[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
news

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]

Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts]
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 15041)
Message
File  []
close
dragqueens_0.jpg
150411504115041
>> No. 15041 Anonymous
10th May 2018
Thursday 5:43 pm
15041 spacer
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/drag-queens-banned-from-performing-at-free-pride-glasgow-event-over-fears-acts-will-offend-trans-10405214.html

>Drag queens banned from performing at Free Pride Glasgow event over fears acts will offend trans people

[...]

>The organisation said in a statement that it hopes to create a safe space for all members of the LGBTQIA+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer, intersex, asexual) community, and that while the decision may "disappoint" some people "the needs of the most marginalised groups within our community come first."

[...]

>Free Pride Glasgow said: “It was felt that it [drag performance] would make some of those who were transgender or questioning their gender uncomfortable. It was felt by the group within the Trans/Non Binary Caucus that some drag performance, particularly cis drag, hinges on the social view of gender and making it into a joke, however transgender individuals do not feel as though their gender identity is a joke.”


Life rarely takes the piss out of itself like this. It almost sounds like the plot of a South Park episode.
396 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown. Expand all images.
>> No. 18368 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 5:13 pm
18368 spacer
>>18362

>according to which you are almost not allowed anymore to be an ordinary, average, mainstream man, or even a woman of that description.

I know what you mean m8. Just the other week I got an £80 fine from the Social Justice Police for wearing gender-conforming clothing in a safe space. I thought I might get away with it because I had a rainbow flag badge on my lapel, but they spotted that my blazer buttons left-over-right and stung me with a Notice of phlegmatic Behaviour.

I might contest the fine at the Court of Public Opinion, but I've got previous - I did community service last year for a whole string of microaggressions, which the Nonjudgemental Adjudicator of Wokeness won't look kindly upon. I can't afford to push my luck and get called out again, because I'm already close to being cancelled. My dad got cancelled a couple of years ago and he hasn't been seen since, but I'm not sure if that makes me more or less privileged.
>> No. 18369 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 5:19 pm
18369 spacer
>>18368

>Just the other week I got an £80 fine from the Social Justice Police for wearing gender-conforming clothing in a safe space.

You got off light, no doubt. They could have deplatformed you altogether.
>> No. 18372 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 5:56 pm
18372 spacer
>>18362

>What we've got nowadays is a very vocal minority, who are very fucking annoying and that's about the end of it.

Fixed that for you mate. Let's be honest, nobody is forcing all this nonsense on you are they? It can grate but you don't have to lose your rage over it.

Stuff like "toxic masculinity" and what have you is a perfectly valid concept when you look at it, but I think it's pretty fair to say it's pretty much just a back-bending way of absorbing all that "but what about (example of male-exclusive sexism)" counter opinion, and re-dressing it in a context of "yeah we already thought about that, that's your fault too, and we already thought of the solution for you" in order to maintain the feminist perspective as the most important one.

It's essentially the equivalent of how when you argued with someone in primary school and you tried to trick them out by switching sides to argue their point and getting them to accidentally disagree with themselves.
>> No. 18373 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 6:02 pm
18373 spacer
>>18372
>toxic masculinity

Is there an actual consensus on what toxic masculinity is? Perhaps I read too much Grauniad, but the definition of it seems to vary wildly depending on the point someone is trying to make.
>> No. 18375 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 6:17 pm
18375 spacer
>>18372

>Stuff like "toxic masculinity" and what have you is a perfectly valid concept when you look at it


I think it's mainly bullshit, front to back.

But oh, don't mind me.
>> No. 18376 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 7:49 pm
18376 spacer
>>18373
>>18375

It's the argument that a lot of the negative things affecting men is mainly because masculinity itself is defined by traits that are harmful to men's wellbeing. Men are tough, don't show emotion, all that stuff, and men are disparaged if they don't live up to that idea of manliness.

Which is fair enough, you can see how there might be some merit to de-stigmatising men showing their feelings and suchlike. it's just funny how we don't call the things feminists moan about holding women back toxic femininity. To me, that betrays the bias of most people who use that kind of terminology; that femininity is good and masculinity is bad.

