crwmike 0 #1 June 24, 2004 Re: [TheAnvil] Jumping with White People Rocks [In reply to] QuoteSince it's remained mostly civil I won't lock it. People have done a good job of moderating themselves and talking about the issue, which is great. But just to be clear - there is no problem at all discussing someone else's ideas, but attacking the person will get threads locked/people banned. (And yes, people can get banned for calling someone else a racist even if they think the poster really _is_ a racist.) Really? Ban? Ban?!? You would actually kick a skydiver off a discussion board for skydivers for the use of a word not on the tribal elders approved word list that describes behavior and attitudes that promote one race over another. How bout 'feminist', Bill? Will you ban skydivers from open discussion for calling someone a feminist? What were you smoking? Michael Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkiD_PL8 0 #2 June 24, 2004 Mike trolling again, let's see how many pages this one gets up to. Greenie in training. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crwmike 0 #3 June 24, 2004 QuoteMike trolling again, let's see how many pages this one gets up to. I'm actually quite serious. The words we use and the words we wish to ban tell us everything about our culture and our values. I was hoping for good discussion on the matter. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #4 June 24, 2004 Calling a person a racist is usually an attack. Calling a person a feminist is usually not an attack. There are hypothetical situations either way, but it is pretty obvious to me what our moderator said is proper.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crwmike 0 #5 June 24, 2004 QuoteCalling a person a racist is usually an attack. Calling a person a feminist is usually not an attack. There are hypothetical situations either way, but it is pretty obvious to me what our moderator said is proper. See, that's the point. Why is one an attack and not the other? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
newsstand 0 #6 June 24, 2004 Because racisim is considered a bad thing by a large segment of western society and feminisim is not. "Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkiD_PL8 0 #7 June 24, 2004 QuoteBecause racisim is considered a bad thing by a large segment of western society and feminisim is not. /agree Greenie in training. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #8 June 24, 2004 QuoteHow bout 'feminist', Bill? Will you ban skydivers from open discussion for calling someone a feminist? He's got a point.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,113 #9 June 24, 2004 >Really? Ban? Ban?!? You would actually kick a skydiver off a >discussion board for skydivers for the use of a word not on the tribal >elders approved word list that describes behavior and attitudes that >promote one race over another. Not the word, but the intent. If you call someone a nigger, you will get banned. If you talk about feminism, or talk about the attitudes that once led whites to call blacks niggers, you won't. >How bout 'feminist', Bill? Will you ban skydivers from open >discussion for calling someone a feminist? Again, depends. Discussing feminism is fine. "You're a goddamned know-nothing feminist" will get you banned. It's personal attacks rather than the words themselves that will get you banned or get threads locked. Also, keep in mind this is not a public discussion board. This board is paid for by someone else so a bunch of skydivers can chatter away when they're not skydiving. But it is all on Sangiro's dime, and if he wants to, he can decide he doesn't want to pay to host your chatter any more. ps. I think I like your title for me! "Minder of the tribal collective." I'll have to use that as a sig someday. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crwmike 0 #10 June 24, 2004 Quote>Really? Ban? Ban?!? You would actually kick a skydiver off a >discussion board for skydivers for the use of a word not on the tribal >elders approved word list that describes behavior and attitudes that >promote one race over another. Not the word, but the intent. If you call someone a nigger, you will get banned. If you talk about feminism, or talk about the attitudes that once led whites to call blacks niggers, you won't. >How bout 'feminist', Bill? Will you ban skydivers from open >discussion for calling someone a feminist? QuoteAgain, depends. Discussing feminism is fine. "You're a goddamned know-nothing feminist" will get you banned. It's personal attacks rather than the words themselves that will get you banned or get threads locked. Also, keep in mind this is not a public discussion board. This board is paid for by someone else so a bunch of skydivers can chatter away when they're not skydiving. But it is all on Sangiro's dime, and if he wants to, he can decide he doesn't want to pay to host your chatter any more. It is a much appreciated service for skydivers. All of you have done a good job and pretty much fairly and eqitably. With this in mind, I posed my questions. Quoteps. I think I like your title for me! "Minder of the tribal collective." I'll have to use that as a sig someday. Nope, can't pin that on me...but if being Minder does it for you, go for it! For me, I look at intent and not let myself be swayed by society's buzz words. Your way will have more support, however. