[Trama]

Originally Posted by Nefeli

'oh wow, at my gym the analogy of attractive men is astonishing'. am i wrong too? am i being sexist as well?

Objectification is part of sexuality, as long as it's respectfully indulged there's nothing sexist about it.

[knox]

Originally Posted by Trama

Objectification is part of sexuality, as long as it's respectfully indulged there's nothing sexist about it.

Honestly, if that's what you really, really think then: a- still refusing to understand what objetification means b- that's really sad c- just repeating what you find more convenient to believe You're conveniently ignoring that it's been said a million times we're not talking about anything consensual, we're talking about being subjected to objetification publicly without consenting to it. So maybe you should come back when you're ready to talk about this in a way that's intellectually honest.

[!@#$%!]

okay glice, but rob's wife makes twice the money he makes and he doesn't feel like his manhood is threatened or something. i get that there is a connection between male privilege and "the male gaze", but that doesn't mean rob is engaging in pay discrimination.

as for me, i am a rude internet asshole, but i'm proud that i helped elect a president whose first bill signed in office was the lilly ledbetter pay equity act. even if he hasn't closed guantanamo yet.

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

knox, what happened to the closure?

it's obvious she had no closure and was just frustrated, but i'll take blame for the added drama because i knowingly posted trollbait, trollface and all.

Originally Posted by the ikara cult

It is quite telling how none of you have replied to my point or Glice's point.

If youre so concerned with the "Ideas" being proffered and are SO not just arguing with Knox because she's a girl, why doesnt anyone want to argue the point with someone who also has a dick?

i'm not "not arguing with knox because she's a girl", i'm refusing to start from the assumption that rob is a rape enabler or that one must agree with her because she simply demands it.

if we could stop conflating both issues that would be awesome.

Originally Posted by Nefeli

i will read this thread when i have time for this. sorry.

i hope you don't because it's a dismal mess, and personally i'm ashamed of my participation in it-- not because i'm a rape apologist, but because i'm such a sucker for strife i take the bait every fucking time and accomplish nothing with it except, mostly, horrify people i appreciate.

in any case, would love to discuss these things with you-- you have my utmost respect and admiration and i trust you to be fair.

Originally Posted by Nefeli

if someone had the time:
take the hot girls vs hot men threads and find the % of porn looking pics in both. and how male and females have chosen the pics.

yes. i used to do that. honest. i admit it. i haven't in a while now.

Originally Posted by Glice

And I was thinking last night - have you noticed that there's two subjects which have got knox angry on this forum? Anything to do with feminism and gun control. That's because they're important, and they're both dealt with (by and large) in a fairly off-hand, dismissive way here.

lately i've been involved (elsewhere) in heavy discussions about gun control, due to the latest massacres, and the thing i've noticed is that pro-gun people tend to be more reasonable in their arguments than the anti-gun people (except when it comes to "the government wants my guns"). this worries me because the pro-gun folks are persuading me of their cause with clever slogans such as "remember, when seconds count the police are just minutes away." (hard to argue with that).

what i've observed gets knox angry isn't the subjects themselves, but that people dare say "no" to her. you say no to knox and that automatically makes you the worst kind of criminal in her eyes, if you say yes all is forgiven. who can argue anything in those terms? you can't ask people that they change their mind because you demand it.

IN ANY CASE, i hope the discussion can occur in peaceful terms because i think (maybe i dream) most of us can be friends here. of course when i say this i say it in full knowlege that it can be take out of context and interpreted in any number of inflammatory ways, but i'll say it anyway in earnest.

[knox]

What's really great about this thread is that it's scary, but also reassuring. Many of you are lovely and brilliant (sorry if forgot someone): Nefeli Glice Floaty Keep popping pimples Diesel Ikara Cult

[Genteel Death]

Originally Posted by keep poppin pimples

i think i miss laila. she was cool but a girl and muslim so nobody was very nice

You remember Laila but you think everyone on the forum was nasty to her? I think you are either lying or you have a very selective memory when it comes to this forum. I can name all the posters who were vile to her on here, one by one, and they also include a very smart female poster.