The reassuring part is that most people in real life are sane enough to realise that men and women are equally capable of being cunts, for varying different reasons, but cunts nonetheless. We only hear so much about this kind of shit nowadays because of the twitter hate mob.
>> No. 18377 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 8:28 pm
18377 spacer
>>18373
I always thought it was a subset of traits considered "masculine" that make you a cunt. i.e. going fishing with your dad is typical masculinity - but trying to start fights to prove you're hard is toxic masculinity. that would generally seem to fit with the list of examples given here: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Toxic_masculinity (though it doesn't actually give a definition of masculinity itself.)
>> No. 18378 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 8:45 pm
18378 spacer
>>18376
>it's just funny how we don't call the things feminists moan about holding women back toxic femininity

Not really, a perfectly serviceable term for this already exists in "misogyny", which is perpetuated by women in the same way men chastising little boys for crying is perpetuating toxic masculinity.
>> No. 18379 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 8:59 pm
18379 spacer
>>18376
>Men are tough, don't show emotion, all that stuff, and men are disparaged if they don't live up to that idea of manliness.

Isn't that just stoicism? I mean I've got my bones to pick with the philosophy but I've not heard any coherent argument about that out of people using 'toxic masculinity'. To me it seems like a stereotype of intimidating rugby lads projected by people who hate fun and can't just say "those people are dickheads" because that would be all too rational.
>> No. 18380 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 9:05 pm
18380 spacer
>>18376

I think what is also being missed is that no matter how you look at it, life is one big competition. You compete for jobs, careers, money, status, influence, appreciation, the opposite sex's interest and affection, you name it. And in every competitive environment, people get left behind. The unfortunate thing about competition is that not everybody is competitive enough to be a winnner. People who show too much weakness don't get a piece of the pie and are left to live off the crumbs.

It would be all too easy to just call it "toxic masculinity", but what you are really branding as undesirable is competition itself. Although I still maintain that toxic masculinity as a concept is a big, steaming crock of bullshit, women really are no better. Anybody who has ever worked together with a bunch of women in close proximity can attest to the fact that that is an environment that can be many times more toxic than some make male competition out to be.

What's so disingenuous about the strand of feminism that has brought about the non-concept of toxic masculinity is that it's really just yet another way that these feminists manage to channel their hatred against men in general. As I said earlier, it's another permutation of the old feminist dogma that patriarchy must be destroyed. This time around, they are going about it by declaring men as a whole to be latently toxic, and masculinity as an entirely arbitrary concept. While at the same time not even remotely acknowledging that there might be such a thing as toxic femininity. Worse even, I've read about some feminists who say fierce competition among women is just another facet of toxic masculinity.


>>18377

>but trying to start fights to prove you're hard is toxic masculinity

To a certain extent, this has always been accepted boyish behaviour. Schoolboy fights in the school playground were always frowned upon even when I was a younglad in the 80s and 90s, at least if they got out of hand, but in the end, the implicit understanding was always that it is just something that boys do to establish hierarchies and order among themselves. Nowadays, a lad who even so much as shoves another lad lightly can very likely have the entire school and social workers on his arse. Typical boyish behaviour is declared toxic, and modern-day school environments are leaving boys behind because boys are effectively expected to act like girls who will just sit still and pay attention. Feminine social skills and social behaviour are not only fostered but declared the desired standard. But this is just not something that boys are genetically programmed to do at that age.

And I'm not talking about the antisocial 20something lout who gets off his tits and then starts picking random fights. That is a whole different problem because it simply isn't accepted adult behaviour, and rightly so and with good reason, as you should expect adults to have learned enough self restraint to not smash another person's head in.
>> No. 18381 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 9:05 pm
18381 spacer
>>18378

That's not what misogyny means though. It certainly isn't an equivalent term to toxic masculinity.