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skybytch 273 #11 June 24, 2004 Dammit. I hate threads that make me think. I think I see where Mike is trying to go with this. QuoteBecause racisim is considered a bad thing by a large segment of western society and feminisim is not. Okay, so that's the status quo. For the purposes of this discussion, why is racism considered bad but feminism is not? Both words indicate a seperation between groups - racism based on race, feminism based on gender. Why is the word based on gender okay but the word based on race is not? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TheAnvil 0 #12 June 24, 2004 Minder of the Tribal Collective is a much more intellectual title than my title of JACKASS. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #13 June 24, 2004 QuoteBoth words indicate a seperation between groups - racism based on race, feminism based on gender. Why is the word based on gender okay but the word based on race is not? Because racism generally means believing that one race is superior to another. Feminism generally means believing that women are equal to men. One is indicating separation and superiority, the other is indicating equality. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,587 #14 June 24, 2004 I am a feminist, as it was defined at least in the 1970's. I believe that women should have the same opportunity to both succeed and screw up as men. They should be paid commensurately with the job, not their gender or role. And I don't see any problem with a draft, if it comes, extending to women, or with unisex bathrooms. What's fair for one is fair for the other. I really like the unisex family bathrooms. I think it's unreasonable that it's a bigger hit on the father's commitment perception at work if he takes time off for kids than it is for the mother's (other than the obvious issues of physical recovery, and breastfeeding if that's going on). Feminists, again as defined in the 1970's, did not want anything taken away from men that they wanted for themselves. I'm sure there are people who will disagree with me. However, most of them were not feminists in the 1970s. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #15 June 24, 2004 Do you think the definition has changed in the last 25 years? I do. Equality is a lot different than special treatment. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TheAnvil 0 #16 June 24, 2004 I'm always going to have a tendency to open the door for ladies, even if it pisses them off. But that's just me. Just wanted to say that. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,587 #17 June 24, 2004 Equality is certainly a lot different from special treatment, and I hate the thought that the meaning might have changed. That said, it's hard to say that equality exists when there are so many structures in place that respect "traditions." And most of those traditions include the acceptance of the status quo; legislating it doesn't make the attitudes go away, and it doesn't really make the behavior go away. It's been illegal to discriminate for hiring for longer than I've been applying for work, and yet I've been turned down for at least 4 jobs demonstrably because I was a woman. 3 times they told me; the fourth, they simply told me that all candidates had to be able to lift a car engine onto a shelf 6 feet off the ground with no help. Bullshit. I tried taking one guy to the EEOC. 18 months later, when they got around to doing something, of course the particular person who made the statement wasn't there any more (these were entry level jobs -- they tend to have short-time supervisors, too). I had no tape recording, and it was easy to give up. I have a feeling that's the case for most marginalized folks; there are, in fact, more stones in front of you, and it takes someone with more than equivalent cojones to keep slugging. When you are discriminated against repeatedly (and I have not had a problem with that), it's easy to assume that casual carelessness is, in fact, deliberate discrimination -- it doesn't look that different. Just as it's easier to assume deliberate discrimination is carelessness if it's your only experience. Where is the happy line? It's in the future, when the casual attitudes that people who look a particular way, talk a particular way, or dress a particular way are judged on their qualifications, and not on how well they will "fit in." Because that is, too often, the keyword for choosing people just like oneself. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,587 #18 June 24, 2004 By the way, the danger in trying for equality is failing to see the downsides of what one's trying to achieve. One has to take the bad with the good, and while it's inpleasant to be reminded of it, it's necessary. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites happythoughts 0 #19 June 24, 2004 I think everyone understands how to push other peoples buttons. I think most people understands how to have a meaningful discussion of issues. Even a heated discussion should be done with respect. The people on this site aren't some nameless internet goofs, they are people that I want to meet, skydive with, and enjoy their company. Pushing their buttons for effect is not something that I see a value in. Total freedom to say anything isn't as much fun as it sounds. It has one general outcome, people do get offended. There are places like that on the internet and they SUCK. In the end, people that I want to associate with will leave those places. The irritants are left with each other (deservedly). We could define rules all day and hunt up the exceptions. We could test the boundaries as a pointless excercise. Or...not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites newsstand 0 #20 June 24, 2004 Yeah, what phillykev said "Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites happythoughts 0 #21 June 24, 2004 QuoteOkay, so that's the status quo. For the purposes of this discussion, why is racism considered bad but feminism is not? Because feminism is not the correct word. Sexism is the equivalent word to racism. There is also two divisions of feminists. Gender feminists and equality feminists. Equality feminists believe that a persons sex should not be a determining factor in a persons life. One set of rules for everyone. Gender feminists actively promote a one-gender agenda. If possible, to the detriment of the other sex. That is sexism. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skybytch 273 #22 June 24, 2004 QuoteBecause feminism is not the correct word. Sexism is the equivalent word to racism. Makes sense, thanks. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites vonSanta 0 #23 June 25, 2004 Well, crwmike still has a point about the tribal mindset, acceptable values and conflicts with ideals. One ideal being everyone is free to hold an opinion or value. This is fine as long as the opinion held concurs with the general values. Then, the opinion is accepted, even respected. Few of us accept or respect racist or sexist attitudes. Yet these are but value statements, personal preference or what have you. These can be inherently personal. In a truly free society, such opinion would have no less or more weight or value than more 'acceptable' ones. Pretty easy to rationalize about such negative personal values. It becomes more muddled when the values are half rejected/half accepted by the group as a whole - say homosexuality for example. But, in principle and thought, there's little difference. I don't see crwmike as a troll. He just points out a pretty funny contradictions in our values and how we are operating in our daily life. And I'm as guilty as anyone in that regard. In my not so humble opinion, whuffos don't know what life's about. And a whuffo who really likes gardening holds a similar opinion . So there we go. Santa Von GrossenArsch I only come in one flavour ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #24 June 25, 2004 QuoteBecause racism generally means believing that one race is superior to another. Feminism generally means believing that women are equal to men. One is indicating separation and superiority, the other is indicating equality. So, what if a person's upbringing and experience in the world have actually led him to believe in earnest that his race IS superior, or that a given race IS inferior? What if he actually has been taught this, and actually is armed with facts and data that to him prove the thesis? What if the sum of his life's experience actually does seem, to him, to indicate his culture's superiority? I'm picturing a guy who comes to the U.S.A. from some unspecified country, where they are a homogenous people, ethnically, and he has been taught, as is the majority norm there, that people of a given other race are inferior. Is it not also arrogant and "racist" (bigoted is the term we should be using) for "society" here to judge him from the context of its own viewpoint and call his views unenlightened, undesirable, bad? Is it our place to judge cultures that require women to be subservient, to walk behind their men, to cover themselves in clothing so that no part but their eyes can be seen? To us, it's backward to live that way, so are we right to condemn them? No? Why, then, if someone's culture brought him up to view another race as inferior, are we entitled to use OUR race's, or OUR culture's standards with which to judge him? Doesn't seem as accepting as we are telling ourselves we'd like to be. It's that paradox of being intolerant of intolerant people. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites crwmike 0 #25 June 25, 2004 QuoteI am a feminist, as it was defined at least in the 1970's. I believe that women should have the same opportunity to both succeed and screw up as men. They should be paid commensurately with the job, not their gender or role. And I don't see any problem with a draft, if it comes, extending to women, or with unisex bathrooms. What's fair for one is fair for the other. I really like the unisex family bathrooms. I think it's unreasonable that it's a bigger hit on the father's commitment perception at work if he takes time off for kids than it is for the mother's (other than the obvious issues of physical recovery, and breastfeeding if that's going on). Feminists, again as defined in the 1970's, did not want anything taken away from men that they wanted for themselves. I'm sure there are people who will disagree with me. However, most of them were not feminists in the 1970s. Wendy W. Wendy, I am most impressed with what you wrote. I am essentially in agreement with the 70's version (though I prefer the term 'humanism' to include us all. Somewhere along the way, many women sold out. Your employment search is evidence. Where are the proportionate numbers of women in Congress, in the board rooms of corporate America. in the work force (outside service industries). Everyone deserves an equal shot at success or failure. I somewhat disagree on one point. Men have to change. Men have to realize the basic unfairness of our present system. To suceed, we need to examine our lives and our values ...course the natives ain't gonna like it much. Creating 'specialness' categories for women was the equivalent of offering trinkets and beads while continuing to deny true equality. Women bought it! While hiring, layoffs, salaries and job opportunities all treat women unfairly, many want to hang on to a 'we're special' mentality and angrily attack anyone who tries to point it out that the trinkets of social privledge and protectionist legislation are holding us all back. Michael Sexism, Feminism, Genderism ...all just buzz words for the microcosm till we start doing something about it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