[Glice]

Originally Posted by knox

someone's intelligence is not determined by gender.

I think one of the things I want to say is that in real terms it is. I mean, in actual reality terms it isn't, but in the real of the day-to-day, people are perceived as more stupid on the basis of their gender presentation. I probably do this too, but I've become incredibly aware that my partner can say exactly the same statement as me, and I get listened to and applauded, while people ignore her. My sister was telling me of an important meeting where a male 'had an idea' that she'd said, verbatim, earlier in the discussion, and he was given the plaudits for it. This is kind of the precedent of this thread, all of these discrete privileges which interpose a discriminative 'reality' upon the biological reality (which is hopelessly obscure)

[knox]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

okay glice, but rob's wife makes twice the money he makes and he doesn't feel like his manhood is threatened or something. i get that there is a connection between male privilege and "the male gaze", but that doesn't mean rob is engaging in pay discrimination.

let's take a moment to admire the relevance of this argument.

[knox]

Originally Posted by Glice

I think one of the things I want to say is that in real terms it is. I mean, in actual reality terms it isn't, but in the real of the day-to-day, people are perceived as more stupid on the basis of their gender presentation. I probably do this too, but I've become incredibly aware that my partner can say exactly the same statement as me, and I get listened to and applauded, while people ignore her. My sister was telling me of an important meeting where a male 'had an idea' that she'd said, verbatim, earlier in the discussion, and he was given the plaudits for it. This is kind of the precedent of this thread, all of these discrete privileges which interpose a discriminative 'reality' upon the biological reality (which is hopelessly obscure)

Yes. People often ask me why did I turn out to be so assertive about what I'm trying to say. This is because my life has taught me there's no other way. If you're being nice about it, you're not being heard. If you become assertive, you get accused of being a bitch. In either case, every effort is made to not take your point seriously. You've seen how small I am so that becomes even more vital. I actually had to learn to be as scary as I can be, it's a matter of survival. This thread is sad evidence. Whenever men find that they can 'get away with it', they'll gang up and try to silence you no matter how far they have to go. It's only bad when YOU (the woman is aggressive) when they are, they're just 'reacting'. It's only when other males come to the 'rescue' that they would tone it down. It's so obvious it's embarassing. Here's good evidence of that: http://femalebreadwinners.com/women-...p-in-meetings/

[floatingslowly]

I sometimes wonder, as a white-hetro-american-protestant(formerly)-nonpoor-male, why it is that I care so much, so loudly, and oftentimes more than those who you would think should, about the rights and fucking dignity of people who do not fit neatly inside my own privilegded demographic(s), and I quickly realize that it's because of it being the fucking right thing to do.

[keep poppin pimples]

i know she would never say it, but i have a feeling the following applies to being dark or having an accent or looking like a muslim
i wonder what percentage of american women think every tattoo on a chicano man is gang related?

This means that some men should never approach strange women in public. Specifically, if you have truly unusual standards of personal cleanliness, if you are the prophet of your own religion, or if you have tattoos of gang symbols or Technicolor cockroaches all over your face and neck, you are just never going to get a good response approaching a woman cold.

[Glice]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

okay glice, but rob's wife makes twice the money he makes and he doesn't feel like his manhood is threatened or something.

Oh, you're right - unitary exceptions do disprove generalised rules. My profound apologies.

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

i get that there is a connection between male privilege and "the male gaze", but that doesn't mean rob is engaging in pay discrimination.

I've glossed this thread - I'm not really interested in Rob, I'm interested in the way that knox has been constantly harangued on the basis of interrogating something that's vile on the basis of the subject matter - how many times have I called a band utter dogshit and not been hassled for 20+ pages? Every time, I'm guessing? There's something about this subject, on this forum and in general, which makes most cis-men (especially hetero ones) uncomfortable, defensive and incapable of being reasonable.