Part of the problem is not the concept itself, but how loaded equivalent terms like misandry are and how you'll instantly be assumed to be an MGTOW incel Reddit shitposter if you use it instead. You have to accept the feminist dogma, use their terminology, or else you'll be dismissed entirely because you're clearly a shitlord.

Something something George Orwell.
>> No. 18382 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 9:23 pm
18382 spacer
>>18380

Fundamentally, in order to understand their perspective, you need to be the sort of person who looks at the sociological principle of nature vs nurture and comfortably accept that nurture is the only part that matters. You need to view people as blank slates upon whom only received knowledge is imprinted- Completely ignore hormones, puberty, instincts, all of it.

From that viewpoint, expecting "boys to act like girls" simply isn't the case- You're merely expecting children to behave well. You are striving for an ideal society in which there simply is no difference between men and women beyond the dangly bits on each of your body. It follows logically that boys are only being left behind because of things like toxic masculinity- Social constructs that only exist because we keep perpetuating them and are slowly phasing out. Once the symmetrical, grey, amorphous ideal of unisex morality and behaviour has become the norm, boys and girls will perform the same. They will effectively be the same.

It's hard to argue from the position that you are entirely comfortable with distinct genders being a thing, that you believe they are a very real and biological fact of life, and all the implications that may or not come with that, because it's essentially the same thing as arguing with a zealous Christian about why you're an atheist.

Personally, I am all in favour of helping women achieve equitable pay, respectful treatment and everything. It's not a popular opinion, but I feel the modern feminist worldview is misguided, and sometimes actively unhelpful in that aim- It is more often interested in propagating a moral ideology than achieving meaningful equality.
>> No. 18383 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 9:24 pm
18383 spacer
>>18381

>You have to accept the feminist dogma, use their terminology,

The first step towards negating it should therefore be to both refuse to use their terminology, and to show how absurd that terminology is in the first place.

"You're an incel shitlord because you are using words not approved by feminists, and only incel shitlords do that" is not a valid argument. Ideally, your vocabulary should be more eloquent than that of actual incels, if just to avoid being called one. Well, and also because incels are complete fucking idiots. But that's beside the point. The real issue is, if somebody assumes they can both define the desired terminology and denunciate those who don't use it, then they are effectively attempting to control and manipulate any discourse in their favour, without the possibility of actual open debate that might even rightly debunk certain terminology as invalid.

Example: to many feminists, women can very well be sexist. But sexist behaviour in women is held by them to be sexist against other women, meaning that sexist women as it were only make themselves accessories to sexism originating from men and directed against women. The idea that women can be genuinely sexist against men is rejected by these feminists as non-existent. So if you then argue with them over female sexism, it will lead nowhere because their implied meaning, which you are expected to adhere to as well, will always be that female sexism cannot be directed against men, but only against other women and is merely a result of male sexism.
>> No. 18384 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 9:30 pm
18384 spacer
>>18383
From my experience, a lot of them don't even understand their own terminology. At uni I went to a presentation by the feminist society, who started with a long diatribe criticising the patriarchy. Someone in the audience asked what the patriarchy was, a reasonable question as they'd just listened to someone criticising it for 10 minutes. The feminist society presenter looked fucking baffled, and ended up describing it as "a secret group of white straight men who control everything behind the scenes".
>> No. 18385 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 9:35 pm
18385 spacer
>>18383

That was, indeed, largely my point. That is how the discourse is controlled.

But I mean that's how women always win arguments, innit. Twisting it and deflecting everything until you just can't be arsed any more. Typical.
>> No. 18386 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 9:42 pm
18386 spacer
For people who think feminists and social justice warriors are a load of whingers, Christ you lot love to whinge about them don't you.
>> No. 18387 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 9:46 pm
18387 spacer
>>18384

Good on you. A good way to throw people off their game, and really not just feminists ranting on about patriarchy but anybody, is to throw them a curve ball by asking them definitions of some very basic things. Like, things that are both central to their argument that they are on about the whole time, and seldom really explained in depth by providing a definition.

