|
|
Post by Merkuri on Oct 22, 2003 16:00:37 GMT -5
This is a Debate about women not my Horrible Spelling It's not a debate about me being your prostitute either.  So let's leave it at that, shall we? |
|
|
|
Post by Wyrmfire on Oct 22, 2003 16:19:07 GMT -5
Hi Merkuri, A last point there too, the clothing traditionally worn by women were designed in such a fashion to continuosly enforce upon the mind the differences in the sexes, the better to control women. The pants women are now wearing are, maybe, less comfortable, but FAR more utilitarian. The man in a short skirt, or kilt, is going to soon discover that too. Draxy I think you are mistaken here. I think dresses are in much the same vein as makeup- they were (and are, I suppose) worn by women because it was what attracted the men. It is less utilitarian because because they were trying to make themselves less so on purpose, not because males were trying to "opress" them by not letting them do hard labor. It is just a function of what was considered attractive in the last few centuries. |
|
|
|
Post by CharleHu$$tle on Oct 22, 2003 16:30:47 GMT -5
It's not a debate about me being your prostitute either. So let's leave it at that, shall we? Someones a Bit full of themselves. Like I could make money off of you as a Prostitute. I was talking about you being my Strong armed Inforcer  |
|
|
|
Post by Wyrmfire on Oct 22, 2003 16:33:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by CharleHu$$tle on Oct 22, 2003 16:34:21 GMT -5
I knew someone would enjoy that
|
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Oct 23, 2003 1:01:25 GMT -5
Well Draxy, considering that the word D y ke is a perjoritive word for a lesbian, in the same way that F aggot is used, I think that's what's wrong with the word. dyke - offensive terms for a lesbian who is noticeably masculine (From www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn |
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Oct 23, 2003 3:20:17 GMT -5
Do you mean they are not only editing for profanity but for political correctness as well? What's next, no longer being able to type in the word dwarf because it is often used as an offensive perjorative for an adult well under average height?
Draxy
|
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Oct 23, 2003 3:25:48 GMT -5
Hi Merkuri,
Acceptance comes with repeated, bull headed, swimming against the tide of current thought. There is no "overwheening" difficulty for men in non-traditional roles that women did not have to face when they did it. They simply did it first and have much of it behind them now. Men are just beginning to really heavily enter into the mindset that allows them to explore non-traditional roles or actions.
Draxy
|
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Oct 23, 2003 4:11:41 GMT -5
Hussar steps in with mod hat on.
Umm Draxy, that's not being politically correct. Please see the code of conduct section for the exact wording, but to paraphrase, any language which is negative to any group whether it be racial, religious or sexual orientation will not be tolerated. That is a very offensive word to some people and, I know you weren't calling anyone by that name so I did not yell at you. I simply explained why that word is censored. Spelling black with two g's would be censored as would several other offensive slang terms for various groups. You were simply making an example, which is fine, no fuss no foul. I'm just saying why that word is in the censors.
Guys, if you can't say it on prime time tv, you can't say it here.
Hussar removes mod hat.
Please return to your regularly scheduled debate. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Oct 23, 2003 4:41:35 GMT -5
Hussar steps in with mod hat on. Umm Draxy, that's not being politically correct. Please see the code of conduct section for the exact wording, but to paraphrase, any language which is negative to any group whether it be racial, religious or sexual orientation will not be tolerated. That is a very offensive word to some people and, I know you weren't calling anyone by that name so I did not yell at you. I simply explained why that word is censored. Spelling black with two g's would be censored as would several other offensive slang terms for various groups. You were simply making an example, which is fine, no fuss no foul. I'm just saying why that word is in the censors. Guys, if you can't say it on prime time tv, you can't say it here. Hussar removes mod hat. Please return to your regularly scheduled debate. Thank you. Good enough. Thanks for the explanation. Draxy |
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on Oct 23, 2003 7:52:59 GMT -5
There is no "overwheening" difficulty for men in non-traditional roles that women did not have to face when they did it. They simply did it first and have much of it behind them now. See, I agree with everything you said. I thought we were talking about the question of who has it easier now. Women are past the hump. Quite a few years ago men had it obviously easier (at least, if you're talking about social freedoms). Now I believe women have it easier because they've already shown everybody that they're not gonna take this bull anymore.  It's only natural that women were the first to shed their gender-biased roles because they were much more restrictive. Masculinity and everything that goes with it has always been associated with power. For a woman to want to be masculine is understandable because socially it means she has more power. For men to want to be feminine isn't as understandable in society today because it's seen as a loss of power. |
|
|
|
Post by Ahnemesis on Oct 23, 2003 8:36:05 GMT -5
I know that I'm not on topic here, but, I see that it's not who has it easier, men or women, but what works for the two involved.
