape and pedophilia fatasies into the category of harmless social deviants, like homosexualism or kids who don't eat their vegetables. Those fantasies are associated with...once again, violence against innocent people.

3. I don't trust most people's moral self-discipline. Many people want to get what they want as long as they don't get caught. Enslaving the world is a pretty hard thing to do; child molesting is not that hard, and date rape is kinda prevalent.


Please keep in mind that I won't knock on your door, inquesting about your sexual fantasies, and track you down. If people don't give a detailed graphic description about how entertaining their fantasy is in public forum, I won't pass judgment on them, because I wouldn't know about it in the first place.

[firebee]

I must surely be a frog, because I manage to sidetrack threads with great efficiency (pardon the exceedingly bad joke, and if you understand it I'll be frightened). amberlinen, I think you have a set of beliefs that works for your circumstances. May we all have such :D. Although per nacht's statistics on the thread this topic continued onto, you may have to find yourself an island somewhere to sip margaritas on...

I was reminded again today about the matter of sexual violence as a constraint to womens' freedom to go about their everyday business -- and if that's not a matter of equality, I don't know what is. Whether we buy it or not, we seem to be continually bombarded with messages of "Can't do that, can't wear that, can't go there, can't leave the house after dark without a man..." My personal inclination is to regard most of it as an illusion -- I feel safe in the public space most of the time, and the times I haven't I've known what to do -- but I get the impression that some people don't see it that way.

[amberlinen]

Are you saying S&M or Domination/Submission the same as rape? There's really a big difference.
You don't need to be so worked up because I don't have anything rational against the fantasy of being raped. I don't care and won't say anything if both parties in a relationship are satisfied.

[firebee]

Are you saying S&M or Domination/Submission the same as rape? There's really a big difference.
You don't need to be so worked up because I don't have anything rational against the fantasy of being raped. I don't care and won't say anything if both parties in a relationship are satisfied.

Haha, I'm by no means bothered. This is me being amused. It's when I start sounding like an INTJ that you should fear for my eating your eyeballs :).

Rather, I think that we've come down to either a legitimate difference of opinion or a difference in terminology, and I rather think it's more terminology. My point of view is that nonconsent is a concept that floats around in a great many brains, and that it can be expressed in a number of good and less good ways. I'm not much for adolescent posturing of the "yeah, I'd hit her" variety, and there is a certain way of describing a number of fantasies (including that one) that rather puts me off. I suspect you're thinking much the same but saying it differently.