Also, a lot of social science at uni works that way. They are true masters of throwing around fancy abstract vocabulary, but when you quiz them on it, they all too often draw a blank. I am an economist and economics is often lumped together with social sciences, but the difference is that in economics, you learn hard facts and definitions that you then have to take exams on where you are quizzed about them. In social sciences as such, you have much fewer actual exams where that kind of knowlege is tested.
>> No. 18388 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 9:52 pm
18388 spacer
>>18386
Careful, lad. People get their knickers in a twist when you point out the unlicensed trawlers of the alt-right on this site.
>> No. 18390 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 10:15 pm
18390 spacer
>>18386

That's another one ticked of my .gs bingo this week.

People get annoyed by annoying things, more at 11.
>> No. 18391 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 10:17 pm
18391 spacer
>>18390

>People get annoyed by annoying things


You're right.

And it annoys me to no end.
>> No. 18392 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 11:19 pm
18392 spacer
>>18387
>you learn hard facts and definitions that you then have to take exams on where you are quizzed about them
That's the easy part, the hard part is when you have to explain why the things you've learned don't align with the real world. *Ba Dum Tss*
>> No. 18393 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 11:22 pm
18393 spacer
>>18386
>Christ you lot love to whinge

Who could possibly say no to a good moan? Where would I even begin. For starters we can talk about old Mr Sunshine strutting across the sky like he owns the place. I mean it's February for fucks sake, give me freezing rain and a bit of thunder to shut that bright gobshite out. World's gone mad.
>> No. 18394 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 11:36 pm
18394 spacer
>>18392

> the hard part is when you have to explain why the things you've learned don't align with the real world.


In most economics exams, you have to do that as well. There will be questions as to what the standard criticism of a particular model or definition is.
>> No. 18395 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 11:38 pm
18395 spacer
>>18393

>For starters we can talk about old Mr Sunshine strutting across the sky like he owns the place.

For us here in the Heliosphere, it is actually pretty much astronomically correct to say that he does own the place.
>> No. 18396 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 11:41 pm
18396 spacer
>>18381

Indeed the point of the terms misogyny and toxic masculinity is to shift the burden of blame onto men through the very language it self. I'd go as far as to call it a deliberate attempt to engineer the paradigm of any debate through newspeak.

Talking about for example grown women choosing to read fashion magazines that lower their self esteem is really no one's fault but their own if it makes them feel bad and they keep doing it. I'd call that toxic femininity.

But if you call it misogyny it becomes the fault of the advertisers and publishers promoting those values rather than the fault of the reader for choosing to buy it each week

I've heard it argued that feminism seeks to remove womens responsibility for their own actions. And I think their is a truth to that. As long as feminism is built up from social Marxist theory it will by definition treat women as incapable of being empowered and having agency. It is inherent in the thought pattern that they are always oppressed.
>> No. 18397 Anonymous
26th February 2019
Tuesday 7:15 am
18397 spacer
>>18396
Alright Sargon.
>> No. 18398 Anonymous
26th February 2019
Tuesday 10:21 am
18398 spacer
>>18397

Okay Tahani, we get it you can name drop famous people. The question is, what point if any does it make, and what does it do to advance discussion.

Sage because of the completely derailed nature of this comment.
>> No. 18399 Anonymous
26th February 2019
Tuesday 11:27 am
18399 spacer
>>18396

>Talking about for example grown women choosing to read fashion magazines that lower their self esteem is really no one's fault but their own if it makes them feel bad and they keep doing it.

In days of old, staff at women's magazines used to be predominantly male. And although it borders on conspiracy theory, you could say that maybe the men who created those magazines for women used it as a way of showing women their place in society, i.e. as obedient wives and mothers and domestic goddesses, who only needed to know about such things as cooking a decent meal for their husband or how to mend their children's clothes. But at least since the earliest beginnings of 1970s feminism, women's magazines have been quite firmly in the hands of female journalists. And quite rightly so, because who better to write about things that interest women than women themselves.