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

i'm not "not arguing with knox because she's a girl", i'm refusing to start from the assumption that rob is a rape enabler or that one must agree with her because she simply demands it.

It really doesn't come across like that - it reads like you're hassling knox because she's a woman representing women's issues. Whether I agree with her (and whether she did start with the premise of 'Rob = rape enabler'), this thread is fucking ugly. Also, Rob's comments come in the context of several thousand posts - he's consistently been repulsively antagonistic with his sexism. He doesn't see himself as a sexist but he's incapable of keeping his desire to express his masculinity to a single 'post hot women' thread. I watch porn. So does knox, I imagine. Neither of us chose to talk about it constantly in public. We possibly might in a 'let's talk about porn' thread.

See also: knox's multiple points, especially the ones about how people are constantly bombarded with images of women. Rape culture doesn't exist in hermetic isolation. It's kind of like the sun - so big you end up forgetting it's there. If it's decided that Rob's actually a decent guy, there's still the issue of how this forum's dealing with knox, and why there are very few women here.

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

lately i've been involved (elsewhere) in heavy discussions about gun control, due to the latest massacres, and the thing i've noticed is that pro-gun people tend to be more reasonable in their arguments than the anti-gun people (except when it comes to "the government wants my guns"). this worries me because the pro-gun folks are persuading me of their cause with clever slogans such as "remember when seconds count the police are just minutes away." (hard to argue with that).

This is an impossible issue for me. To me, it isn't possible to have a reasonable discussion about guns. Outside of a few rural communities, they have the solitary purpose of putting life-threatening holes in humans. So yeah, reasonable argument is very difficult on the basis of the life threatening purpose of these so-called 'guns'. The anti-gun lobby probably appear 'hysterical' because it's a total no-brainer. But that's OT.

[An aside - my partner just said "vaginas are more regulated than gun control", which is fucking brilliant]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

what i've observed gets knox angry isn't the subjects themselves, but that people dare say "no" to her. you say no to knox and that automatically makes you the worst kind of criminal in her eyes, if you say yes all is forgiven. who can argue anything in those terms? you can't ask people that they change their mind because you demand it.

You're wrong. Knox and I have been talking for a number of years now. I couldn't tell you the number of things I think she's wrong on. I imagine she's got a good idea of the number of things I'm wrong on. We have healthy discussions because she's incredibly bright and articulate. I've said 'no' to her innumerable times, and she's never said anything like some of the things she's said in this thread because I don't cross the line into grotesque, masculinist bullshit... hopefully. And she'll pull me up if I do and I'll take it on board, rather than telling her to 'chill'.

[keep poppin pimples]

Originally Posted by Genteel Death

You remember Laila but you think everyone on the forum was nasty to her? I think you are either lying or you have a very selective memory when it comes to this forum. I can name all the posters who were vile to her on here, one by one, and they also include a very smart female poster.

what could i really be lying about? i obviously remember her(not perfectly) and you admit that people harassed her.... so where's our big difference? feel free to list jerks if you want

[Genteel Death]

Originally Posted by keep poppin pimples

what could i really be lying about? i obviously remember her(not perfectly) and you admit that people harassed her.... so where's our big difference? feel free to list jerks if you want

Originally Posted by keep poppin pimples
i think i miss laila. she was cool but a girl and muslim so nobody was very nice

[keep poppin pimples]

Originally Posted by Genteel Death

Originally Posted by keep poppin pimples
i think i miss laila. she was cool but a girl and muslim so nobody was very nice

ooooh that's such a big deal. i am the great deceiver

[Genteel Death]

well you're not exactly telling it like it is are you?

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Glice

Oh, you're right - unitary exceptions do disprove generalised rules. My profound apologies.




I've glossed this thread - I'm not really interested in Rob, I'm interested in the way that knox has been constantly harangued on the basis of interrogating something that's vile on the basis of the subject matter - how many times have I called a band utter dogshit and not been hassled for 20+ pages? Every time, I'm guessing? There's something about this subject, on this forum and in general, which makes most cis-men (especially hetero ones) uncomfortable, defensive and incapable of being reasonable.