skybytch 273 #11 June 24, 2004 Dammit. I hate threads that make me think. I think I see where Mike is trying to go with this. QuoteBecause racisim is considered a bad thing by a large segment of western society and feminisim is not. Okay, so that's the status quo. For the purposes of this discussion, why is racism considered bad but feminism is not? Both words indicate a seperation between groups - racism based on race, feminism based on gender. Why is the word based on gender okay but the word based on race is not? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #12 June 24, 2004 Minder of the Tribal Collective is a much more intellectual title than my title of JACKASS. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #13 June 24, 2004 QuoteBoth words indicate a seperation between groups - racism based on race, feminism based on gender. Why is the word based on gender okay but the word based on race is not? Because racism generally means believing that one race is superior to another. Feminism generally means believing that women are equal to men. One is indicating separation and superiority, the other is indicating equality. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,587 #14 June 24, 2004 I am a feminist, as it was defined at least in the 1970's. I believe that women should have the same opportunity to both succeed and screw up as men. They should be paid commensurately with the job, not their gender or role. And I don't see any problem with a draft, if it comes, extending to women, or with unisex bathrooms. What's fair for one is fair for the other. I really like the unisex family bathrooms. I think it's unreasonable that it's a bigger hit on the father's commitment perception at work if he takes time off for kids than it is for the mother's (other than the obvious issues of physical recovery, and breastfeeding if that's going on). Feminists, again as defined in the 1970's, did not want anything taken away from men that they wanted for themselves. I'm sure there are people who will disagree with me. However, most of them were not feminists in the 1970s. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #15 June 24, 2004 Do you think the definition has changed in the last 25 years? I do. Equality is a lot different than special treatment. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #16 June 24, 2004 I'm always going to have a tendency to open the door for ladies, even if it pisses them off. But that's just me. Just wanted to say that. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,587 #17 June 24, 2004 Equality is certainly a lot different from special treatment, and I hate the thought that the meaning might have changed. That said, it's hard to say that equality exists when there are so many structures in place that respect "traditions." And most of those traditions include the acceptance of the status quo; legislating it doesn't make the attitudes go away, and it doesn't really make the behavior go away. It's been illegal to discriminate for hiring for longer than I've been applying for work, and yet I've been turned down for at least 4 jobs demonstrably because I was a woman. 3 times they told me; the fourth, they simply told me that all candidates had to be able to lift a car engine onto a shelf 6 feet off the ground with no help. Bullshit. I tried taking one guy to the EEOC. 18 months later, when they got around to doing something, of course the particular person who made the statement wasn't there any more (these were entry level jobs -- they tend to have short-time supervisors, too). I had no tape recording, and it was easy to give up. I have a feeling that's the case for most marginalized folks; there are, in fact, more stones in front of you, and it takes someone with more than equivalent cojones to keep slugging. When you are discriminated against repeatedly (and I have not had a problem with that), it's easy to assume that casual carelessness is, in fact, deliberate discrimination -- it doesn't look that different. Just as it's easier to assume deliberate discrimination is carelessness if it's your only experience. Where is the happy line? It's in the future, when the casual attitudes that people who look a particular way, talk a particular way, or dress a particular way are judged on their qualifications, and not on how well they will "fit in." Because that is, too often, the keyword for choosing people just like oneself. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,587 #18 June 24, 2004 By the way, the danger in trying for equality is failing to see the downsides of what one's trying to achieve. One has to take the bad with the good, and while it's inpleasant to be reminded of it, it's necessary. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #19 June 24, 2004 I think everyone understands how to push other peoples buttons. I think most people understands how to have a meaningful discussion of issues. Even a heated discussion should be done with respect. The people on this site aren't some nameless internet goofs, they are people that I want to meet, skydive with, and enjoy their company. Pushing their buttons for effect is not something that I see a value in. Total freedom to say anything isn't as much fun as it sounds. It has one general outcome, people do get offended. There are places like that on the internet and they SUCK. In the end, people that I want to associate with will leave those places. The irritants are left with each other (deservedly). We could define rules all day and hunt up the exceptions. We could test the boundaries as a pointless excercise. Or...not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