But therein now lies the problem. If we take modern women's magazines to mirror what women want, then that means a great many of women indeed still mostly care about clothing, fashion, makeup, beauty, home decoration, relationships, parenting advice, and horoscopes. Modern-day feminism has long given women the opportunity to pursue quite different goals and interests in life, and yet, women's magazines that follow the mentioned formula still seem to be going as strong as ever. So then when women now complain about pressure to conform to ideals and images of physical attractiveness that women's magazines still propagate, this is something that you cannot pin on patriarchy or masculinity, toxic or not, anymore. Many highly educated, liberated women at the helm of those women's magazines would have real power to take a lot of the pressure off women, and yet, they choose not to, and just regurgitate the same old beauty and fashion advice over and over.


>I've heard it argued that feminism seeks to remove womens responsibility for their own actions

I think they tend to twist it as it suits them in a given situation. When it comes to patriarchy, women are portrayed as powerless, defenceless little flowers that need protection from anything and everybody. And then at the other end when it comes to female empowerment, they make women out to be actually much more capable of fending for themselves and going their own way in life than men.

I think one fundamental problem that feminism has today is that most of its battles have been fought and won. Women are completely equal before the law in most civilised countries, certainly in the UK, women have the same rights as men, and you can argue that in some areas, they actually have more support than men. A movement which has always defined itself as an entity fighting for women's rights and against male oppression therefore now struggles to overcome its identity crisis. And a small, yet very vocal minority of feminists now set their sights on the old enemy all over again, which is masculinity itself. Just to stay relevant and to not lose its purpose. And it has nothing more to do with equal rights for women, which has never ceased to be a laudable cause, but it has everything to do with hating men as such.
>> No. 18400 Anonymous
26th February 2019
Tuesday 12:13 pm
18400 spacer
>>18399
>So then when women now complain about pressure to conform to ideals and images of physical attractiveness that women's magazines still propagate, this is something that you cannot pin on patriarchy or masculinity, toxic or not, anymore.
This isn't really true. If women are expected to conform to a social ideal - which they are, as are men - then even if you give women control of the magazine, it's still going to tell women how to conform to that ideal because it's in their interest even if they don't like it. This isn't a question about individuals, but about social norms. The source of those social norms is not primarily from women's interest magazines, so the minor role they play in propagating them is irrelevant, while the marketplace pressures them to continue to provide that advice because women are anxious to have it due to outside pressure.

In general you seem to want to individualise (or otherwise lower the scope to a single magazine, company, etc.) this rather than look at society as a whole, which is an ineffective way of analysing the situation. I'm not even a raving feminist, I'm drawing most of this from inference from the way nearly every other social norm works. There's definitely an element of cynical social climbing at play as usually happens with something that can be moralised about, but that doesn't invalidate the analysis itself. Indeed I'd say the big problem internet feminism has is that it, too, individualises rather than going for serious structural analysis. There's a lot of levying the charge of promoting patriarchy against powerless twitter weirdos rather than looking again at the gigantic monster that is modern society, looking at all the competing and conflicting pressures at play and figuring out a way to cut out the bad parts.
>> No. 18401 Anonymous
26th February 2019
Tuesday 12:23 pm
18401 spacer
>>18400

>The source of those social norms is not primarily from women's interest magazines, so the minor role they play in propagating them is irrelevant

Clearly, they aren't the source. But their role also isn't irrelevant. Editors of women's magazines would still be able to play a key role in putting a stop to this kind of pressure. It's no use complaining about society as a whole, when you don't provide ideas and solutions concerning the part that certain institutions of society would be able to play in eliminating the pressure to conform to beauty ideals. The things women's magazines write about are read by large audiences, and therefore those magazines would be in a unique position to contribute to changing society for the better. And yet, they choose not to.