So many changes has hit our society in the past 100 years it's hard to keep up with it. The rolls of men and women have drastically changed as well.
I've known couples who both worked and helped put each other through school. I know at times these couples had to change rolls of the bread winner because of fulltime school. It wasn't easy for the man to adjust to not being the main breadwinner. But they survived it. We, those who knew the couple, didn't look down on the man for what was happening. We did our best to keep them both going and keep his spirits up. they are married to this day and survived through it.
I've known women who were looked down on because they did not work. Though raising children and housework IS a job. I've seen the other side of this coin when the woman did work. She was berated for her doing so and told she needed to stay at home.
When we as a society stop with the notion of what it means to be male and female, only then will we be able to free up the stereotypes that was layed out ages ago and that some still cling to.
Men and women are equal. We are two sides of a coin. It does'n't matter who holds what side, what matters is the balance that comes from us.
|
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on Oct 23, 2003 9:04:05 GMT -5
When we as a society stop with the notion of what it means to be male and female, only then will we be able to free up the stereotypes that was layed out ages ago and that some still cling to. Amen. This is a hard concept for many people to understand. It's even offensive to some people. We lean so hard on male-female steryotypes that we don't even realize they are steryotypes sometimes. Does it really matter in most cases whether a person is a man or a woman? Take jobs for example. To be truly fair, hirers should only look at the qualifications instead of making assumptions based on gender. If a woman wants to lift heavy boxes for a living and she's physically capable, what should stop her? This idea of just throwing away gender, however, bothers most people. They just have to label people as male or female. I remember a game some friends of mine used to play in college called "Name that sex." Basically they were making fun of people they saw when they couldn't determine their gender. They couldn't stand not being able to categorize these people. Why do we have to fit neatly into one category or the other? |
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Oct 23, 2003 9:10:13 GMT -5
Hi Merkuri,
I'm certainly not saying that men have it easy in the single facet of taking on non-traditional roles. They do not have it easy, yet, as they've just started the process.
Clothing though, from our earlier discussion, I still maintain was partly designed to keep women in their place. Men designed the garments, not women and one of the major facets of those designs were ease of sexual accesability for the man to the woman. It was simply easier to just thrust the skirts up, especially of a struggling woman, than to remove the hosen that men (in Western European society) wore.
I also maintain that most men today would rather see a shapely woman in a pair of tight blue jeans than in the average cut dress.
BUT, on the whole, society today still has a greater advancement potential, especially in Europe, for men. It also has a more tolerant attitude for men's foibles than for womens. A man is half expected to fool around on their spouse, for instance, while a woman who does it often even today still becomes a pariah.
Too, and most telling, there is the whole prostitution racket. How many women do you know of that run a stable of young gigolos to support herself.
Draxy
|
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Oct 23, 2003 9:20:27 GMT -5
The thing is, why should gender be thrown away? There are differences between the sexes. No matter how you slice it, there are differences. Physically and mentally, men and women are different. Do those differences matter? Yes, they do in certain circumstances. As an employer, why should I be forced to hire a woman in my factory to do heavy lifting if I don't want to? It's my company, should I not have the right to hire whomsoever I wish?
Does one gender have it better now than the other? Realistically, probably not. The differences within the gender make comparing the two genders meaningless. In other words, there is more difference between the lot of two women or two men than between a supposed average woman and man. You cannot make any sort of sweeping generalization with any validity.
But, to yearn for a society where Mr. Androgenous meets Ms. Nonsexual is also something I do not hope for.
|
|