It really doesn't come across like that - it reads like you're hassling knox because she's a woman representing women's issues. Whether I agree with her (and whether she did start with the premise of 'Rob = rape enabler'), this thread is fucking ugly. Also, Rob's comments come in the context of several thousand posts - he's consistently been repulsively antagonistic with his sexism. He doesn't see himself as a sexist but he's incapable of keeping his desire to express his masculinity to a single 'post hot women' thread. I watch porn. So does knox, I imagine. Neither of us chose to talk about it constantly in public. We possibly might in a 'let's talk about porn' thread.

See also: knox's multiple points, especially the ones about how people are constantly bombarded with images of women. Rape culture doesn't exist in hermetic isolation. It's kind of like the sun - so big you end up forgetting it's there. If it's decided that Rob's actually a decent guy, there's still the issue of how this forum's dealing with knox, and why there are very few women here.



This is an impossible issue for me. To me, it isn't possible to have a reasonable discussion about guns. Outside of a few rural communities, they have the solitary purpose of putting life-threatening holes in humans. So yeah, reasonable argument is very difficult on the basis of the life threatening purpose of these so-called 'guns'. The anti-gun lobby probably appear 'hysterical' because it's a total no-brainer. But that's OT.

[An aside - my partner just said "vaginas are more regulated than gun control", which is fucking brilliant]



You're wrong. Knox and I have been talking for a number of years now. I couldn't tell you the number of things I think she's wrong on. I imagine she's got a good idea of the number of things I'm wrong on. We have healthy discussions because she's incredibly bright and articulate. I've said 'no' to her innumerable times, and she's never said anything like some of the things she's said in this thread because I don't cross the line into grotesque, masculinist bullshit... hopefully. And she'll pull me up if I do and I'll take it on board, rather than telling her to 'chill'.

alright. i read it, and i'll think it over. obviously our perspectives are different, but some sort of intersubjectivity should be possible even with all the transatlantic differences. thanks for the reply.

it's the middle of sunday here and i have to get in my 8-cylinder gas guzzler to buy lots of high-carbon-footprint meat in a massive wholesale warehouse off an interstate highway where everyone spends their weekend here. later i'm meeting with friends and engaging in socially-conformist alcoholism in a capitalist establishment. so i'll post you something back probably monday, if you care to return and read it.

speaking of women-- i'd love to hear from jennthebenn on the issues, because she's fantastic, no-bullshit, and enjoys spectator sports, besides the obvious fact that she's an awesome writer. i know she's taken a sabbatical off the internet to devote herself to real writing, but i do miss her a whole lot. only problem is, i know she hates it when people fight. (sorry jenn!)

okay. im out of here till tomorrow. i insist that rob is a decent guy, i insist that suchfriends is a great guy, and while i'm a recalcitrant and bellicose asshole, i know for a fact they aren't and don't deserve the spanish inquisition.

namaste, or whatever, lol. no, really.

[knox]

Originally Posted by Murmer99

For what it's worth, based on observation, this issue isn't exclusive to gender. They are frequently linked together, but I see this happen all the time for reasons beyond the bounds of gender.

yes, obviously, but we're addressing gender issues here.

[Glice]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

alright. i read it, and i'll think it over. obviously our perspectives are different, but some sort of intersubjectivity should be possible even with all the transatlantic differences. thanks for the reply.

In your reply, please consider whether you've been so much more reasonable to me because I identify as a cis-hetero-male. thx

[knox]

Originally Posted by Glice

In your reply, please consider whether you've been so much more reasonable to me because I identify as a cis-hetero-male. thx

haha that actually made me laugh out loud.
i have no idea what you mean about me being wrong about anything.
i have no recollection of that ever happening.
but then again i'm a derranged drunk...

[keep poppin pimples]

Originally Posted by Genteel Death

well you're not exactly telling it like it is are you?

ever heard of hyperbole.