You can't just shrug your shoulders at this kind of chicken and egg problem and say that it's the fault of society at large. And even if it is, as I said, the key to change is to target specific areas of society where you can hope to break the cycle.
>> No. 18403 Anonymous
26th February 2019
Tuesday 1:53 pm
18403 spacer
>>18400

>In general you seem to want to individualise (or otherwise lower the scope to a single magazine, company, etc.) this rather than look at society as a whole, which is an ineffective way of analysing the situation.
not them but (>>18396)
I do believe that, but why would it be ineffectual? If I have an insecurity about anything at all it is much easier for me to adapt to treat it as a non issue rather than try change the world. I've always treated the politicising of the personal with caution as I think it becomes an exercise in narcissism and externalising responsibility.

And let’s be honest there are no strict mechanism for power of these things it is only the individual themselves caring that makes them relevant, if your validation comes from within such forces stop having power over you. No one cares what Madam Curie looked like they admire her anyway. It is only people own vanity and lack of self-assurance that gives any of these things relevance.
>> No. 18404 Anonymous
26th February 2019
Tuesday 2:42 pm
18404 spacer
>>18401
Editors can do very little. If you believe women's magazines as a whole have power, you need a mechanism to ensure all women's magazines play by the rules and not publish that content. You don't have to change literally everything, but you have to go above and beyond the individual. That could be through a government regulation, or some kind of publishing arrangement or private regulator, or a temporary conspiracy amongst all the editors - but it can't just be one editor or magazine team playing holier-than-thou with individual morality, because all that's going to do is cause a drop-off in sales for their magazine as market forces do their thing and the others move to conform to one another.
>> No. 18405 Anonymous
26th February 2019
Tuesday 2:50 pm
18405 spacer
>>18404

Correct me if you think I am mischaracterized your statement. But isn't that an argument that the reason women's magazines are like that is because the audience wants them to be like that. If women did not want them to be like that they would not buy them. So the responsibility at the moment is with the individual who buys them not with the editor.

Would not banning or regulating would be a declaration that women don't know what is best for them and need someone to decide on their behalf.
>> No. 18406 Anonymous
26th February 2019
Tuesday 2:50 pm
18406 spacer
>>18403

> If I have an insecurity about anything at all it is much easier for me to adapt to treat it as a non issue rather than try change the world.

That is true. In the end, a large part of overcoming unrealistic images of physical beauty is to condition people to ignore them. And that starts with yourself, with your own thinking. So the focus must not be on banning idealised depictions of physical attractiveness, but on recipients of these messages being able to put them in a healthy kind of perspective.

Kind of a bit like (adult consensual) pornography, really. There is no point in banning it, and it has so far withstood every attempt that has ever been to ban or outlaw it. And naturally in today's world, an abundance of it is freely accessible online for anybody. So there is consensus now that youngsters in particular need to be educated not to avoid pornography altogether, which few will from a certain age onward, but to be able to put in perspective what they see and understand that it is a distorted image of human sexuality as such. And if we take that kind of approach seriously, as we seem to, then there is no reason that the same approach could not be applied to depictions of physical beauty.
>> No. 18407 Anonymous
26th February 2019
Tuesday 3:07 pm
18407 spacer
>>18405

> But isn't that an argument that the reason women's magazines are like that is because the audience wants them to be like that. If women did not want them to be like that they would not buy them.

It's a bit similar to some feminists getting in a huff about the fact that girls' toys tend to be in pink or pastel colours. To the point that they have even started their own protest movement called Pink Stinks. And of course it comes with the usual rhethoric that pink toys are used to condition girls from when they are toddlers to conform to society's norms of femininity and womanhood. The problem with that approach is that a great majority of girls just really seem to be naturally drawn to pastel colours like pink, peach, aqua, or mint. Even from the youngest age of 12 to 24 months when they can't possibly have been conditioned yet to fall into traditional gender roles, they just really seem to have a fondness for those colours. And this fondness then seems to persist throughout their childhood and youth.

So when feminists then say that "pink stinks", they are placing poorly corroborated ideology above tendencies and preferences that a lot of female young children just really seem to have naturally.