newsstand 0 #20 June 24, 2004 Yeah, what phillykev said "Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #21 June 24, 2004 QuoteOkay, so that's the status quo. For the purposes of this discussion, why is racism considered bad but feminism is not? Because feminism is not the correct word. Sexism is the equivalent word to racism. There is also two divisions of feminists. Gender feminists and equality feminists. Equality feminists believe that a persons sex should not be a determining factor in a persons life. One set of rules for everyone. Gender feminists actively promote a one-gender agenda. If possible, to the detriment of the other sex. That is sexism. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybytch 273 #22 June 24, 2004 QuoteBecause feminism is not the correct word. Sexism is the equivalent word to racism. Makes sense, thanks. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites vonSanta 0 #23 June 25, 2004 Well, crwmike still has a point about the tribal mindset, acceptable values and conflicts with ideals. One ideal being everyone is free to hold an opinion or value. This is fine as long as the opinion held concurs with the general values. Then, the opinion is accepted, even respected. Few of us accept or respect racist or sexist attitudes. Yet these are but value statements, personal preference or what have you. These can be inherently personal. In a truly free society, such opinion would have no less or more weight or value than more 'acceptable' ones. Pretty easy to rationalize about such negative personal values. It becomes more muddled when the values are half rejected/half accepted by the group as a whole - say homosexuality for example. But, in principle and thought, there's little difference. I don't see crwmike as a troll. He just points out a pretty funny contradictions in our values and how we are operating in our daily life. And I'm as guilty as anyone in that regard. In my not so humble opinion, whuffos don't know what life's about. And a whuffo who really likes gardening holds a similar opinion . So there we go. Santa Von GrossenArsch I only come in one flavour ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #24 June 25, 2004 QuoteBecause racism generally means believing that one race is superior to another. Feminism generally means believing that women are equal to men. One is indicating separation and superiority, the other is indicating equality. So, what if a person's upbringing and experience in the world have actually led him to believe in earnest that his race IS superior, or that a given race IS inferior? What if he actually has been taught this, and actually is armed with facts and data that to him prove the thesis? What if the sum of his life's experience actually does seem, to him, to indicate his culture's superiority? I'm picturing a guy who comes to the U.S.A. from some unspecified country, where they are a homogenous people, ethnically, and he has been taught, as is the majority norm there, that people of a given other race are inferior. Is it not also arrogant and "racist" (bigoted is the term we should be using) for "society" here to judge him from the context of its own viewpoint and call his views unenlightened, undesirable, bad? Is it our place to judge cultures that require women to be subservient, to walk behind their men, to cover themselves in clothing so that no part but their eyes can be seen? To us, it's backward to live that way, so are we right to condemn them? No? Why, then, if someone's culture brought him up to view another race as inferior, are we entitled to use OUR race's, or OUR culture's standards with which to judge him? Doesn't seem as accepting as we are telling ourselves we'd like to be. It's that paradox of being intolerant of intolerant people. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites crwmike 0 #25 June 25, 2004 QuoteI am a feminist, as it was defined at least in the 1970's. I believe that women should have the same opportunity to both succeed and screw up as men. They should be paid commensurately with the job, not their gender or role. And I don't see any problem with a draft, if it comes, extending to women, or with unisex bathrooms. What's fair for one is fair for the other. I really like the unisex family bathrooms. I think it's unreasonable that it's a bigger hit on the father's commitment perception at work if he takes time off for kids than it is for the mother's (other than the obvious issues of physical recovery, and breastfeeding if that's going on). Feminists, again as defined in the 1970's, did not want anything taken away from men that they wanted for themselves. I'm sure there are people who will disagree with me. However, most of them were not feminists in the 1970s. Wendy W. Wendy, I am most impressed with what you wrote. I am essentially in agreement with the 70's version (though I prefer the term 'humanism' to include us all. Somewhere along the way, many women sold out. Your employment search is evidence. Where are the proportionate numbers of women in Congress, in the board rooms of corporate America. in the work force (outside service industries). Everyone deserves an equal shot at success or failure. I somewhat disagree on one point. Men have to change. Men have to realize the basic unfairness of our present system. To suceed, we need to examine our lives and our values ...course the natives ain't gonna like it much. Creating 'specialness' categories for women was the equivalent of offering trinkets and beads while continuing to deny true equality. Women bought it! While hiring, layoffs, salaries and job opportunities all treat women unfairly, many want to hang on to a 'we're special' mentality and angrily attack anyone who tries to point it out that the trinkets of social privledge and protectionist legislation are holding us all back. Michael Sexism, Feminism, Genderism ...all just buzz words for the microcosm till we start doing something about it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