One of my friends has a little girl, I think she's about three or four years old now, and he told me that she gets really upset when it's nice weather outside and she isn't allowed to wear a dress, often because my friend and his wife might think that she'll catch a cold. Even at that tender age, she absolutely loves dresses - and Barbie dolls - and says she wants to be "as pretty as mommy" when she grows up. Now I ask you, is this the result of patriarchy claiming another oppressed young victim, or could it be that she is just simply a "girly girl" who likes doing girly things including wearing dresses?
>> No. 18408 Anonymous
26th February 2019
Tuesday 3:13 pm
18408 spacer
>>18407

Ah yes, the theory that of all cultures throughout history, ours just happened to be the one where children just do exactly what's natural. Did you know the Japanese used to force their young boys to wear kimonos? How disgusting of them to force such backwards ways of dressing when those boys would have been far happier if they were allowed to wear nothing but blue and camouflage to play army men in the woods as is natural.
>> No. 18409 Anonymous
26th February 2019
Tuesday 3:21 pm
18409 spacer
>>18407
>The problem with that approach is <insert pseudoscience here>
How very original of you, m7.
>> No. 18410 Anonymous
26th February 2019
Tuesday 3:25 pm
18410 spacer
>>18409

More original than your post just now.
>> No. 18411 Anonymous
26th February 2019
Tuesday 3:43 pm
18411 spacer
>>18407
>the problem with that approach is that a great majority of girls just really seem to be naturally drawn to pastel colours like pink, peach, aqua, or mint
As recently as 100 years ago in Britain, Pink was considered a bold, attention-drawing, boy's colour while blue was considered more placid and feminine. It's only really since the 1950s that Pink = Female, Blue = Male was solidified as the norm.
>she wants to be "as pretty as mommy" when she grows up. Now I ask you, is this the result of patriarchy claiming another oppressed young victim, or could it be that she is just simply a "girly girl" who likes doing girly things including wearing dresses?
Your own post contains a possible answer if you'd think about it: she wants to be like mommy. The question is, if mommy went about with short hair and army fatigues, what would she want to wear then?
>> No. 18412 Anonymous
26th February 2019
Tuesday 4:15 pm
18412 spacer
>>18410
n2 m7
>> No. 18413 Anonymous
26th February 2019
Tuesday 4:39 pm
18413 spacer
>>18411
This is sort of but not quite true. The trend was to dress children in white, but young girls in blue. Pink was considered a bold colour, but was commonly worn by both sides. One of the big factors behind the movement to reclaim pink is that the move in the 1950s for women to wear pink was led by strong female figures. Jayne Mansfield famously declared that she wanted everything in pink, and she was no wallflower.
>> No. 18414 Anonymous
26th February 2019
Tuesday 4:50 pm
18414 spacer
>>18413

So what you are saying is women made the choice to wear pink as a form of empowerment, but now they shoulldn't because it turns out men tricked them into liking it as a form of oppression.
>> No. 18415 Anonymous
26th February 2019
Tuesday 5:29 pm
18415 spacer
>>18414

>So what you are saying is women made the choice to wear pink as a form of empowerment, but now they shoulldn't because it turns out men tricked them into liking it as a form of oppression.

Not him, but in a nutshell, that would appear to be his argument.

So then the consequence would be that girls must not choose whatever colours symbolise femininity in the culture that they grow up in, because if they do, that culture will declare them to be girls.

Compelling logic. Unassailable.
>> No. 18416 Anonymous
26th February 2019
Tuesday 5:47 pm
18416 spacer
>>18414
Whatever it is you're on, can you hook me up?
>> No. 18418 Anonymous
26th February 2019
Tuesday 6:16 pm
18418 spacer
>>18400

>There's a lot of levying the charge of promoting patriarchy against powerless twitter weirdos rather than looking again at the gigantic monster that is modern society, looking at all the competing and conflicting pressures at play and figuring out a way to cut out the bad parts.

This is the argument I've been making for a good few years now. Weirdly enough I've still never managed to win any friends with it; because again, for a lot of these people it doesn't actually matter who's right or wrong. It doesn't even matter whether you broadly support their goals. It's more like an indoctrination cult than genuine ethical belief system, and they're not happy unless you conform.

But I digress.

The way I see it is that the problems are not because of the white cisgendered patriarchal bogeyman, but fundamentally the system of free market, neo-liberal capitalism. Of course, I would say that as a dyed in the wool red-blooded Northern socialist, but in my eyes I think it would do far more to tackle the underlying, fundamental economic inequalities between the rich and the poor than it will ever do to sit there moaning in the opinion columns about how we don't have enough female CEOs or how there aren't enough female protagonists in videogames or whatever shite they think matters this week.

I feel like most feminists are under the same spell of manufactured consent as your most hardcore conservatives and right wingers- So long as nobody recognises the real enemy, which is economic inequality and class divide, we will keep bickering about gender equality, race equality, and all these issues that can not be solved. And that's exactly what the bourgeoisie oppressor really wants.
>> No. 18419 Anonymous
26th February 2019
Tuesday 7:09 pm
18419 spacer
>>18418

The intersectionalists know the rhetoric well enough of the left yet they choose to ignore the greatest defining factor of power, wealth. The answer is simple; This is not empowerment for the masses but for the elite, the most telling factor is the obsession with CEOs a group so niche and powerful anyway that the idea I should weep for the female CEO that she isn't paid as much as the male should be laughably insulting, and yet this is the obsession. I dont know how everyone became brainwashed to take up their mantle, yet here we are.
>> No. 18420 Anonymous
26th February 2019
Tuesday 8:03 pm
18420 spacer
>>18419

A female CEO who earns £10 million a year while a man in a similar position gets £15m is hardly below the poverty line. It's all a mater of perspective, as I think we are agreeing upon here.

Also, we have to ask ourselves whether it is really such a fundamental mark of equality of society that there exists such a thing as gender parity in boardrooms. What is true enough is that women should have the same opportunities as men. A woman who wants to assume a leadership role within a company should get to do so if she is qualified and puts in enough hard work to get there. Just as any man. But in the end, when you look at surveys, being at the top of a company or corporation just isn't a career goal that is as widespread among women as it is among men. A lot of women say they will be just as happy with a career that either doesn't demand quite as much of them, or where they have more time to spend with their family and all that kind of thing. So in essence the problem then isn't that there are too few women in top executive positions, but that it just isn't what as many women want for themselves as men tend to do.

The Norwegians were among the first countries to mandate gender parity in top executive positions, but the problem is that there just aren't enough qualified and ambitious women to fill all those positions, at least not up to actual parity. So the Norwegians have now coined the term "golden skirts", which means that women get to go to the top simply because otherwise there just wouldn't be enough women to fill the required quota.

But that's a problem you see on a lot of social political issues. The idea of equal opportunity gets confused with the idea of equal results. And having gender parity in boardrooms is not the same as equal opportunity. You've got equal results, but that doesn't mean everything's peachy. And if I remember correctly, the actual economic performance as a company or corporation has proved to not really be significantly better just because there are more women at the helm. At least there is no strong correlation indicating that companies with boardroom gender parity are doing better than others.
>> No. 18421 Anonymous
26th February 2019
Tuesday 11:09 pm
18421 spacer
>>18420

You've made three paragraphs trying to discredit an idea that really should be simpler to tackle to that. After all, when was the last time you heard of an executive, male or female, who wasn't a sleazy weasel bastard who back-stabbed and arse-licked their way to the top? These are the same people who drive companies bankrupt and run off with the pensions, it's hardly a laudable ideal in life.

Modern feminism isn't about equality at all. It's not even about feminism. It's just another tool of division and manufactured consent.
>> No. 18422 Anonymous
27th February 2019
Wednesday 12:58 am
18422 spacer
>>18421
Yes! And the solution to this problem is to continue discouraging women from corporate careers whilst doing nothing to tackle corporate dominance in society. That'll show em.
>> No. 18423 Anonymous
27th February 2019
Wednesday 10:11 am
18423 spacer
>>18422

>And the solution to this problem is to continue discouraging women from corporate careers whilst doing nothing to tackle corporate dominance in society.

Are you deliberately being thick?

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password