vonSanta 0 #23 June 25, 2004 Well, crwmike still has a point about the tribal mindset, acceptable values and conflicts with ideals. One ideal being everyone is free to hold an opinion or value. This is fine as long as the opinion held concurs with the general values. Then, the opinion is accepted, even respected. Few of us accept or respect racist or sexist attitudes. Yet these are but value statements, personal preference or what have you. These can be inherently personal. In a truly free society, such opinion would have no less or more weight or value than more 'acceptable' ones. Pretty easy to rationalize about such negative personal values. It becomes more muddled when the values are half rejected/half accepted by the group as a whole - say homosexuality for example. But, in principle and thought, there's little difference. I don't see crwmike as a troll. He just points out a pretty funny contradictions in our values and how we are operating in our daily life. And I'm as guilty as anyone in that regard. In my not so humble opinion, whuffos don't know what life's about. And a whuffo who really likes gardening holds a similar opinion . So there we go. Santa Von GrossenArsch I only come in one flavour ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #24 June 25, 2004 QuoteBecause racism generally means believing that one race is superior to another. Feminism generally means believing that women are equal to men. One is indicating separation and superiority, the other is indicating equality. So, what if a person's upbringing and experience in the world have actually led him to believe in earnest that his race IS superior, or that a given race IS inferior? What if he actually has been taught this, and actually is armed with facts and data that to him prove the thesis? What if the sum of his life's experience actually does seem, to him, to indicate his culture's superiority? I'm picturing a guy who comes to the U.S.A. from some unspecified country, where they are a homogenous people, ethnically, and he has been taught, as is the majority norm there, that people of a given other race are inferior. Is it not also arrogant and "racist" (bigoted is the term we should be using) for "society" here to judge him from the context of its own viewpoint and call his views unenlightened, undesirable, bad? Is it our place to judge cultures that require women to be subservient, to walk behind their men, to cover themselves in clothing so that no part but their eyes can be seen? To us, it's backward to live that way, so are we right to condemn them? No? Why, then, if someone's culture brought him up to view another race as inferior, are we entitled to use OUR race's, or OUR culture's standards with which to judge him? Doesn't seem as accepting as we are telling ourselves we'd like to be. It's that paradox of being intolerant of intolerant people. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crwmike 0 #25 June 25, 2004 QuoteI am a feminist, as it was defined at least in the 1970's. I believe that women should have the same opportunity to both succeed and screw up as men. They should be paid commensurately with the job, not their gender or role. And I don't see any problem with a draft, if it comes, extending to women, or with unisex bathrooms. What's fair for one is fair for the other. I really like the unisex family bathrooms. I think it's unreasonable that it's a bigger hit on the father's commitment perception at work if he takes time off for kids than it is for the mother's (other than the obvious issues of physical recovery, and breastfeeding if that's going on). Feminists, again as defined in the 1970's, did not want anything taken away from men that they wanted for themselves. I'm sure there are people who will disagree with me. However, most of them were not feminists in the 1970s. Wendy W. Wendy, I am most impressed with what you wrote. I am essentially in agreement with the 70's version (though I prefer the term 'humanism' to include us all. Somewhere along the way, many women sold out. Your employment search is evidence. Where are the proportionate numbers of women in Congress, in the board rooms of corporate America. in the work force (outside service industries). Everyone deserves an equal shot at success or failure. I somewhat disagree on one point. Men have to change. Men have to realize the basic unfairness of our present system. To suceed, we need to examine our lives and our values ...course the natives ain't gonna like it much. Creating 'specialness' categories for women was the equivalent of offering trinkets and beads while continuing to deny true equality. Women bought it! While hiring, layoffs, salaries and job opportunities all treat women unfairly, many want to hang on to a 'we're special' mentality and angrily attack anyone who tries to point it out that the trinkets of social privledge and protectionist legislation are holding us all back. Michael Sexism, Feminism, Genderism ...all just buzz words for the microcosm till we start doing something about it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
